Conflict is a daily occurrence in every organization. Managers estimate that they spend between 20% and 40% of their time dealing with disagreements. Common sources of organizational conflict include these: 1

· Interests: Benefits, budgets, organizational policies, office location, and other wants and needs

· Data: The best sources of information; the reliability or the interpretation of data

· Procedures: How to solve problems; how to make decisions; how to solve conflicts

· Values: How to prioritize interests and options; determining organizational direction

· Dysfunctional relationships: Those marked by distrust, disrespect, lack of integrity, and lack of mutual concern

· Roles: Expectations related to organizational roles; power imbalances between roles

· Communication: How something was said; emotions triggered by words; withholding information

Some observers believe that we can expect even more conflicts in the years to come. 2 They note that there is growing pressure on organizations to innovate, change, and adapt. These pressures increase workloads and generate job insecurity. In a global society, the workforce is increasingly diverse, which produces more conflicts between those of different cultural backgrounds. Organizational members now work in different geographical locations and communicate over the Internet rather than face to face. These developments mean that miscommunication is more likely. As organizations empower groups to carry out projects, team members must manage the conflicts that come from working collaboratively.

Conflict experts Joyce Hocker and William Wilmot define conflict as “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals.” 3 Conflict begins when the parties express their thoughts and feelings to each other through their behaviors. They engage in conflict because they depend to some degree on one another. The choices of one party affect the options of others, as when one employee’s choice of vacation time interferes with the vacation plans of a fellow worker. Wilmot and Hocker believe that the sources of conflict identified earlier can be condensed into two general categories. Conflict can be over perceived incompatible goals (if I get promoted, then you don’t) or over scarce resources like office space, staffing, or funding for new projects. Interference sets the stage for conflict. Goals may be incompatible and resources scarce, but conflict develops only if we perceive that the other party is interfering with our efforts to achieve our goals and gets the resources we want.

Many of us fear and avoid conflict because of our past experiences. Early struggles cost us relationships and left us feeling bruised and battered. Chances are, one or both parties behaved unethically by making threats, engaging in ridicule and sarcasm, losing their tempers, and so on. Aversion to conflict is counterproductive, however. To begin with, organizational conflict is inevitable. Trying to avoid conflict means that we are not equipped to deal with it when it arises. Further, conflicts can promote personal and relational growth. Resolving a conflict successfully builds our skills and generates a sense of accomplishment. Often, conflict over an idea or a proposal produces a higher-quality solution.

The objective of this chapter is to help you become a more ethical, competent conflict manager. I’ll identify important steps you need to take to achieve this goal and help you recognize the ethical issues you’ll face if you decide to use negotiation to resolve differences. Then we will shift our focus to aggression, which deserves special attention because it is the most destructive type of organizational conflict. We will examine ways to reduce aggression and to prevent sexual harassment, which is a form of aggression generally engaged in by men toward women.

Becoming an Ethical Conflict Manager

Investigators have identified six steps you can take to increase the odds that you will behave ethically when engaged in conflict. Your ability to ethically manage conflict will depend on recognizing the difference between productive and unproductive conflicts, identifying your personal conflict style, managing your emotions, setting up guidelines for conflict resolution, using collaborative communication tactics, and being willing to apologize.

Step 1: Recognize the Differences Between Functional and Dysfunctional Conflicts

Several factors distinguish between productive and unproductive conflicts. 4 Functional conflicts focus on the content of messages—ideas, values, beliefs, proposals, procedures, budgets, and so on. Participants in these kinds of conflicts are out to solve the problem, not to damage the other party. They make supportive comments, engage in effective listening, signal that they want to collaborate to come up with a solution, and avoid verbal abuse. Dysfunctional conflicts often center on the personalities of those involved. Strong negative emotions as well as verbal attacks (e.g., threats, sarcasm, name calling) characterize these encounters. Discussants locked in unproductive conflicts engage in fight-or-flight responses. They either escalate the conflict or try to avoid it. Conflict spirals when each party retaliates at successively higher levels. An employee who feels unjustly treated may retaliate by trying to undermine the authority of her supervisor, who, in turn, may retaliate against the subordinate by reducing her work hours. Avoidance, as we noted earlier, is the other common destructive pattern. Participants may reduce their dependence on one another, refuse to cooperate, withdraw, harbor resentment, and complain to third parties. In doing so, they leave conflicts unresolved and poison the relationship.

While task-oriented conflicts are to be preferred over relational ones, it would be a mistake to assume that constructive conflict always produces positive outcomes. 5 Even productive disagreements about ideas can frustrate members if they drag on too long, and conflicts can divert energy from other priorities. Healthy conflicts can quickly turn nasty when strong emotions are sparked by a poor choice of words or doubts about the other party’s motivations. Our task, then, is not only to avoid relational conflicts but to prevent task conflicts from deteriorating into dysfunctional exchanges.

Step 2: Manage Your Emotions

Chapter 4 introduced the components of emotional intelligence that are critical to maintaining positive interpersonal relationships. These skill sets are particularly important in conflict settings, where the potential for misunderstanding is high and we need to predict how the other party will react. Since conflict can spark intense feelings of anger and frustration that, as noted above, can derail even healthy disputes, managing our emotions takes on added importance.

Eckerd College conflict experts Craig Runde and Tim Flanagan offer a three- phrase model specifically designed to help us keep our negative emotions from getting out of control. 6 This approach can keep us from turning task conflict into relational conflict or help us convert a dysfunctional dispute into a collaborative problem- solving effort.

· Phase 1: Cooling down. Determine what makes you angry. Hot buttons (behaviors that upset us) vary from person to person. For you, it might be coworkers who don’t put in a full day’s work. For me, it might be supervisors who micromanage. Just reflecting on your hot buttons reduces their power over you. In addition, determine how you can better respond when these buttons are pushed. You might concentrate on not clenching your fists or not raising your voice when someone irritates you, for example.

· Phase 2: Slowing down. Have a backup strategy (plan B) if you can’t keep your cool and you find yourself getting mad and defensive. If you can, withdraw from the encounter to give your negative emotions time to dissipate. Deep breathing and thinking about more pleasant topics and places can help you relax. When you begin to slow down, determine why you feel so strongly, and consider that the other party may have logical reasons for his or her behavior, instead of assuming that the other person is out to hurt or upset you.

· Phase 3: Engaging constructively. Once you have your emotions under control, you are ready to actively resolve the conflict. Consider the other person’s perspective—both their reasoning and their emotional responses. Listen carefully to determine the other party’s point of view (this also defuses the tension). Disclose how the conflict is making you feel. If the conversation has stalled, reach out to restart the communication. Approach the other party, point out the impasse, and encourage the resumption of talks. Once reengaged, you and the other person can create win-win solutions that meet the needs of both of you. Solutions are more likely to emerge because you have controlled your negative emotions, defused the tension, and you and the other person have a clearer understanding of each other’s logic and feelings.

Step 3: Identify Your Personal Conflict Style

Conflict styles describe the ways that individuals typically approach conflict situations. Researchers report that there are five approaches to conflicts. 7 (Complete Self-Assessment 6.1 to determine which style you prefer.) Conflict styles are based on two dimensions: concern for one’s own needs and concern for the needs of others:

· The avoiding style is low on both concern for self and concern for others. Avoiders steer clear of conflict by keeping their distance from other disputants, changing topics, withdrawing, and so on.

· The accommodating style reflects low concern for self and high concern for others. Accommodators give in while helping other parties reach their goals.

· The compromising style demonstrates moderate concern for self and others. Compromisers call for concessions from everyone in order to reach an agreement.

· The competing style puts the needs of self first with little concern for the other side. Competitors are aggressive and focused on meeting their own needs, often at the expense of other parties.

· The collaborative style reflects a high degree of concern for both the self and others. Collaborators listen actively, stay focused on the issues, and hope to reach solutions that meet the needs of both sides.

Avoiding, competing, compromising, and accommodating can be effective and ethical in certain situations. 8 Avoiding works best when there is danger of physical violence. It is ethically appropriate when an organization is temporarily dealing with more significant moral issues. Accommodation can maintain relationships and may be the morally right choice for a follower when a leader is more knowledgeable about an issue. Compromising can generate quick solutions and is ethically justified when both parties have valid interests and want to avoid a stalemate. Competing also produces rapid results and may be an ethical approach when implementing unpopular decisions.

