Conflict and Negotiation

14 Conflict and Negotiation

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

14.1 Describe the three types of conflict and the three loci of conflict.

14.2 Outline the conflict process.

14.3 Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining.

14.4 Apply the five steps of the negotiation process.

14.5 Show how individual differences influence negotiations.

14.6 Describe the social factors that influence negotiations.

14.7 Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiations.

A Definition of Conflict

Tesla, an American automotive and energy company, along with their founder and CEO, Elon Musk, have experienced conflict on several fronts. From issues with Musk’s candid Twitter posts, lawsuits, and feuds with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as musicians Azealia Banks and Claire Boucher (a.k.a. Grimes), Tesla, along with the board of directors and employees, have witnessed their fair share of interorganizational conflict.1

What is interesting, however, is where Tesla has not experienced conflict: within the board of directors.2 Many have accused the board of being “asleep at the wheel,” not willing to cause conflict where some might be needed. This might be due to loyalty to Musk, lack of time and resources (most board members are part-time), and because all the corporate information they receive that affects their decision making is filtered through Musk. This has even led some to suggest using artificial intelligence in corporate board decision making, which is not limited by lack of time and resources and is perhaps more impartial.3 The case of Tesla illustrates that conflict can arise in a number of different organizational arenas, and that even the absence of conflict altogether can be a signal that perhaps important issues are not being discussed or that controversial ideas are not being challenged.

There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict,4 but common to most is the idea that conflict is a perception of differences or opposition. We define conflict broadly as a process that begins when one party perceives another party has negatively affected or is about to negatively affect something the first party cares about. People experience a wide range of conflicts in organizations over an incompatibility of goals, differences in interpretations of facts, disagreements over behavioral expectations, and the like.

Conflict

A process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about.

Contemporary perspectives classify conflict based on its effects.5 Functional conflict supports the goals of the group, improves its performance, and, as such, is a constructive form of conflict. For example, a debate among members of a corporate board (see opening example) about the most efficient way to improve production can be functional if unique points of view are discussed and compared openly. Conflict that hinders group performance is destructive or dysfunctional conflict. A highly personal struggle for control that distracts from the task at hand in a team is dysfunctional. Exhibit 14-1 provides an overview depicting the effect of levels of conflict.

Exhibit 14-1 Conflict and Unit Performance

Figure 14-1 Full Alternative Text

Functional conflict

Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance.

Dysfunctional conflict

Conflict that hinders group performance.

Types of Conflict

One means of understanding conflict is to identify the type of disagreement, or what the conflict is about. Is it a disagreement about goals? Is it about people who just rub one another the wrong way? Or is it about the best way to get things done? Although each conflict is unique, researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: relationship, task, or process.6 Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships. Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work. Process conflict is about how the work gets done.

Relationship conflict

Conflict based on interpersonal relationships.

Task conflict

Conflict over content and goals of the work.

Process conflict

Conflict over how work gets done.

Relationship Conflict

Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional.7 Why? The friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflict increases interpersonal clashes and decreases mutual understanding. Of the three types, relationship conflict also appears to be the most psychologically exhausting to individuals. It tends to derail team processes by reducing the extent to which people are open toward working with one another to work collaboratively toward solutions, while increasing the extent to which they avoid and compete with one another.8 As a result, relationship conflict strongly depletes trust, cohesion (see the chapter on understanding work teams), satisfaction, job attitudes, and positive affect (see the chapter on emotions and moods) and can even lead to a reduction in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) paired with an increase in deviant behavior.9 However, relationship conflict itself is only weakly related to how well the team performs—so it appears its most nefarious affects are in how it affects people psychologically, and how it reduces OCBs and increases deviance.10

