Organizational behaviour

Siti Nazrana

Lecture8-ConflictandNegotiation.pptx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Organizational behaviour

BX3171 Organisational Behaviour Topic 13 – Conflict and Negotiation

Lecturer: Jaime Wong

jcu.edu.au

Topic 13

Conflict and negotiation

jcu.edu.au

Conflict and Negotiation

While many people assume conflict lowers group and organisational performance, this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. As shown in exhibit 13.1, levels of conflict can be either too high or too low. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released and initiates the seeds of change, without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities.

Choose an authoritarian management style in emergencies, when unpopular actions need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, discipline) and when the issue is vital to the organisation’s welfare. Be certain to communicate your logic, when possible, to ensure employees remain engaged and productive.

Seek integrative solutions when your objective is to learn, when you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives, when you need to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus, and when you need to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship.

It is best to avoid an issue when it is trivial or symptomatic of other issues, when more important issues are pressing, when you perceive no chance of satisfying everyone’s concerns, when people need to cool down and regain perspective, when gathering information and when others can resolve the conflict more effectively.

You can build trust by accommodating others when you find you’re wrong, when you need to demonstrate reasonableness, when other positions need to be heard, when issues are more important to others than to yourself, when you want to satisfy others and maintain cooperation, when you can build social credits for later issues, to minimise loss when you are outmatched and losing, and when employees should learn from their own mistakes.

Consider compromising when goals are important but not worth potential disruption, when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals and when you need temporary settlements to complex issues.

Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but it often reduces the satisfaction of one or more negotiators because it is confrontational and focused on the short term. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties and build lasting relationships.

Make sure you set aggressive negotiating goals and try to find creative ways to achieve the objectives of both parties, especially when you value the long-term relationship with the other party. That doesn’t mean sacrificing your self-interest; rather, it means trying to find creative solutions that give both parties what they really want.

What are the differences between the traditional and interactionist views of conflict? The traditionalist view of conflict is the belief that all conflict is harmful and must be avoided. The interactionist view of conflict encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil and cooperative group is prone to becoming static, apathetic and unresponsive to needs for change and innovation.

What are the three types of conflict and the three loci of conflict? Researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: task, relationship or process. Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work. Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships. Process conflict is about how the work gets done. Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional.

Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or where the 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.

Learning Objectives

Analyse different types and loci of conflict

Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining

Demonstrate understanding of how individual differences influence negotiations

jcu.edu.au

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/conflict-negotiation-2657.html

Conflict and negotiation are aspects of running a business. Business owners face conflict with partners, managers, employees and the general public. Negotiation is often necessary to create an amicable solution for all parties involved in the conflict. Many small or home-based businesses avoid internal conflict and negotiation because owners are primarily responsible for completing business functions. However, external conflict and negotiation occur for most companies in the business environment.

Facts

Conflict often occurs when individuals have different ideas, beliefs or theories regarding business operations. Business owners may also find conflict when bargaining with individuals or other businesses. Acquiring economic resources or other business assets often involves bargaining. Negotiation is the process of discussing each individual’s position about a topic and attempting to reach a solution that benefits both parties. Conflict and negotiation are usually more prevalent in larger business organizations since more individuals are involved in the company’s operations.

Features

Conflict and negotiation may result in several options being created to resolve difficult situations. Business owners might follow a few steps when processing discussion options and solutions: identifying the problem, analyzing the issue, creating different strategies or approaches, and acting on outcomes or ideas. These steps provide a logical process to follow when solving conflict and negotiation issues.

Function

Business owners can use conflict negotiation to create a more favourable outcome when dealing with a stronger party. Small businesses often have lower purchasing power or negotiating positions than larger organizations. Lower purchasing power often drives business owners to create the best situations for saving their company money while improving product quality and production output. Business owners ought to use negotiation to create relationships that provide their company with a competitive advantage over other businesses in the economic marketplace.