In contrast to the other conflict styles, collaboration appears to be the most successful and ethical option across a variety of contexts. Collaboration has the greatest chance of producing agreements, improves decisions, and leads to greater satisfaction with outcomes. 9 It is the only approach that incorporates high regard for both the self and the other party. There also appears to be a direct link between an individual’s level of moral development and his or her choice of conflict style. 10 Those in the lowest stage of moral development (see Chapter 3 ) tend to use the dominating and avoiding approaches. Those who display a moderate level of moral reasoning rely heavily on compromise. Those who engage in the highest level of moral reasoning are more likely to take an integrative or collaborative approach.

Since collaboration is more effective and ethical, seek to meet the needs of both sides whenever possible. Look to collaborate first, but adopt another style if the situation warrants it.

Self-Assessment 6.1

Conflict Style Inventory

Think of an organizational setting (school, work, nonprofit) where you have conflicts or disagreements with others. With this setting in mind, complete the following scale. Rate each item on the following scale:

· 1 = never

· 2 = seldom

· 3 = sometimes

· 4 = often

· 5 = always

1. I avoid being “put on the spot”; I try to keep conflicts to myself.

2. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted.

3. I usually try to “split the difference” in order to resolve an issue.

4. I generally try to satisfy the other’s needs.

5. I try to investigate an issue to find a solution acceptable to both of us.

6. I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with the other.

7. I use my authority to make a decision in my favor.

8. I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse.

9. I usually accommodate the other’s wishes.

10. I try to integrate my ideas with those of others to come up with a joint decision.

11. I try to stay away from disagreement with others.

12. I use my expertise to make decisions that favor me.

13. I propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.

14. I give in to the wishes of others.

15. I try to work with others to find solutions that satisfy both our expectations.

16. I try to keep my disagreement to myself in order to avoid hard feelings.

17. I generally pursue my side of an issue.

18. I negotiate with others in order to reach a compromise.

19. I often go with others’ suggestions.

20. I exchange accurate information with others so we can solve a problem together.

21. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with others.

22. I sometimes use my power to win.

23. I use “give-and-take” so that a compromise can be reached.

24. I try to satisfy others’ expectations.

25. I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved.

Scoring

Add up your scores on the following questions:

SOURCE: From Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. (2014). Interpersonal conflict (9th ed., pp. 147–148). New York: McGraw-Hill. Adapted from M. A. Rabim & N. R. Mager (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122–132.

Step 4: Develop Conflict Guidelines

Guidelines can help both sides engage in collaborative conflict management and generate better outcomes. Organizational communication expert Pamela Shockley-Zalabak offers one set of conflict strategies. When it comes to your participation in conflict, she recommends the following: 11

Monitor your personal behavior and the behavior of the other party for signs of destructive conflict. Be alert to behaviors that indicate that you or the other party is contributing to escalation or avoidance cycles.

Identify common goals and interests. Think about what both parties have in common and want to achieve. Consider overlapping needs, concerns, goals, and fears.

Develop norms to work on problems. Rules of behavior can be developed for both individual- and group-level conflicts. Relational partners may want to agree to take “time-outs” when discussions get too heated, meet in a neutral location, and avoid personal attacks. Groups may want to encourage dissent, seek consensus rather than vote on a solution, and resist speedy outcomes that fail to take advantage of productive conflict over ideas.

Focus on mutual gain. Identify and state what everyone can gain from working through the conflict. Think win-win rather than win-lose. One party does not have to win at the expense of another. Try to expand the resource “pie” instead so that both parties can get what they want.

Create a process for productive conflict. Set up procedures that encourage parties to constructively engage with one another to resolve the issues. There are seven steps in a productive conflict process: (1) engage in self-analysis to identify the issues, the parties involved, and possible solutions; (2) set up a meeting to work on the problem; (3) define the problem to the satisfaction of both sides; (4) develop a wide range of solutions; (5) narrow the choices based on the definition of the problem; (6) commit to the solution along with an implementation and evaluation plan; and (7) monitor the implementation of the solution.

Step 5: Employ Collaborative Conflict Management Tactics

Conflict guidelines set the stage for collaboration, but it is what we say during a conflict episode that generates mutual gains. Collaborative messages reflect a high level of concern for the interests of both parties as well as for the health of the relationship. Collaborative tactics are either analytic or conciliatory. Analytic remarks include the following: 12

· Descriptive statements: Nonevaluative comments that report on observable events surrounding the conflict. Example: “I was short with you yesterday when you turned in that report.”

· Disclosing statements: Nonevaluative statements about conflict events that the partner can’t observe—thoughts, feelings, intentions, past history, motivations. Example: “I didn’t intend to criticize you in front of the rest of the staff.”

· Qualifying statements: Remarks that qualify the nature and the boundaries of the conflict. Example: “Tensions between our departments are greatest near the end of the fiscal year, when both groups are swamped with work.”

· Solicitation of disclosure: Nonhostile queries that seek information from the other party that can’t be observed, like thoughts, feelings, intentions, past history, and motivation. Example: “What was your goal in raising this issue at this time?”

· Solicitation of criticism: Nonhostile questions aimed at soliciting criticism of the self. Example: “Does it frustrate you that I don’t get the sales figures in every Monday?”

Conciliatory verbal messages include these:

· Supportive remarks: Statements that reflect positive affect, understanding, and acceptance for the partner along with shared interest and goals. Example: “I appreciate the stress you must be under in your new job.”

· Concessions: Comments that signal flexibility, a willingness to change, a conciliatory attitude, and concern for reaching mutually acceptable solutions. Example: “I would be willing to extend the due date for the project an additional month.”

· Acceptance of responsibility: Remarks that attribute responsibility to one or both partners. Example: “I’ll admit that I overreacted at first.”

Step 6: Be Prepared to Apologize

Sometimes saying “I’m sorry” is the best way to defuse conflict. As evidence of that fact, a growing number of organizations are seeing tangible benefits from apologizing to clients and customers. The University of Michigan Health System and University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago saw steep declines in the number of malpractice suits after doctors started admitting their mistakes. Toro’s product liability settlement costs dropped by two-thirds when the company began expressing empathy to any customers injured by its products, whether that injury was due to user error or a product defect. 13

As individuals we can also benefit from the power of apology. However, our motivation for apologizing should be based on our ethical obligations, not on hope of personal gain. 14 If we have harmed others through our actions, we have moral responsibility to admit our culpability and to try to repair the damage. Doing so helps to restore the dignity of our victims and acknowledges that we have violated widely ethical standards.

Unfortunately, a great many apologies fall short. Food show host and restaurateur Paula Deen lost her show on the Food Network after she failed to make amends for racist comments. Few were swayed by cyclist Lance Armstrong’s apology for doping and attacking his critics. According to apology expert Robert Lazare, complete (ethical) apologies contain the following elements: 15

· Acknowledgment. Any effective apology begins by acknowledging the offense. Identify your role, specify the offensive behaviors you committed, acknowledge the negative effects of your behaviors, and confirm that you broke norms against lying, cheating, using abusive language and so on. Don’t be vague (“I apologize for anything I did”), use the passive voice (“Mistakes have been made”), make the offense conditional (“If mistakes have been made”), question whether the victim was injured (“If anyone was hurt”), or minimize the offense (“I have nothing or little to apologize for”).

· Remorse. Express your regret for the harm you caused and indicate that you intend to act differently in the future. How you offer the apology is critical. Your attempt at seeking forgiveness will probably be rejected if your words, voice, and body language fail to communicate shame, humility, and sincerity.

· Explanation. Offer an explanation for your behavior (those you offend want to hear why you behaved the way you did). Unethical explanations reduce the seriousness of the harm. Avoid the following statements: “It was an accident”; “That wasn’t the ‘real me’”; “I was under a lot of pressure to meet the deadline.”

· Reparations. Make an effort to repair the damage. Sometimes the remorse and sincerity of the apology itself is enough to address the harm you have caused. At other times, follow-up is required. For example, offer to restore lost wages and benefits, provide missing information, pledge to treat subordinates with respect, consult coworkers before making budget decisions, and so forth.