Task Conflict

While scholars agree that relationship conflict is dysfunctional, there is considerably less agreement about whether task conflict is functional. Early research suggested that task conflict within groups correlated to higher group performance, but a review of ninety-five studies found that task conflict was essentially unrelated to group performance (although it did appear to be correlated to lower group performance in nonmanagement positions, and higher group performance in decision-making teams).11 Despite these findings, research suggests that task conflict slightly reduces the extent to which people collaborate, and moderately increases the degree to which they compete with one another.12 This, in turn, has a strong negative effect on their trust and job attitudes and, like relationship conflict, leads to a reduction in OCBs paired with an increase in deviant behavior.13

Process Conflict

Process conflicts are often about delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around the perception that some members are shirking, and conflicts over roles can leave some group members feeling marginalized. Thus, process conflicts often become highly personalized and quickly devolve into relationship conflicts. It is also true, of course, that arguing about how to do something takes time away from doing it. Although relatively less research has been conducted on process conflict, research suggests that it has a strong negative effect on team member trust and attitudes, as well as a weak effect on team performance (like that of relationship conflict).14

Complicating Conflict

It also appears to matter whether other types of conflict occur at the same time. If task and relationship conflict occur together, relationship conflict is more likely to have a negative effect, whereas if task conflict occurs by itself, it is more likely to have a positive effect.15 How often does this occur in practice? Research from one entrepreneurial venture suggests that although the two are initially co-occurring, over time, they tend to stabilize after some time.16 This suggests that one might expect relationship and task conflict to co-occur at the beginning of the relationship. In support, research in the Netherlands indicates that even the mere perception of relationship conflict during task conflict is enough to cause people to hold onto their initial preferences regarding the task conflict.17

Other scholars have argued that the perception of conflict is important. If task conflict is perceived as being very low, people are not really engaged or addressing the important issues; if task conflict is too high, infighting will quickly degenerate into relationship conflict. Moderate levels of task conflict may thus be optimal.18 Furthermore, who perceives conflict also matters. Incompatibilities between work styles or dominating personalities with little space for compromise can lead to “too many cooks in the kitchen,” resulting in relationship conflict and even abusive supervision.19 Research suggests that conflict is more likely to have a positive effect on performance when a few members perceive strong task disagreement, whereas most others on the team perceive weak task disagreement. This is because those in the minority are much more likely to present their disagreements in a careful, cooperative, open manner.20

Loci of Conflict

Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or the framework within which conflict occurs. Here, too, there are three basic types. Dyadic conflict is conflict between two people. Intragroup conflict occurs within a group or team. Intergroup conflict is conflict between groups or teams.21

Dyadic conflict

Conflict that occurs between two people.

Intergroup conflict

Conflict between different groups or teams.

Intragroup conflict

Conflict that occurs within a group or team.

Nearly all the research on relationship, task, and process conflicts considers intragroup conflict (within the group). However, it does not necessarily tell us all we need to know about the context and outcomes of conflict. For example, research has found that for intragroup task conflict to positively influence performance within the team, it is important that the team has a supportive climate in which mistakes are not penalized and every team member “[has] the other’s back.”22 But is this concept applicable to the effects of intergroup conflict? Think about, say, NFL football. For a team to adapt and improve, perhaps a certain amount of intragroup conflict (but not too much) is good for team performance, especially when the team members support one another. But would we care whether members from one team conflicted with members from another team? Probably not. Still, it must be managed. Intense intergroup conflict can be quite stressful to group members and might well affect the way they interact.

It may surprise you that a group member’s network position (see the chapter on power and politics) is important during intergroup conflicts. One study that focused on intergroup conflict found an interplay between an individual’s position within a group and the way that individual managed conflict between groups. Group members who were relatively peripheral in their own group were better at resolving conflicts between their group and another one. But this happened only when those peripheral members were still accountable to their groups.23 Thus, being at the core of your work group does not necessarily make you the best person to manage conflict with other groups.

Altogether, understanding functional and dysfunctional conflict requires not only that we identify the type of conflict; we also need to know where it occurs. It is possible that while the concepts of relationship, task, and process conflicts are useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conflict, they are less useful in explaining the effects of intergroup conflict.