Considerations

According to the book “Getting to Yes,” business owners should develop their BATNA--"best alternative to negotiated agreement." Many business owners realize they cannot obtain all their requests during a conflict and negotiation process. Having a best alternative to negotiated agreement on hand ensures business owners receive as many concessions as possible during the negotiation process. However, these alternatives might create more conflict if they continually require the other party to give up more benefits.

Warning

The conflict and negotiation process can result in one party engaging in unethical behaviour. Small business owners may get caught up in this situation if they have little experience in conflict and negotiation. They must have the resolve to walk away from conflicts or negotiations that will result in unfavourable conditions for their company. Refusing to negotiate or reconcile conflicts can be difficult for small businesses looking to improve or advance business operations.

Introduction

Conflict is an inevitable part of every workplace and is also beneficial in certain contexts.

This topic will cover negotiation and how and when certain negotiation and conflict-resolution strategies may be used.

What is conflict? Do you agree that conflict is beneficial? How could conflict be beneficial in the workplace?

Type your answer in Chat

jcu.edu.au

http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/business-studies/organizational-conflict-is-inevitable-in-a-formal-organization-discuss.html

Organizational conflict is inevitable in a formal organization. Discuss. The above subject matter cannot be discussed without first elucidating on the key subjects viz: 'conflict' and 'formal organization'. The oxford dictionary of current English describes conflict as a lack of agreement between opinions another school of thought sees conflict as 'a state of dysfunctionality in a system'. What ever the case, conflict occurs in our everyday life either within a person when faced with problem and possible options and/ or with another individual either in a formal or informal setting. On the other hand, a formal organization is typically understood to be system/ group of people of coordinated and controlled activities that arise when work is embedded in complex networks of technical relations and boundary-spanning exchanges. In effect, organizational conflict can be described as the interaction of interdependent people who perceive incompatible goals and interference from each other in achieving those goals. This occurs in all formal settings. Disagreement between two or more parties who perceive that they have incompatible concern. Unlike the traditional view which sees conflict as being bad and as such should be avoided, the contemporary view sees conflict as neither inherently bad nor good but is inevitable in any formal setting.

https://www.mediate.com/articles/workedit2.cfm

Conflict is an inevitable fact of any organizations life. Organizations that accept this truism, do so for many different reasons, and those that do, are able to access the beneficial potential of conflict. The impetus to accept organizational conflict and work with it rather than against it, has, for the most part, been driven by the desire to avoid pain. The direct and indirect costs of conflict (not resolved or poorly resolved) has been a big motivator.

What is organisational conflict?

Organizational conflict can be described as the interaction of interdependent people who perceive incompatible goals and interference from each other in achieving those goals.

Occurs in all formal settings.

Traditional view

Sees conflict as bad and should be avoided.

Contemporary view

Sees conflict as neither inherently bad nor good, is inevitable in any formal setting.

Interactionist view encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil and cooperative group is prone to becoming static, apathetic and unresponsive to needs for change and innovation.

jcu.edu.au

http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/business-studies/organizational-conflict-is-inevitable-in-a-formal-organization-discuss.html

https://www.mediate.com/articles/workedit2.cfm

Types and loci of conflict

Conflict

Functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves its performances.

Dysfunctional conflict hinders group performance.

Types of conflict

Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work.

Relationship conflict based on interpersonal relationships. Almost always dysfunctional.

Process conflict over how work gets done and revolves around delegation and roles.

jcu.edu.au

On means of understanding conflict is to identify the type of disagreement, or what the conflict is about. Is it a disagreement about goals or 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: task, relationship or process. Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work. Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships. Process conflict is about how the work gets done.

Task conflict - Conflict over content and goals of the work.

Relationship conflict - Conflict based on interpersonal relationships.

Process conflict - Conflict over how work gets done.

Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional because the friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts often increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding, hindering the completion of organisational tasks. Relationship conflicts also appear to be the most psychologically exhausting to individuals. Because they revolve around personalities, relationship conflicts can be destructive—after all, we can’t expect to change our co-workers’ personalities and we more often take offence at criticisms about who we are than how we behave.