At times you will find yourself on the receiving end of an apology. In these situations the conflict will likely continue unless you offer forgiveness. Many families, for example, can cite instances where relatives continued to feud for decades because neither party was willing to forgive the other. Forgiving is not forgetting past wrongs or reducing the seriousness of offenses. Instead the wronged party acknowledges that she or he has been unjustly treated but decides to let go of resentment and revenge in a process that unfolds over time. 16 Like seeking forgiveness, offering forgiveness is a moral obligation. Forgiving prevents the escalation of dysfunctional conflict and can result in reconciliation. Refusing to forgive can provoke cycles of aggression and retaliation. Contrast the experience of Germany and Japan following World War II, for instance. The German government offered a number of heartfelt apologies for its wartime aggression and atrocities. Germany’s relationships with its European neighbors have never been better. Japanese officials have offered only weak apologies for the nation’s invasion of China and the slaughter of Chinese citizens. Relations between the two nations remain uneasy.

Resolving Conflict Through Ethical Negotiation

Negotiation is one common method of resolving organizational conflicts. For example, employees negotiate with supervisors for higher salaries and promotions; workers bargain with each other when they need to switch work schedules; corporate purchasing agents and outside suppliers settle on the price of goods and services; members of production and marketing departments haggle over product features and delivery dates; and store owners bargain with property companies over lease agreements.

In negotiation, parties settle their disputes by generating a joint agreement or solution. 17 The negotiation process highlights the interdependent nature of conflicts. Bargainers must have some common goal, or they wouldn’t negotiate. On the other hand, at least one issue must divide them, or they wouldn’t need to negotiate to reach an agreement. Consider management and union relationships. Both sides share a common interest in seeing the company survive and prosper. However, management wants to keep labor costs as low as possible, while union workers want wage and benefit increases and job security. Management and union representatives will have to successfully negotiate their differences to keep the company in business. Similar disagreements can be found in project teams. Everyone in the group wants the project to succeed, but members will have to negotiate assignments, timelines, and a host of other details.

Because negotiation is so widely used, it is important to recognize the moral dilemmas inherent in this form of conflict resolution and to highlight the ethical benefits of taking an integrative approach to bargaining.

Ethical Issues in Negotiation

Ethical issues in negotiation typically fall into one of three categories: the choice of tactics, the distribution of benefits, and the impact of the settlement on those who are not at the bargaining table. 18

When approaching a negotiation, bargainers have decisions to make about which tactics they will use when interacting with the other party. Most of these tactical dilemmas involve deceit. Do I share what I am really willing to settle for, or do I argue for a higher price? Do I lie when asked if I have other offers when I don’t? Do I reveal problems (e.g., upcoming lawsuits, hidden debts) when negotiating with someone who wants to buy my company? Is it okay to bluff by threatening to walk out of the auto dealership when I don’t really intend to?

Some argue that deception is okay because both parties know that deceit is to be expected in negotiation settings. They treat bargaining like a poker game. Just as we expect players to hide their cards and bluff, those who enter negotiations know to expect deceit. They agree with the British statesman Henry Taylor, who claimed, “Falsehood ceases to be falsehood when it is understood on all sides that the truth is not expected to be spoken.” 19 Bargaining thus meets one of the standards of the principle of veracity described in Chapter 4 , which is that lying is permissible in situations where parties know that deception is the norm. 20 However, it is not clear that everyone understands the “rules” of negotiation. A cooperative negotiator operates by a different set of assumptions than a competitive one. Those from other cultures play by different sets of rules, which are unclear to visitors. (For example, should a foreign tourist haggle with every street vendor in Kenya?) By its very nature, deceit shows disrespect for the worth of the other party and thus violates Kant’s imperative to treat people as ends and not as the means to our ends. 21 (See Ethics in Action 6.1 for one list of deceptive tactics or “dirty tricks” frequently used by negotiators.)

David Lax and James Sebenius suggest that we ask ourselves the following questions when determining whether or not to use deceit as a bargaining tactic. 22 Responding to these queries can help us determine if we should tell the truth.

· Will you be comfortable with yourself the next morning? Would you want friends and family to know what you have done? The public?

· Does this tactic conform to the norm of reciprocity—that we treat others like we would like to be treated? How would you feel if the roles were reversed?

· Would you be comfortable counselling someone else to use this strategy?

· If you were to design a negotiation system from scratch, would you allow this strategy? How would you rule on this tactic if you were an outside arbitrator?

· What if everyone used the same method? Would this tactic create a desirable society?

· Are there alternative tactics you can use to avoid lying and deception?

· How can you create value instead of claiming what you think is rightfully yours?

· Does using this tactic further poison the ethical atmosphere for this type of negotiation or in this industry?

The next set of ethical issues in negotiation stems from the distribution of outcomes. Unequal settlements raise questions of fairness. For example, most of us feel uneasy if one party appears to take advantage of the other, as in the case of a buyer who convinces an elderly widow to sell her house at well below market value or a giant food processing firm that squeezes the absolutely lowest price out of a small farmer. Determining exactly what is fair can be difficult, but making sure that both sides benefit is a good starting point. 23 Also, some of the questions outlined above can be applied to determining fairness as well. Does the settlement violate norms of reciprocity? Would you counsel others to follow the same approach? What if everyone claimed a disproportionate amount of the benefits? What kind of society would that create?

The third set of ethical concerns shifts the focus beyond the parties directly involved in the negotiation process. Decisions made by bargainers can have a negative impact on outside groups. For instance, when a public utilities commission negotiates higher power rates with power companies, members of the community have to pay larger utility bills. Then, too, settlements can adversely affect the environment and future generations. Take the case of landowners who negotiate mineral rights with mining companies. The property owners get generous settlements, and the firms gain access to the materials they need to generate significant profits. However, extracting the minerals can cause environmental damage that will scar the landscape for decades to come. (See Case Study 6.1 for another example of a negotiation where outside parties played a critical role.) One way to minimize the potential damage is to keep the interests of outside stakeholders— current and future—in mind. Weigh the benefits generated at the negotiation table against the harms that will be caused to outsiders. Consider the legacy you want to leave behind. Would you want to be known and remembered for the terms of this settlement? 24

Conflicts of interest arise in negotiations when bargainers act as agents for outside parties. Lawyers negotiate on behalf of clients, real estate agents on behalf of sellers, union representatives on behalf of the union membership. Negotiation agents often face conflicting interests. On the one hand, they are being paid to get the best deal possible for their clients. On the other hand, there may be an incentive to settle for an outcome that benefits them rather than their employers. A lawyer may urge her clients to accept a smaller settlement so she can collect the fee that she might lose if the plaintiffs continue their lawsuit. By the same token, a real estate agent may encourage buyers to purchase a less desirable property so that he can collect his commission. Lessen potential conflicts of interest by aligning your incentives with those of your employer (e.g., a bonus if you generate a better settlement for your client). Avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. For instance, don’t accept trips and golf outings from suppliers lest you be tempted to make a deal that is not advantageous for your firm.

Ethics in Action 6.1 Responding to Dirty Tricks

Distributive negotiators who view negotiations as a battle or test of wills commonly use “dirty tricks” (unethical behaviors) to get their way. Responding effectively to these tactics is key to maintaining an ethical negotiation climate and reaching an integrative solution without being taken advantage of. When confronted with any of the following dirty tricks (which are all designed to deceive or manipulate), label the behavior to let the other party know that you recognize what is going on. Point out that these strategies can delay or prevent agreement. Warn the other side that you will only participate in the discussions as long as you are convinced that they are being honest and want to reach a fair conclusion.

Here are some common dirty tricks:

Good guy/bad guy. This is a variation of the good cop/bad cop routine portrayed in crime dramas. One negotiator (the good cop) is friendly and cooperative, while the other (the bad cop) is aggressive and demanding. Just as criminal suspects are more willing to offer information and concessions to good cops than to bad cops, negotiators are more cooperative with the pleasant party. In another version of this trick, the good guy asks for concessions in order to please the bad guy negotiator.

Bad-faith negotiating. The negotiator claims to want to reach a win-win agreement but is really stalling for time or probing for information to use later. Or the unethical negotiator agrees to a settlement, only to reopen it later in hopes of getting more concessions. The temptation is to give in since so much time and energy have already been invested in the agreement.

Lack of authority. The other person lacks decision-making power. This tactic is frequently used in car showrooms, where the salesperson must “talk to the sales manager” before agreeing to a deal. The use of a third party keeps negotiators off balance and, as many car buyers have found out, makes it more likely that they will take any agreement just to finish the negotiation process and get out of the dealership.