The Conflict Process

The conflict process has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes (see Exhibit 14-2).24

Exhibit 14-2 The Conflict Process

Figure 14-2 Full Alternative Text

Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility

The first stage of conflict is the appearance of conditions—causes or sources—that create opportunities for it to arise.25 These conditions need not lead directly to conflict, but one of them is necessary if it is to surface. Apart from the obvious, which would be behaviors directly intended to provoke conflict,26 we group the conditions into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables.

Communication

Communication can be a source of conflict in group interactions and dyadic exchanges.27 There are opposing forces that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the communication channel (see the chapter on communication). These factors, along with jargon and insufficient information, can be barriers to communication and potential antecedent conditions to conflict. Even the way communication is framed can have an effect; for example, research suggests that framing task conflict as a debate increases receptivity to others’ opinions.28 The potential for conflict has also been found to increase with too little or too much communication. Communication is functional up to a point, after which it is possible to overcommunicate, increasing the potential for conflict.

Structure

The term structure in this context includes variables such as size of group, degree of specialization in tasks assigned to group members, role clarity, member–goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and degree of dependence between groups or group members. The larger the group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of intragroup conflict. Tenure and conflict are inversely related, meaning that the longer a person stays with an organization, the less likely intragroup conflict becomes.29 Therefore, the potential for intragroup conflict is greatest when group members are newer to the organization and when turnover is high. However, as far as intergroup conflict is concerned, it can self-perpetuate, actually imbuing meaning and identity to the groups experiencing conflict.30 Anyone familiar with the Big Ten one-hundred-plus-year rivalry between The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan can attest to this.31

Personal Variables

Our last category of potential sources of conflict is personal variables, which include personality, emotions, and values. People high in the personality traits of disagreeableness, neuroticism, or self-monitoring (see the chapter on personality and values) are prone to spar with other people more often—and to react poorly when conflicts occur.32 Emotions can cause conflict even when they are not directed at others. For example, an employee who shows up to work irate from the hectic morning commute may carry that anger into the workday, which can result in a tension-filled meeting.33 Incompatibilities in emotions can also lead to conflict—for example, if your supervisor is more optimistic than you about your work, you are more likely (than if you had similar optimistic-pessimistic outlooks) to experience more conflict, become less engaged, and perform poorly.34 Furthermore, differences in preferences and values can generate increased levels of conflict. For example, a study in Korea found that when group members did not agree about their desired achievement levels, there was more task conflict; when group members did not agree about their desired interpersonal closeness levels, there was more relationship conflict; and when group members did not have similar desires for power, there was more conflict over status.35 Furthermore, people differ with regard to their beliefs about conflict, and which strategies of managing conflict are the best or worst, and these beliefs shape the types of conflict they perceive as well as how they react.36

Stage II: Cognition and Personalization

If the conditions cited in Stage I negatively affect something one party cares about, then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage.

As we noted in our definition of conflict, one or more of the parties must be aware that antecedent conditions exist. However, just because a disagreement is a perceived conflict does not mean it is personalized. It is at the felt conflict level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that they experience anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility. By making sense of the preceding events, employees perceive conflict (e.g., label it as an offense) and then recognize that the other party violated norms or did something wrong.37 Following these processes of naming and blaming, employees naturally feel the negative emotions surrounding conflict.

Perceived conflict

Awareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise.

Felt conflict

Emotional involvement in a conflict that creates anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility.

Stage II is important because it is where conflict issues tend to be defined, where the parties decide what the conflict is about.38 For example, the employee who was irate from the traffic jam may cause others around the office to perceive that something is up—but this conflict is not “felt” until a sour interaction with this employee (e.g., “it’s not fair the boss took the long commute out on me with extra work!”). Emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions.39 Negative emotions lead us to oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpretations on the other party’s behavior.40 When you perceive conflict, sometimes you may turn to a confidant within your group to vent or talk about what you are feeling. Paradoxically, if this person is responsive and reaffirming, your confidant may validate your perspective, which might undermine the resolution of conflict as a result.41 In contrast, positive feelings increase our tendency to see potential relationships among elements of a problem, take a broader view of the situation, and develop innovative solutions.42 Negative emotions are natural and perhaps inevitable—before conflict escalates, taking time to reflect and reappraise how you are feeling may help you approach the conflict more constructively (but don’t ruminate!).43 Ultimately, a state of mindfulness (see the chapter on organizational change and stress management) might be a good emotional state to aspire toward, given that it facilitates constructive conflict management.44