While relationship conflict seems primarily dysfunctional, there’s considerably less agreement about task and process conflicts. Early research suggested that task conflict within groups was associated with higher group performance, but a recent review of 116 studies found that task conflict was essentially unrelated to group performance. However, there were factors that could create a relationship between conflict and performance. One such factor related to the hierarchical level in the organisation where the conflict takes place. Task conflict among top management teams was positively associated with their performance, whereas conflict lower in the organisation was negatively associated with group performance. This review also found that it mattered whether other types of conflict occurred at the same time. If task and relationship conflict occurred together, task conflict was more likely negative, whereas if task conflict occurred alone, it was more likely positive. Finally, some scholars have argued that the strength of conflict is important—if task conflict is very low, people are less engaged with the important issues. However, high levels of task conflict encourage infighting that quickly degenerates into relationship conflict. So, moderate levels of task conflict are preferable. Supporting this argument, a study in China found that moderate levels of task conflict in the early development stage increased creativity in groups, but high levels decreased team performance.

Individual personality also appears to matter. One study demonstrated that teams of individuals who are, on average, high in openness and emotional stability are more able to turn task conflict into increased group performance. This could be because such team members can put task conflict in perspective and focus on how the variance in ideas can help solve the problem, rather than letting it degenerate into relationship conflicts.

Exhibit 13.1

Conflict and unit performance

Levels of conflict can be either too high or too low. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released and initiates the seeds of change, without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities.

jcu.edu.au

Before discussing the various types and loci of conflict, let’s define the term. There’s been no shortage of definitions for the term ‘conflict’, but common to most is the idea that conflict is based on perception. If no one is aware of a conflict, it’s generally agreed that no conflict exists. Also needed to begin the conflict process are opposition or incompatibility and some form of interaction.

Conflict, then, is a process that begins when someone perceives another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something the first party cares about. This definition is intentionally broad. It describes the point in any ongoing activity when an interaction ‘crosses over’ to become inter-party discord. It encompasses a wide range of conflicts experienced in organisations: incompatibility of goals, differences over interpretations of facts, disagreements based on behavioural expectations and the like. Finally, our definition is flexible enough to cover all levels of conflict—from overt and violent acts to subtle forms of disagreement.

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

There’s no consensus over the role of conflict in groups and organisations. In the past, researchers often argued about whether conflict was uniformly good or bad. Such simplistic views eventually gave way to a recognition that different types of conflict have different effects. This led to attempts to differentiate types of conflict. So, functional conflict is seen as a constructive form of conflict that supports the goals of the group and contributes to its performance. For example, a debate among members of a work team 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 seen as destructive or dysfunctional conflict. A highly personal struggle for control in a team that distracts from the task at hand is dysfunctional.

Functional conflict - Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance

Dysfunctional conflict - Conflict that hinders group performance.

Exhibit 13.1 provides an overview of the effects of conflict types. There’s a fine line between these two types of conflict, as shown by the conflict between Taylor Swift and Spotify; such disputes could functionally remind Spotify not to take all musicians for granted, although it would become dysfunctional if such conflicts intensify and damage both parties (perhaps leading to damaging publicity for both). So, it may not always be so straightforward to categorise functional or dysfunctional. Indeed, researchers have argued it is preferable to see some conflicts as quasi-functional, recognising that it’s often difficult to define the line between the two types of conflict. To understand different types of conflict, we need to look at the types of conflict and loci of conflict.

Types and loci of conflict

Loci (pronounce as ‘low-kai’) of conflict – where the conflict occurs.

Dyadic conflict occurs between two people.

Intragroup conflict occurs within a group or team.