Inaccurate data. One side presents inaccurate, false, or misinterpreted information. Since data are critical to reaching equitable solutions, false information or misrepresentation can put one side at a significant disadvantage.

Many for one. Early in the negotiations, one party makes small, unimportant concessions. Later, this negotiator asks for a major concession as payback for his or her earlier concessions.

Information overload. One negotiator overwhelms the other with massive amounts of data and information. The recipient of all this information may not question its validity or may give too much power to the provider who seems so knowledgeable. The mass of information may contain errors and biases that can be used to undermine or delay negotiations.

SOURCE: Isenhart, M. W., & Spangle, M. L. (2000). Collaborative approaches to resolving conflict. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 57–58. Tactic descriptions used by permission.

Case Study 6.1

Saying No to Trader Joe’s

Many urban neighborhoods would welcome the arrival of a major retailer with a good reputation promising new jobs and shopping opportunities. Not so in Portland, Oregon. City officials hoped to lure Trader Joe’s, an upscale grocery chain featuring organic foods, to Northeast Portland, a predominately African American section of town. They entered into negotiations to sell a long-vacant parcel to a developer for less than one quarter of its assessed value. The developer then recruited Trader Joe’s as the anchor tenant for a shopping center that would also house several small businesses. A minority-owned contracting business agreed to build the center.

While minority business owners and the Urban League supported the project, many area residents did not. The Portland African American Leadership Forum claimed that arrival of high-end Trader Joe’s would contribute to the “gentrification” of the area, attracting wealthier residents while displacing poor citizens and further contributing to income inequality. The group argued that the land ought to be used for affordable housing instead. Critics noted that many residents couldn’t afford to pay Trader Joe’s high prices.

Faced with opposition, Trader Joe’s pulled out of the negotiation, citing “negative reaction” from the community. Said a spokesperson, “If a neighborhood does not want a Trader Joe’s, we understand, and we won’t open the store in question.” 1 (The chain also withdrew from Greensboro, South Carolina, when residents objected to a proposed location in that city.) Northeast neighborhood and Portland city officials weren’t about to give up, however. A number of local African American leaders petitioned the mayor to revive the proposal, saying that the city can foster economic growth while providing affordable housing. The National Association of Minority Contractors also campaigned to reopen the project and city hall agreed to continue discussions about the use of this development site.

Discussion Probes

1. Do you think there would have been more or less opposition to locating another type of grocery store (Winn-Dixie, Safeway, Albertsons, or Wal-Mart) in this neighborhood? Why or why not?

2. Did Trader Joe’s make the right decision when it withdrew from the project?

3. What ethical negotiation issues are raised in this case? Which set of concerns derailed the project?

4. What values are in conflict in this situation?

5. What parties have a stake in any future negotiations involving this property? What are the interests of each group?

6. What are some possible solutions that could meet the interests of all parties?

Note

1. Theen (2014, February 3). Additional sources for this section are Adams (2014, February 9); Francis (2014, March 25); Poe (2014, March 4); and Theen (2014, February 25).

Adopt an Integrative Approach to Negotiation

Bargainers typically adopt either a distributive or integrative approach to negotiation. Distributive negotiators adopt the win-lose conflict management style described earlier. Their basic assumption is that they are engaged in a battle over a fixed “pie,” or value. As a result, whatever one party gains is at the expense of the other. Integrative negotiators take a win-win approach. They are convinced that the pie can be expanded and that both parties can benefit. They view the negotiation as a joint problem-solving session. Here is a summary of the behaviors that come from adopting each perspective:

SOURCE: Spangle, M. L., & Isenhart, M. W. (2003). Negotiation: Communication for diverse settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 15. Used by permission.

In comparing the two approaches, it is clear that distributive bargainers are more likely to engage in unethical negotiation behavior. They are tempted to deceive, generate unfair settlements, fall victim to conflicts of interests, and generate solutions that benefit them at the expense of outsiders. As a result, we should adopt an integrative perspective whenever possible. However, there do appear to be times when the rules call for a win-lose approach, such as when buying a motorcycle. We also risk being taken advantage of if we come to the table with an integrative approach and the other party is out to get as much as he or she can.

Harvard negotiation experts Roger Fisher and William Ury outline one widely used integrative approach that enables negotiators to take a win-win approach while protecting themselves from being victimized. They call their problem-solving approach the principled negotiation model. 25 Here are the four steps of principled negotiation:

1. Separate the people from the problem. Make sure that you address the human dimension of negotiation. Set the stage for productive discussions by building a working relationship. Think of yourself as working side by side to reach an agreement that is good for both of you. Once in the negotiation, address three types of people problems: perception, emotion, and communication. Don’t blame the other party, but try to understand her or his perspective. Recognize and address the emotions both sides feel; don’t react to emotional outbursts, but reach out to build positive emotional connections. Address the other party directly (not third parties), actively listen, and use “I” language (“I was disappointed in your response”) rather than “you” language (“You lied to me”).

2. Focus on interests, not positions. A bargaining position is the negotiator’s public stance (e.g., “I want to hire two new employees for my project”). An interest, on the other hand, is the reason why the negotiator takes that position (“I need additional help so that my team can finish the project on time”). Focusing on positions can blind participants to the reality that there may be several ways to meet an underlying need or interest. The company in the example above might decide not to hire additional staff yet meet the project leader’s need for help by reassigning current employees to his team.

The Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel demonstrates how separating interests from positions can generate productive settlements. When the two nations began negotiating with the help of President Jimmy Carter in 1978, they argued over ownership of the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel seized from Egypt during the Six Day War in 1967. Egypt took the position that all occupied lands should be returned immediately. Israel took the position that only some of the Sinai should be returned to Egyptian control, fearing that Egyptian tanks would be stationed on its border. As a result, the talks went nowhere. However, once the parties realized that Israel’s real interest was national security and that Egypt’s interest lay in regaining sovereignty over her land, an agreement was reached. Israel gave back the occupied territory in return for pledges that Egypt would not use the Sinai for military purposes. Tensions in the region continue, but the two nations have remained at peace.

3. Invent options for mutual gain. Spend time expanding the pie before trying to divide it. In other words, generate solutions that can meet the needs of both negotiators. Brainstorm a variety of possible ideas—either on your own or with the other party—that you can draw from later on, look for shared and complementary interests that can lead to creative outcomes, and develop options that will be attractive to the other side. Fisher and Ury offer the following example of a creative solution that met the interests of both parties.

Consider the story of two men quarrelling in a library. One wants the window open, and the other wants it closed. They bicker back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack, halfway, three quarters of the way. No solution satisfies them both. Enter the librarian. She asks one why he wants the window open: “To get some fresh air.” She asks the other why he wants it closed: “To avoid the draft.” After thinking a minute, she opens wide a window in the next room, bringing in fresh air without a draft. 26

4. Insist on objective criteria. Avoid a test of wills when reaching the final agreement. If you pit your will against theirs, one of you will have to back down. One party may force the other into accepting an unsatisfactory solution as a result. Instead, agree on a set of criteria when determining a settlement. Employ fair standards (market value, industry standards, replacement costs, scientific findings) and fair procedures (taking turns, letting another party decide). Negotiators typically accept agreements that are in line with widely accepted principles.