Stage III: Intentions

Intentions intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions and their overt behavior. They are decisions to act in a particular way.45 Although we may decide to act in a certain way, our intentions do not always line up with what we actually do. Furthermore, intentions are not always fixed. During a conflict, intentions might change if a party is able to see the other’s point of view or respond emotionally to the other’s behavior.

Intentions

Decisions to act in a particular way.

Using two dimensions—assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy their own concerns) and cooperativeness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s concerns)—we can identify five conflict-handling intentions: competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (mid-range on both assertiveness and cooperativeness).46

Competing

When one person seeks to satisfy their own interests regardless of the impact on the other parties in the conflict, that person is competing.47 We are more apt to compete when resources are scarce, when we have competition-prone personalities, when we are close to satisfying our own interests (e.g., the “finish line is near”), or when the culture or climate supports competition.48

Competing

A desire to satisfy one’s interests, regardless of the impact on the other party to the conflict.

Collaborating

When parties in conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns of all parties, there is cooperation and a search for a mutually beneficial outcome. In collaborating, parties intend to solve a problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating various points of view.49 If you attempt to find a win–win solution that allows both parties’ goals to be completely achieved, that is collaborating. Collaboration is more likely if the party is seen as competent, rational, and open to collaborating.50

Collaborating

A situation in which the parties to a conflict each desires to satisfy fully the concerns of all parties.

Avoiding

A person may recognize a conflict exists and want to withdraw from or suppress it. Examples of avoiding include trying to ignore a conflict and keeping away from others with whom you disagree.

Avoiding

The desire to withdraw from or suppress a conflict.

Accommodating

A party who seeks to appease a negotiation partner may be willing to place the negotiation partner’s interests above their own, sacrificing to maintain the relationship. We refer to this intention as accommodating. Supporting someone else’s opinion despite your reservations about it, for example, is accommodating.

Accommodating

The willingness of one party in a conflict to place the negotiation partner’s interests above his or her own.

Compromising

In compromising, there is no winner or loser. Rather, there is a willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a solution with incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns. The distinguishing characteristic of compromising, therefore, is that each party intends to give up something.

Compromising

A situation in which each party to a conflict is willing to give up something.

A review that examined the effects of the sets of behaviors across multiple studies found that collaborating was associated with superior group performance and team attitudes, whereas avoiding and competing strategies were associated with significantly worse group performance.51 This further demonstrates that it is not just the existence of conflict or even the type of conflict that creates problems, but rather the ways people respond to conflict and manage the process once conflicts arise.

Stage IV: Behavior

Stage IV is a dynamic process of interaction. For example, you make a demand on me, I respond by arguing with you, you shout at me, I yell at you back, and so on. Exhibit 14-3 provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. All conflicts exist somewhere along this continuum. At the lower end are conflicts characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension, such as a student challenging a point the instructor has made. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this upper range. Conflicts that reach the upper range of the continuum are almost always dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower range of the continuum.

Exhibit 14-3 Dynamic Escalation of Conflict

Sources: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974): 93–97; and F. Glasi, “The Process of Conflict Escalation and the Roles of Third Parties,” in G. B. J. Bomers and R. Peterson (eds.), Conflict Management and Industrial Relations (Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1982): 119–40.