Intergroup conflict occurs between different groups or teams.

jcu.edu.au

One

Researchers have found that process conflicts revolve around delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around shirking and conflicts over roles can leave some group members feeling marginalised. Thus, process conflicts often become highly personalised and quickly degenerate into relationship conflicts. It’s also true, of course, that arguing about how to do something takes time away from actually doing it. We’ve all been part of groups in which the arguments and debates about roles and responsibilities seem to go nowhere.

Loci of conflict

Dyadic conflict - Conflict that occurs between two people.

Exhibit 13.2

The conflict process

jcu.edu.au

The conflict process can be represented by different stages: (1) potential opposition or incompatibility, (2) cognition and personalisation, (3) intentions, (4) behaviour and (5) outcomes. The process is outlined in Exhibit 13.2.

Stage I: potential opposition or incompatibility

The first step in the conflict process is the appearance of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. They need not lead directly to conflict, but one of these conditions is necessary if conflict is to surface. For example, a recent survey found that most Australian family business owners don’t have succession plans in place for their retirement, highlighting a potential intragroup conflict within the firm and between family members when the leader retires and a new one must be found. For simplicity’s sake, these conditions (which can be seen as causes or sources of conflict) have been condensed into three general categories: communication, structure and personal variables.

Communication

Susan had worked in supply-chain management at a pharmaceutical company for three years. She enjoyed her work—largely because her boss, Andrew, was a great guy to work for. Then, six months ago, Andrew was promoted and Ronan took his place. Susan says her job is much more frustrating now. ‘Andrew and I were on the same wavelength. It’s not that way with Ronan. He tells me something and I do it. Then he tells me I did it wrong. I think he means one thing but says something else. It’s been like this since the day he arrived. I don’t think a day goes by when he isn’t yelling at me for something. You know, there are some people you just find it easy to communicate with. Well, Ronan isn’t one of them!’

Susan’s comments illustrate that communication can be a source of conflict.They show the opposing forces that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings and ‘noise’ in the communication channels.

Research suggests that differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and can contribute to conflict. In addition, too little communication is not the only problem. Although an increase in communication is functional up to a point, it’s possible to over-communicate, with a resultant increase in the potential for conflict. So, perhaps we should be more concerned with the quality, rather than the amount, of communication.

Structure

Rachael and Carly both work for a large discount furniture retailer. Rachael is a salesperson and Carly is the company credit manager. The two women have known each other for years and have much in common: they live within two blocks of each other and their oldest daughters attend the same school and are best friends. In reality, if Rachael and Carly had different jobs they might be best friends themselves, but these two women are constantly battling with each other. Rachael’s task is to sell furniture, which she does very well. But most of her sales are made on credit. Because Carly’s job is to ensure that the company minimises credit losses, she regularly refuses the credit applications from Rachael’s customers. It’s nothing personal between Rachael and Carly—the requirements of their jobs just bring them into conflict.

The conflict between Rachael and Carly is structural in nature. In this context, structure includes variables such as size, degree of specialisation in the tasks assigned to group members, jurisdictional clarity, member–goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems and the degree of dependence between groups. The larger the group and the more specialised its activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict. Tenure and conflict are inversely related, meaning that the longer a person stays with an organisation, the less likely conflict becomes. Therefore, the potential for conflict is greatest when group members are younger and when turnover is high.

Personal variables

We’ve all met people we immediately disliked. Perhaps we disagreed with their opinions. Even insignificant characteristics—the tone of their voice, a smirk when they smiled—annoyed us. When you work with such people, the potential for conflict is clear.

Personal variables include personality, emotions and values. Personality can play a role in the conflict process—some people just seem to foster conflict. In particular, people high in disagreeableness, neuroticism or self-monitoring are prone to tangle with other people more often and to react poorly when conflicts occur.16 Emotions can also cause conflict. An employee who arrives at work irate after a hectic morning commute may carry that anger into their 9 am meeting, potentially annoying their colleagues and contributing to a tension-filled meeting.17 Finally, conflict is likely to develop when people’s values are opposed.

Stage II: cognition and personalisation

If the stage I conditions negatively affect something one party cares about, then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualised in stage II.