Combating Aggression and Sexual Harassment

Types of Aggression

Aggressive behavior is the most destructive form of conflict at work. Interpersonal aggression consists of conscious actions that hurt or injure. Such behavior can take a variety of forms, from refusing to return phone calls to screaming at employees to murder. One widely used typology categorizes aggression along three dimensions: (1) physical-verbal (destructive words or deeds), (2) active-passive (doing harm by acting or by failing to act), and (3) direct-indirect (doing harm directly to the individual or indirectly through an intermediary and by attacking something the individual values). 27 Examples of behaviors that fit into each of these categories are outlined below:

SOURCE: Adapted from Baron, R. A. (2004). Workplace aggression and violence: Insights from basic research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior, p. 29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Interpersonal workplace aggression is all too prevalent. An estimated 2 million U.S. workers are physically assaulted yearly; 16 million are threatened with violence; 6 million experience physical assault; and homicide is one of the leading causes of death on the job. In Canada, assault rates are higher than in the United States. 28 While violence attracts the most media attention, milder forms of workplace aggression, such as incivility and bullying, are far more common. Incivility consists of rude, discourteous actions that disregard others and violate norms of respect. Examples of workplace incivility include leaving a mess for custodians to clean up, making a sarcastic comment about a peer in front of coworkers, and claiming credit for someone else’s work. 29 Bullying involves repeated, unwanted actions and behaviors carried out over weeks, months, or even years that are designed to humiliate victims and cause them psychological distress. 30 Examples of bullying include shouting, name calling, insults, threats, unsafe job assignments, cruelty, sabotage, and spreading harmful rumors. (Turn to Case Study 6.2 for a well-publicized example of bullying in one workplace.) In Europe, 3–4% of workers report being the victim of bullying behavior at least once a week and 10–15% say they have been targeted for psychological aggression in the past six months. In the United States, 10–12% of those sampled report being bullied in the past year while at work. (You can determine if you have been a victim of bullying by completing Self-Assessment 6.2 .) Mobbing is a type of bullying carried out by groups. The term comes from animal behavior where a group of birds or animals targets one specific individual in order to drive it away. In human organizations, groups of employees target coworkers to remove them because they either underachieve (and keep the team from reaching its goals) or overachieve and thus are seen as threats. 31

Electronic communication has expanded the reach of bullies, allowing them to attack their targets even when they are off the job. Categories of cyberbullying include the following: 32

· Flaming: sending angry, rude and cruel messages about a person to an online group and/or target via e-mail or text messaging.

· Online harassment: repeatedly sending offensive messages electronically directly to the victim.

· Cyber stalking: threats of harm and intimidation delivered online.

· Denigration: posting harmful, untrue messages about a target online or to other people.

· Masquerade: pretending to be somebody else and posting or sending items that make the victim appear bad.

· Outing: sending or posting private, sensitive, or embarrassing information about a person (includes forwarding private messages or pictures).

· Exclusion: deliberately excluding someone from an online group.

Not surprisingly, bullying and other forms of aggression can do extensive damage to both individuals and the organization as a whole. 33 Victims may be injured, experience higher stress levels leading to poor health, become fearful or angry or depressed (leading in some cases to thoughts of suicide), lose the ability to concentrate, and feel less committed to their jobs. Observers who witness aggressive incidents may suffer some of the same negative outcomes. They, too, experience more anxiety and a lowered sense of well-being and commitment. Family members may be impacted, as victims take out their frustrations at home. At the organizational level, performance drops as a result of aggressive actions. Workplace aggression is correlated with lower productivity, higher absenteeism and turnover rates, lawsuits, and negative publicity.

Self-Assessment 6.2

Negative Acts Questionnaire

Think of your workplace over the past six months. Indicate how often you have experienced the following behaviors on this scale

1. Someone withholding information, which affects your performance.

2. Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work.

3. Being ordered to do work below your level of competence.

4. Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks.

5. Spreading of gossip and rumors about you.

6. Being ignored or excluded.

7. Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person, attitudes, or your private life.

8. Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger.

9. Intimidating behaviors such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking your way.

10. Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job.

11. Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes.

12. Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach.

13. Persistent criticism of your errors or mistakes.

14. Having your opinions ignored.

15. Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get along with.

16. Being given tasks with unreasonable deadlines.

17. Having allegations made against you.

18. Excessive monitoring of your work.

19. Pressure not to claim something to which by right you are entitled (e.g., sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses).

20. Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm.

21. Being exposed to an unmanageable workload.

22. Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse.

Scoring

Scores can range from 0 to 48. The higher the score, the greater your exposure to bullying at your workplace. Scores on individual items indicate the severity of the bullying behavior, which can range from mild (withholding information, having opinions ignored) to highly stressful (being threatened, physical intimidation).

SOURCE: Adapted from Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelears, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23 (1), 24-44, pp. 32. Used by permission.

Sources of Aggression

Aggressive behavior is the product of a number of factors—personal, social, and situational—outlined below. 34

Personal Causes of Aggression

· Type A personality. Type A behavior-pattern people are extremely competitive, generally in a hurry, and highly irritable. Such individuals are more likely to engage in hostile actions both on and off the job (child and spousal abuse, for instance).

· Hostile attributional bias. Those with this perceptual bias tend to assume the worst in others. They believe that peers and subordinates are out to hurt them, and then they respond accordingly. For example, an employee with a hostile perspective who doesn’t get notice of an important meeting will assume that his boss deliberately snubbed him, even if this omission was a harmless oversight. He may refuse to answer questions from his supervisor the next time they meet.

· Inflated (or deflated) self-esteem. Those who hold extremely high views of themselves are particularly sensitive to negative feedback, which threatens their self- image. They are more likely to respond with anger and nurse grudges. Individuals with low self-esteem are more prone to seeking revenge.

· Low self-monitoring. High self-monitors pay close attention to situational cues and then modify their behavior to act appropriately. Low self-monitors, on the other hand, pay more attention to their inner attitudes and feelings. As a result, they are more likely to escalate conflict and misinterpret motives.

Social Causes of Aggression

· Frustration. Interference with the pursuit of goals produces anger and hostility. Frustration is most likely to cause aggression when the interference is seen as illegitimate. An employee turned down for a promotion, for instance, will be more upset if he thinks that the job went to a much less-qualified candidate.

· Direct provocation. Aggression begets further aggression. Most people respond to verbal and physical assaults by retaliating with more extreme measures of their own.

· Displaced aggression. If it’s too dangerous or costly for a member to retaliate against someone who provokes her (the boss, for example), she may then take frustrations out on someone else (subordinates, friends, family members).

· Triggered displaced aggression. Sometimes a weak provocation will trigger a strong aggressive response. This may occur because the individual recently experienced a much stronger provocation. For instance, an employee may lash out at a peer who suggests minor modifications to a project after being subjected to severe criticism about the same project from her supervisor.

· Aggressive models. Aggressive individuals act as role models for other organizational members. Observers learn new ways to aggress that are often more subtle, like stalling initiatives or quietly sabotaging the work of another department. Seeing aggression also “primes” hostile thoughts. Coworkers begin to think about the wrongs they have suffered at the hands of others. Finally, role models demonstrate that aggression is a legitimate means for dealing with frustration or provocation. Soon an organizational culture of aggression emerges.

Contextual Causes of Aggression

· Oppressive supervision. Employees are more likely to strike out against their supervisors when they (1) sense that they have little influence over the workload and work pace, (2) are the victims of bullying bosses, and (3) feel overly controlled (given little power, monitored extremely closely).

· Job stressors. Layoffs, demanding performance standards, role ambiguity, conflicts, increasing competition, and other job factors produce stress that can sow the seeds of aggression.

· Use of alcohol. Alcohol weakens resistance to anger and aggression. Intoxicated people can still restrain themselves but are more likely to go along with suggestions to harm others and to attack helpless victims.

· Perceived unfairness. Individuals are more likely to retaliate when they perceive that they have been treated unjustly. They may take issue with how resources are distributed (distributive injustice) and how decisions are reached (procedural injustice). However, being treated with disrespect (interactional or informational injustice) appears to be the strongest determinant of aggression. (For more information on organizational justice, see Chapter 11 .)

· Unpleasant working conditions. Extremely high or low temperatures, crowding, noise, and other uncomfortable environmental factors generate negative emotions and increase aggressive behavior. As a result, attempts to save money by cutting back on the quality of the work environment (shutting down the air conditioning, lowering the thermostat in the winter, removing carpet) often backfire, lowering productivity while producing more aggression.

Resisting and Reducing Aggression

Offering resistance to bullying and harassment can be risky. Bullies generally have more power and status; those who object to their behavior are often punished or find themselves out of a job. When confronted by their victims, bullies often escalate the abuse. Nonetheless, targets of bullying often do resist, convinced they have a moral duty to do so. They want to confront the unethical behavior and keep harassers from hurting others. 35 If you find yourself the victim of harassment, you can resist by following these steps: 36

· Step 1: Examine your behavior to ensure that you are not seen as bullying others (which provokes an aggressive response from the harasser).

· Step 2: Manage your work-related behaviors by improving your work performance (if needed) in order to meet high standards and adhere to group norms.

· Step 3: Build your power by forming alliances with others, by increasing the bully’s dependence on your skills and knowledge, and by developing your expertise in an area of vital importance to the organization.

· Step 4: Calmly confront the bully, focusing specifically on the harassing behavior and communicating that it needs to stop immediately.

· Step 5: Report the bully to the internal authorities like the human resource department or a supervisor (be sure to document the abuse).