Figure 14-3 Full Alternative Text

Stage V: Outcomes

The action–reaction interplay between conflicting parties creates consequences. As our model demonstrates (see Exhibit 14-1), these outcomes may be functional if the conflict improves the group’s performance, or dysfunctional if it hinders performance. Realistically, however, many researchers suggest that although workplace conflict can be beneficial, this usually happens under special circumstances, and most of the time the dysfunctional outcomes outweigh the functional outcomes in severity.52 This suggests that managers will likely spend most of their time reducing dysfunctional conflict, rather than stimulating functional conflict.

Functional Outcomes

Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of decisions, stimulates creativity and innovation, encourages interest and curiosity among group members, provides the medium for problems to be aired and tensions released, and fosters self-evaluation and change. Indeed, research on organizations in Taiwan suggests that, over time, the right amount of task conflict (not relational conflict) can cause teams to improve their relations, the quality of social interaction, and meaningful communication.53 Mild conflicts also may generate energizing emotions, so members of groups become more active and engaged in their work.54 However, groups that are extremely polarized do not manage their underlying disagreements effectively and tend to accept suboptimal solutions, or they avoid making decisions altogether rather than work out the conflict.55 As mentioned earlier in this chapter, conflict severity plays a large role.

Conflict is an antidote for groupthink (see the chapter on foundations of group behavior). Conflict does not allow the group to passively rubber-stamp decisions that may be based on weak assumptions, inadequate consideration of relevant alternatives, or other weaknesses. Conflict challenges the status quo and furthers the creation of new ideas, promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group will respond to change.

Dysfunctional Outcomes

The destructive consequences of conflict on the performance of a group or an organization are generally well known. A substantial body of research documents how dysfunctional conflicts can reduce group effectiveness.56 Among the undesirable consequences are poor communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting among members. All forms of conflict—even the functional varieties—appear to reduce group member satisfaction and trust.57 At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and threaten the group’s survival.

Managing Conflict

If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what options exist if conflict is too low to be functional and needs to be increased? In these situations, people can use resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict, a process known as conflict management.58 In anticipating and managing conflict, organizations can target three specific domains: strategy (e.g., designing conflict management activities with an understanding of their effect on the organization system, garnering managerial support for and application of conflict management strategies), function (e.g., encouraging the systemic adoption of conflict management practices, understanding employees’ needs, job design to reduce conflict), and worker (e.g., improving employee perceptions of conflict, fostering ties and cohesion between people, adaptively addressing conflict as it emerges).59 For example, if the conflict is expected to be perpetual and ongoing, a strategic conflict management strategy might not target resolving the conflict completely but rather how people can adaptively address the conflict over time.60

Conflict management

The use of resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict.

Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into comparable behaviors. However, conditions are not always ideal, and the findings from research on conflict management have been inconsistent.61 First, strategies appropriate for resolving one form of conflict may backfire and cause more conflict in another area.62 For example, adopting a shared identity and improving relationship quality may unintentionally backfire by causing blurred distinctions between people’s roles, stimulating task conflict. Second, strategies appropriate for managing one form of conflict may spill over into another domain.63 For example, clearly outlining differences in what people do in the presence of task conflict can spill over to stimulate relational conflict. This is where strategic conflict management (as mentioned earlier) may come into play.

One of the keys to minimizing counterproductive conflicts is recognizing when there really is a disagreement. Perhaps the most successful conflict management recognizes different views and attempts to resolve them by encouraging open, frank discussions focused on views rather than issues, listening and understanding opposing views, and then integrating them constructively.64 Another approach is to have opposing groups pick parts of the solution that are most important to them and then focus on how each side can get its top needs satisfied. Neither side may get exactly what it wants, but each side will achieve the most important parts of its agenda.65 Third, groups that resolve conflicts successfully discuss differences of opinion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises.66 An open discussion makes it much easier to develop a shared perception of the problems at hand; it also allows groups to work toward a mutually acceptable solution. Fourth, managers need to emphasize shared interests in resolving conflicts, so groups that disagree with one another do not become too entrenched in their points of view and start to take the conflicts personally. Groups with cooperative conflict styles and a strong underlying identification with the overall

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.