As noted in our definition of conflict, one or more of the parties must be aware that antecedent conditions exist. However, a perceived conflict isn’t necessarily personalised. In other words: ‘A may be aware that B and A are in serious disagreement ... but it may not make A tense or anxious, and it may have no effect whatsoever on A’s affection towards B’. It’s during the felt conflict level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that parties experience anxiety, tension, frustration and/or hostility.

Perceived conflict - Awareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that can lead to conflict.

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

Stage II is important because this is where parties identify the issues and establish the nature of the conflict.19 Conflict definition is important as this helps identify possible settlements. Cooperative strategies are often appealing in interpersonal interactions unless there is a clear signal that you’re faced with a competitive person. However, if we seek a salary increase in what we perceive to be a zero-sum situation, (if I receive an increase in pay you believe there will be less in the salary pool for you), you’ll be less likely to support my increase than if we perceive a potential win–win situation (the whole salary pool might be increased so both of us could receive the increase we want).

Stage III: intentions

Intentions intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions and their overt behaviour. They are decisions to act in a given way.

Intentions - Decisions to act in a given way.

Intentions represent a distinct stage because a person must infer the other’s intent when responding to their behaviour. Conflicts can escalate simply because one party attributes inaccurate intentions to the other. There’s often considerable slippage between intentions and behaviour, so behaviour may not fully reflect someone’s intentions.

The conflict process

Stage I: potential opposition or incompatibility

The presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise.

Communication: word connotations, jargon, too little or too much, noise in channels, barriers to communication Ch 10.

Structure: tasks, jurisdictional clarity, member-goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, dependency between groups.

Personal variables: personality, emotions, values.

jcu.edu.au

What are the steps of the conflict process?

Stage I: Potential opposition or incompatibility—The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. These conditions have been condensed into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables.

The conflict process

Stage II: cognition and personalisation

Perceived conflict: aware of existence of conditions that can lead to conflict eg A aware that B and A are in serious disagreement, A is not tense or anxious and no effect on A’s affection towards B.

Felt conflict: emotional involvement (personalised) in a conflict that creates anxiety, tension, frustration or hostility.

Stage II is where parties identify the issues and establish the nature of the conflict.

jcu.edu.au

What are the steps of the conflict process?

Stage II: Cognition and personalisation—The antecedent conditions can lead to conflict only when one or more of the parties are affected by, and aware of, the conflict. Just because a conflict is perceived does not mean that it is personalised. It is important because it is where conflict issues tend to be defined.

The conflict process

Stage III: intentions – the decisions to act in a given way

Competing: satisfy own interests, regardless of impact on others.

Collaborating: want to satisfy the concerns of all parties.

Avoiding: withdraw or suppresses a conflict.

Accommodating: willing to put someone else’s interest above your own in a conflict.

Compromising: each party is willing to give up something.

What is your immediate reaction when face with conflict?

Type your answer in Chat

jcu.edu.au

Stage III: Intentions—Intentions are decisions to act in a given way. There are two dimensions—cooperativeness and assertiveness. Five conflict-handling intentions can be identified: 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).

Exhibit 13.3

Dimensions of conflict-handling intentions

Source: Figure from K. Thomas, ‘conflict and negotiation processes in organizations’, in M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology vol. 1 (2nd edn), CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, 1992, p. 668.

jcu.edu.au

Exhibit 13.3 identifies a model of the conflict-handling intentions. Based on two dimensions—cooperativeness (how far one party seeks to satisfy the other party’s concerns) and assertiveness (how far one party seeks to satisfy its own concerns)—five such intentions can be identified: (1) competing (assertive and uncooperative), (2) collaborating (assertive and cooperative), (3) avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), (4) accommodating (unassertive and cooperative) and (5) compromising (mid-range on both assertiveness and cooperativeness).