· Step 6: Go outside the organization, bringing legal action on the basis of assault, battery, emotional distress, and so on.

· Step 7: Look for another job in an organization that discourages bullying.

The difficulty of resisting ongoing aggression makes a strong case for preventing aggression before it starts. Strategies for reducing aggression must address its personal, social, and contextual origins. 37 Careful screening of potential employees is a good place to start. Try to weed out individuals with aggressive tendencies and strong type A personalities through interviews, testing, and reference checks. Ask applicants how they responded when unfairly treated or what they would do in a difficult job-related situation. Careful reference checks can identify individuals who should not be hired because of their patterns of abusive behavior. For current employees, provide training in social skills. Some workers get caught up in aggressive interactions because they unwittingly provoke others. They may not understand that their behavior irritates their peers and generates negative feelings.

Next, address social factors. To reduce frustration, establish legitimacy for decisions and actions by providing background information and rationale to your employees. Short-circuit the development of a climate of aggression by eliminating aggressive role models and punishing offenders. Effective punishment is prompt, highly certain, strong, and justified.

Finally, reduce negative contextual factors. Cut back on tight supervision, eliminate unnecessary rules, and avoid intrusive monitoring practices. Give your employees more control over how they complete their tasks, and ban drinking on the job (even at lunch). Reduce the impact of stressors by lowering work demands, by providing physical and emotional outlets (recreation areas, nap rooms, office celebrations), and by supplying stress management training. Create pleasant working environments with adequate space, comfortable temperatures, soundproofing, attractive furnishings, and so on. Prevent perceptions of injustice by treating others with respect, using the communication skills described in Chapter 4 .

Preventing Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is a distinctive form of aggression that is overwhelmingly directed at women by men. It should be noted that women do harass men (though much less frequently than men harass women), and both men and women can harass others of the same sex, as in the case of a gay or lesbian supervisor demanding sexual favors from an employee of the same sex. Sexual harassment is a global problem that has drawn the attention of the European Union, International Labour Organization, and the United Nations. 38 There are three types of sexual harassment behaviors. 39 The first is gender harassment, which consists of gender-based (nonsexual) comments and behaviors designed to demean (generally) women. For example, a supervisor may claim that a woman can’t do a job defined as “men’s work.” The second form of harassment consists of unwanted sexual attention. This category includes both verbal (repeated requests for dates, telling sexual jokes) and nonverbal behaviors (gestures, touching, kissing). The third is sexual coercion, which is forcing employees into sexual activity through promises or threats. A boss might promise a promotion to a subordinate who sleeps with him or threaten to fire her if she does not.

In the United States there are also legal definitions of sexual harassment, which is prohibited by law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in employment based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces this statute, as do the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Equal Pay Act. State laws also apply to harassment cases.

According to the EEOC and a number of court decisions, there are two forms of sexual harassment under the law. 40 The first is called quid pro quo, which is a legal term roughly meaning “something for something.” Plaintiffs in quid pro quo cases claim that they were coerced into providing sexual favors to their supervisors in return for keeping their jobs or getting promotions and raises. This constitutes discriminatory behavior because victims were required to submit to conditions not placed on other workers. The second type of harassment involves the creation of a “hostile work environment.” Plaintiffs in hostile work environment cases claim that working conditions interfered with their job performance. The following have been identified as components of a hostile work environment:

· Harassment aimed at one gender. For example, comments or slurs directed at only one gender, not the other.

· Severe and sustained negative behavior. Generally, a pattern of behavior must be established, like a series of lewd comments and offensive gestures, not just one isolated remark.

· Negative effects of behavior on the receiver. Behavior is considered harassing when it offends the recipient, regardless of the expressed intent of the perpetrator. A male worker may put up a sexual poster “for fun,” for instance, but this display is illegal because it makes his female coworkers uncomfortable.

· Violation of the “reasonable woman” standard. The behavior must violate what the typical woman would see as appropriate. A business lunch between a male and female colleague would not be seen as harassment under this standard. Harassment would occur, however, if a supervisor kept asking a subordinate for a date despite her repeated refusals.

· Significant damages. Claimants must establish that the behavior had a significant negative impact (caused discomfort, lowered work performance).

· Unwelcome behavior. Consensual behavior is not illegal, but unwanted behavior is. Researchers have discovered that men and women often interpret the same behavior differently. Males often see “friendly” behavior on the part of women as sexual in nature. They are more likely to be flattered by sexual attention, whereas females find it offensive. Conversely, men are less likely than women to define teasing, sexual remarks, jokes, and suggestive looks and gestures as harassing behavior.

Sexual harassment, while unique, does have elements in common with other forms of workplace aggression. Like other aggressive behavior, it occurs with distressing frequency. An analysis of 55 surveys involving more than 86,000 women found that 58% had experienced potentially harassing behaviors at work. 41 Harassment is most frequent in male-dominated, blue-collar jobs (construction worker, machinist), but female doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are not immune from such behavior. Neither are women students. The rate of harassment among female college students is roughly that of female workers; approximately 50% report being targeted for such harassing actions as insulting remarks, propositions, bribes, threats, and sexual assault. The U.S. Department of Education recently began releasing the names of colleges (including the University of California Berkeley, Oklahoma State University, Dartmouth College, and Johns Hopkins University) the agency was investigating for failure to adequately handle rape and sexual assault complaints. More schools are requiring that all students complete sexual assault awareness programs. 42

The costs of sexual harassment mirror those of other aggressive behaviors. The work performance of targets suffers due to stress, decreased morale, damaged relationships, withdrawal, and career changes. Many victims quit their jobs or are fired for filing complaints. Targets experience headaches, sleep loss, weight loss or gain, nausea, sexual dysfunction, and eating and gastrointestinal disorders. Negative psychological effects include depression, a sense of helplessness and loss of control, fear, detachment, and decreased motivation. 43

Many of the same personal, social, and contextual factors that promote other forms of aggression also contribute to harassment. Offenders are more likely to harbor hostility and to be low self-monitors. Men may be frustrated because they believe that women as a group are taking away their privileges, and they retaliate. Perpetrators also take their cue from others who model harassing behavior.

In addition to these general factors, there are unique determinants of harassment: 44 First, male sexual aggressors hold more traditional (less egalitarian) views of females. They expect women to function in nurturing roles and believe that some professions should be closed to them. Harassment punishes those who violate these prescriptions and victimizes women while reinforcing the masculine image of the perpetrator. Second, violators hope to win sexual favors and other payoffs, like reduced competition for jobs. Third, rates of sexual harassment are substantially higher in organizations that don’t take complaints seriously, fail to investigate charges or punish offenders, and retaliate against whistle-blowers. Fourth, harassment preserves male-dominated organizational systems that give men power over women. ( Case Study 6.3 describes how a male-dominated organization is attempting to deal with its sexual harassment and violence problem.)

You can take a number of steps to prevent sexual harassment, beginning with creating a zero-tolerance organizational climate. Adopt a written policy that condemns such actions, spells out what types of behavior qualify as harassing, encourages victims to come forward, identifies penalties, and prohibits retaliation. Then, back up the policy with an effective investigation procedure using an impartial third party who interviews all participants. Attack gender stereotypes through training, which also encourages men to understand how women perceive behavior that men interpret as harmless. Increase the proportion of women in the organization to reduce the likelihood of harassment. Set boundaries on office romances so that they don’t result in sexual harassment. (See Ethics in Action 6.2 .)

University of Arkansas business professor Anne O’Leary-Kelly and her colleagues suggest that paying more attention to the moral dimension of sexual harassment would also reduce its frequency. 45 Clearly, such behavior, which is harmful, selfish, and unfair, is unethical as well as illegal. The stronger the employees’ sense that harassment has a moral component (the higher its degree of moral intensity—see Chapter 3 ), the more likely it is that those workers will avoid sexually aggressive actions and intervene when they observe harassment. Professor O’Leary-Kelly suggests that you can increase the moral intensity of sexual harassment through the following actions:

· Make aggressors aware of the effects of their actions. Some individuals, as noted earlier, aren’t aware that their actions are harmful. Others may think they are only hurting the target of their sexual advances or remarks. Perpetrators need to learn that their actions are destructive not only to the target but to other women, the work team, and the entire organization. This is particularly important in light of the fact that the majority of victims do not file complaints for fear of retaliation. Offenders therefore get the mistaken notion that their behavior is not destructive.

· Encourage consensus about the definition and immorality of sexual harassment. Create a shared understanding of what harassment might be in your particular organization and develop clear standards of behavior that highlight the unethical nature of harassing actions. Promote discussion about situations that make participants uncomfortable.

· Shorten the time between conduct and consequences. Moral intensity drops when there is a substantial delay between a behavior and its consequences. Immediate response is difficult in hostile-environment harassment cases, since a pattern of behavior must be established. Offenders feel distanced from their harmful actions as a result. Try to shorten this psychological distance by investigating and responding promptly. Begin investigations immediately after complaints surface, and come to a quick resolution.

· Emphasize similarities. Our sense of moral obligation is highest when we perceive similarities between others and ourselves. Even though harassment is based on the differences between agents and targets, build a sense of similarity by emphasizing shared organizational goals and values. Provide opportunities for men and women to discuss their similar personal values, goals, and dreams.

· Promote individual responsibility. Moral intensity is heightened by acknowledgment of personal accountability. Harassers will more likely desist if they stop trying to diffuse responsibility by blaming the work environment or the behavior of their colleagues. Highlight the fact that sexual harassment damages the character of the perpetrator and is inconsistent with such personal values as equality, respect, and concern for others.

Ethics in Action 6.2 Dealing With the Dangers (and Opportunities) of Office Romances

The office has become a hotbed of romance. In one survey, 60% of employees surveyed reported that they had participated in an office romance during their careers and 64% of those said they would do so again. And the percentage of workplace romances is likely to climb as younger workers (ages 25 to 34) put in more hours at work. According to one pollster, “The office has become the 21st-century singles bar. Water is the next gin and tonic, and Muzak the new club beat.” 1

Many office romances, like that of Barack and Michelle Obama, end in happy marriages. However, serious problems can arise when superiors and subordinates date and then break up. The subordinate (often a young female assistant) may claim that she was sexually harassed because she was pressured into having sex to keep her job or that her supervisor (often an older male executive) retaliated when the relationship ended.

The nation was reminded of the dangers of superior–subordinate romances when late-night talk show host David Letterman admitted that he had engaged in a series of sexual relationships with female writers and staffers at his production company. Letterman went public with his affairs after a CBS producer who had dated Letterman’s long-term girlfriend Stephanie Birkitt tried to extort money from the entertainer in return for keeping quiet about his affairs. Letterman’s relationships appeared to be consensual. In fact, one disappointed staffer wanted to marry the comic. Nonetheless, the women dating Letterman received special benefits. For example, Birkitt was featured in broadcast segments even though she did not appear to be particularly talented.

Given the popularity of office romances and the opportunities they provide for satisfying long-term relationships, they shouldn’t be banned. Instead, human resource and legal experts advise firms to establish policies and procedures to reduce their liability while not meddling in the personal affairs of employees. Such policies should prohibit personal relationships that generate a conflict of interest, such as in a direct reporting relationship. If such a relationship develops, one of the parties may need to be transferred or leave the company. The relationship should be conducted in a way that doesn’t cause discomfort for other workers, and any mistreatment needs to be reported immediately. Dating policies need to be applied to everyone, even top performers, and should include guidelines about social media contacts outside the office. Firms may even want to consider having employees sign “love contracts.” Consultants at Workforce Management developed one such agreement. On the form, employees acknowledge that the relationship is “voluntary, consensual, and welcome.” 2

Notes

1. Baird (2009, October 19), p. 26.

2. Baird (2009). Additional sources for this section are Boyd (2010); Carter and Stelter (2009); Dowd (2009); Greenwald (2009); Mainiero and Jones (2013).

Chapter Takeaways

· Conflict is an inevitable and increasingly common fact of organizational life. Conflict arises when interdependent parties perceive incompatible goals and scarce resources and believe that others are keeping them from reaching their objectives.

· Don’t try to avoid conflict; instead, learn how to ethically manage disagreements.

· Functional or productive conflicts focus on the content of messages and are designed to solve problems. Dysfunctional or unproductive conflicts center on personalities and generate strong negative emotions, which produce escalation or avoidance behaviors.

· Managing your emotions can help keep constructive conflicts from becoming destructive. Take steps to cool down your emotions and let them dissipate; reengage constructively with the other person.

· Adopt a collaborative personal conflict style as your first option; employ other conflict styles when the situation calls for it.

· Put conflict guidelines in place that foster problem solving and mutual gains.

· Defuse conflict by apologizing when you have harmed others. An ethical apology includes acknowledgement of the offense, expression of remorse, an explanation for the behavior, and offering reparations. Be prepared to offer forgiveness as well.

· Negotiation resolves conflict by generating joint agreements or solutions. When negotiating, you will encounter three types of ethical issues: choice of tactics, distribution of benefits, and the impact of the settlement on outsiders.

· Distributive bargainers take a win-lose approach to negotiation, which encourages unethical behavior; integrative bargainers view negotiation as a process of joint problem solving.

· Take an integrative approach to negotiation by following the steps of principled negotiation. Separate the people from the problem, focus on interests and not positions, invent options for mutual gains, and insist on the use of objective criteria.

· Aggression, which is aimed at hurting others, is the most destructive form of conflict, damaging victims, observers, and the organization as a whole.

· Incivility (rudeness and disrespect), bullying (repeated attempts to do psychological damage to targets), and mobbing (groups ostracizing individuals) are common forms of aggression. Resisting bullying can be risky but you can increase your chances of success by strengthening your power base (develop expertise, recruit allies) and turning to authorities in the organization for help.

· Reduce aggression by addressing its personal, social, and contextual origins. Screen out potential offenders. Provide interpersonal skills training for employees. Share your rationale for decisions. Punish offenders and eliminate aggressive role models. Cut back on intrusive management practices. Reduce stressors. Empower workers. Create pleasant working conditions.

· Sexual harassment is a special form of aggression that generally targets women. You can prevent quid pro quo and hostile-environment sexual harassment by creating a zero-tolerance climate, by training, by hiring more women, and by raising awareness that this type of behavior is immoral.

Application Projects

1. Conduct a conflict inventory. Identify the sources and types of conflict common to your organization and how these disputes are typically resolved. What does this inventory tell you about the organization’s conflict patterns and how effectively members deal with conflict?

2. Reflect on the results of Self-Assessment 6.1 . Record your responses to the following questions: What is your conflict style? Why do you think you take this approach to conflict? How has this style been effective? Ineffective? What are the ethical strengths and weaknesses of this approach? What steps can you take to develop a more collaborative conflict style?

3. Create a set of conflict guidelines (a conflict covenant) for your small group. These guidelines should outline the procedures you will follow in conflict situations, what type of comments members may and may not make, and so on.

4. Try to employ collaborative guidelines and tactics in an ongoing conflict. Report on the success (or lack of success) of your efforts.

5. Analyze the apology of a public figure or an organization. How well does it fulfill each of the four elements of ethical apologies outlined in the chapter?

6. Evaluate your ethical performance in a recent negotiation. Based on material from the chapter, identify the ethical issues you faced. Describe how you responded to these dilemmas. What, if anything, would you do differently next time? Write up your analysis and reflections.

7. Prepare for an upcoming negotiation using the steps of principled negotiation. Determine how you will deal with people issues, focus on interests, invent a variety of solutions, and identify objective criteria you can use when reaching an agreement.

8. Create a case study dealing with workplace aggression. What factors contributed to this incident, and how could they be reduced or eliminated?

9. How often have you been the victim of bullying behavior based on your response to Self-Assessment 6.2 ? How did you feel and respond? What suggestions would you make to others who might be victims? Write up your conclusions.

10. Evaluate your organization’s sexual harassment policies and procedures.

11. Describe your experience with office romance, either as an observer or as a participant. What benefits and dangers do you see in such relationships? Should businesses and other organizations try to limit office romances or encourage them? What do you think of “love contracts”?

Case Study 6.2

Bullies in the Locker Room

Miami Dolphins offensive lineman Jonathan Martin focused the national spotlight on workplace bullying when he quit the National Football League team mid-season in 2013, claiming that harassment by teammates had driven him to seek professional help for suicidal depression. Martin identified fellow lineman Richie Incognito as his main tormentor. The team had given veteran Incognito the task of toughening up the younger Martin, who was considered “soft” for missing blocks and allowing too many quarterback sacks. Incognito, a white player with a troubled history in the NFL, then began sending Martin a series of vulgar, threatening e-mails and voice mails. In one voice message he told Martin: “Hey, whassup you half-n…piece of sh..? (I’m going to) slap your real mother across the face. . . I’ll kill you.” 1

The Dolphins organization suspended Incognito but the Dolphins players, to a man, sided with Incognito, not Martin. According to Miami Herald sports columnist Dan Le Betard, “The players in that locker room think Martin is a soft, whining quitter who caused all this because he wasn’t tough enough for their survival-of-the-fittest workplace.” 2 The larger professional football community also turned on Martin. Many current and former players criticized him for breaking the unwritten code that what goes on in the locker room should stay in the locker room. According to Denver Broncos defensive tackle Terrance Knighton, “I feel like, as players, when it is player-to-player, it can be handled as players. It can be addressed. I don’t think [Martin] should have gone outside the team and expressed how things are going in the locker room.” 3 Other players claimed that often what appears to be bullying is really a form of male bonding. Commentators noted that hazing (like making rookies pay for meals, sing songs, or carry veteran’s luggage) and teasing are common in professional locker rooms filled with young, highly competitive males who are rewarded for being aggressive. Many outside of football wondered how a 300-pound athlete could be bullied by anyone. They criticized him for not “manning up” and confronting his harassers.

The NFL appointed Ted Wells, a criminal defense attorney, to spearhead an investigation of Martin’s allegations. The Wells committee examined texts and e-mails and conducted over 100 interviews with Dolphins personnel. Investigators concluded that what happened to Martin was “a classic case of bullying, where persons who are in a position of power harass the less powerful.” 4 Wells identified Incognito and two other offensive linemen—Mike Pouncey and John Jerry—as the primary harassers. Pouncey and Jerry (who are African American) taunted Martin (who is biracial) for “not being black enough” and called him a “bitch.” Using obscene gestures, Pouncey talked in graphic terms about having sex with Martin’s mother and sister. Martin kept his anger to himself but reported being highly upset that he did not defend his family.

Martin wasn’t the only target of harassment. Another offensive linemen was called homophobic names and touched in a “mockingly suggestive manner.” The assistant trainer (who was born in Japan) was the brunt of racial insults. Players spoke to him in “Asian accents” and called him a “North Korean” and a “dirty communist.” Instead of preventing the harassment, Dolphins staff contributed to the abusive atmosphere. Offensive line coach Jim Turner gave out inflatable female dolls as a Christmas stocking stuffer to all the offensive linemen except to the other player who was targeted for abuse. The head trainer supplied Pouncey, Incognito, and Jerry with Japanese headbands to wear on the December 2012 anniversary of the Pearl Harbor bombing. The offensive linemen then joked with the assistant trainer, telling him that they would get even for the attack.

Wells urged the Dolphins to create “new workplace conduct rules and guidelines that will help ensure that players respect each other as professionals and people.” 5 Miami Dolphins owner Robert Ross fired Turner and the head trainer. Head coach Joe Philbin vowed to do a better job of monitoring the locker room atmosphere. Skeptics, however, wondered how far the team would go in addressing the findings of the Wells report. They doubted that the Dolphins would release Pouncey, the best player on what had been a mediocre offensive line.

More attention than ever is likely to be focused on professional football’s culture after the first openly gay college football player, Michael Sam, was drafted in 2014. (He was later traded and then released.) Other gay players may also come forward. If so, they could face a significant amount of abuse. According to one player’s personnel assistant, “At this point in time it’s still a man’s-man game. To call someone a [gay slur] is still so commonplace.” 6

Discussion Probes

1. Was Martin justified in breaking the locker room code and going public with his accusations?

2. When it comes to bullying, should locker rooms be held to the same standards as other workplaces? Should the size and strength of victims make any difference in how we judge the behavior of bullies?

3. How much blame should be placed on the head coach and owner for allowing the abuse to take place? What steps should they take to prevent future bullying?

4. How do you distinguish between playful teasing, and hazing and bullying?

5. Do you think bullying can be eliminated in the NFL? Why or why not?

6. Do you think gay players will ever be fully accepted by their teammates in the NFL and other male professional leagues?

Notes

1. Mansfield (2013).

2. Le Batard (2014).

3. Brady, Corbett, and Jones (2013).

4. Shpigel (2014).

5. Shpigel (2014).

6. Mandel (2014). Additional sources for this section are NFL, Jonathan Martin was bullied; Siegel (2014); Tracy (2014).

Case Study 6.3

Declaring War on Sexual Assault in the Military

The US military can be a dangerous place for women. In addition to being attacked by the enemy, they far too frequently experience violence at the hands of their fellow soldiers, sailors, Marines, and Air Force personnel. Reports of sexual assault—rape, unwanted sexual contact, groping—in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines jumped 50% between 2012 and 2013. A total of 71% of all female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War who are being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder report that they were sexually assaulted or raped while in the military.

A series of high profile incidents suggests that there is a sexual violence crisis in the U.S. military. Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair, who carried on a three-year affair with a female subordinate who accused him of rape, received no jail time and kept his rank and pension. An army sergeant at Fort Hood is being investigated for forcing a woman into prostitution. The officer who directed the Air Force’s sexual assault program was charged with groping a woman outside of a bar. Six hundred soldiers were removed from their “positions of trust” as sexual assault counselors, recruiters, and drill sergeants because of previous convictions for child abuse, sexual assault, stalking, and other crimes.

Until recently, the military justice system offered little hope to victims. Commanders had the power to overrule the verdicts of military courts. They were frequently swayed by the “good solider” defense, reducing penalties for those who had good service records. In one case, an Air Force general threw out a rape conviction of a star fighter pilot, stating that he didn’t believe that a dedicated father and family man could commit such a crime. In the U.S. military command in Japan, convicted sex offenders received lenient treatment, with nearly two-thirds avoiding jail time. A letter of reprimand was the sole punishment in some instances. Women bringing charges had little support and could expect extended questioning about their sexual habits in pretrial hearings (questions that are not allowed in civilian trials). According to a Department of Defense estimate, 80% of all sexual assaults in the military are not reported; 30% of those reporting abuse abandon their cases before going to trial.

Concerned about the military justice system’s failure to punish offenders, President Obama declared that perpetrators should be “prosecuted, stripped of their position, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged.” 1 The Senate took up legislation to reform the military justice system. Senators agreed to provide victims with counsel to assist them throughout the legal process, eliminated the good soldier defense as well as intrusive questioning, and mandated dishonorable discharge for all those convicted of sexual assault. However, members of the Senate were sharply divided over the question of whether commanding officers should be completely removed from sexual assault proceedings. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand proposed legislation that would have banned commanding officers from participation in sex crime trials. Supporters of removing commanders from sexual assault cases argue that these leaders face a conflict of interest. Commanders are judged by what happens on their watch. In the past, they may have discouraged prosecutions because such cases reflected poorly on their leadership. According to Senator Gillibrand, “You want the decision-maker to have no skin in the game.” 2

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill introduced a competing bill that would keep commanders involved in sexual assault prosecutions but curtail their power by taking away their ability to overturn jury convictions and strengthening the role of prosecutors. McCaskill and top military leaders argue that removing commanders would undermine their authority. They note that military leaders are responsible for everything that happens in their commands and that they ought to be accountable for dealing with sexual crime as well. Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel worried that the Gillibrand bill would “disconnect the commanders” from their troops and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham claimed, “Taking the commander out of the loop never solved any problem.” 3 The Senate rejected Gillibrand’s bill but then went on to pass McCaskill’s measure.

Discussion Probes

1. What will be the impact on the military if it doesn’t successfully address its sexual violence crisis?

2. What elements of military culture make it prone to sexual abuse? How can these elements be eliminated? What other organizations have cultures that encourage sexual harassment and abuse?

3. Should commanders continue to be involved in military assault cases? Why or why not?

4. Do you think the changes in the military justice system will encourage more victims to come forward and result in more convictions?

5. What other steps can the military take to reduce sexual violence in its ranks?

Notes

1. Oppel (2014).

2. Oppel (2014).

3. Oppel (2014). Other sources for this section are Associated Press (2013, December 28); Benedict (2007); Henderson (2014); Marsden (2013); Mulrine (2014); Steinhauer (2013); Witlock (2014); Zucchino (2013).