Competing - When one person seeks to satisfy their own interests, regardless of the impact on the other parties to the conflict, that person is competing. You compete when you place a bet that only one person can win, for example.

Competing - Seeking to satisfy your own interests, regardless of the impact on the other parties to the conflict.

Collaborating - When conflicting parties want to satisfy the concerns of all parties, cooperation emerges with a search for a mutually beneficial outcome. Collaborating parties intend to solve a problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating different points of view. Collaborators search for win–win solutions that allow everyone’s goals to be achieved.

Collaborating - When the parties to a conflict want to fully satisfy the concerns of all parties.

Avoiding - If someone recognises that a conflict exists, but wants to withdraw from or suppress it we call this avoiding. This includes trying to ignore the conflict and avoiding contact with others involved.

Avoiding - The desire to withdraw from or suppress a conflict.

Accommodating - An accommodating intention exists when someone is willing to place another party’s interests above their own, perhaps to prioritise their relationship. An example of this is supporting someone else’s opinion despite having reservations about it.

Accommodating - One party’s willingness to put someone else’s interests above their own in a conflict.

Compromising - When compromising, there’s no clear winner or loser. Rather, there’s a willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a solution that provides incomplete satisfaction of all parties’ concerns. So, the distinguishing characteristic of compromise is that everyone gives up something.

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

Intentions aren’t always fixed. During the course of a conflict, intentions might change if the parties can see each other’s point of view or respond emotionally to each other’s behaviour. However, research indicates that people do have their own preferred conflict-handling intentions and tend to be quite consistent in this. Intentions can be predicted rather well from a combination of intellectual and personality characteristics.

The conflict process

Stage IV: behaviour

Stage where conflict becomes visible.

Includes the statements, actions and reactions made by the conflicting parties. Overt attempts to implement one’s intention.

Conflict management (next slide)

Exhibit 13.4

Conflict-intensity continuum

Sources: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974, pp. 93–7; and F. Giasi, ‘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, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1982, pp. 119–40.

jcu.edu.au

Stage IV: Behaviour—The behaviour stage includes the statements, actions and reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviours are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions.

When most people think of conflict situations, they tend to focus on stage IV because this is where conflict becomes visible. The behaviour stage includes the statements, actions and reactions made by the conflicting parties, often as overt attempts to implement their own intentions. As a result of miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviours sometimes deviate from these original intentions.23

Exhibit 13.5

Conflict-management techniques

Source: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974.

jcu.edu.au

If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what options exist if conflict is too low and needs to be increased? This brings us to conflict-management techniques. Exhibit 13.5 lists some resolution and stimulation techniques that can help managers control conflict levels. Some of these resemble conflict-handling intentions. This shouldn’t be surprising. Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions would translate into comparable behaviours.

https://www.hrpersonality.com/resources/conflict-management-techniques

A conflict is a situation when the interests, needs, goals or values of involved parties interfere with one another. In the workplace, conflicts are common and inevitable. Different stakeholders may have different priorities; conflicts may involve team members, departments, projects, organization and client, boss and subordinate, organization needs vs. personal needs. Often, a conflict is a result of perception. Is conflict a bad thing? Not necessarily. Often, a conflict presents opportunities for improvement. Therefore, it is important to understand (and apply) various conflict resolution techniques.

Forcing

Also known as competing. An individual firmly pursues his or her own concerns despite resistance from the other person. This may involve pushing one viewpoint at the expense of another or maintaining firm resistance to another person’s actions.

Examples of when forcing may be appropriate:

In certain situations when all other, less forceful methods, don’t work or are ineffective

When you need to stand up for your own rights, resist aggression or pressure

When a quick resolution is required and using force is justified (e.g. in a life-threatening situation, to stop aggression)

As a last resort to resolve a long-standing conflict

Possible advantages of forcing:

May provide a quick resolution to a conflict

Increases self-esteem and draws respect when firm resistance or actions were the response to aggression or hostility

Some caveats of forcing:

May negatively affect your relationship with the opponent in the long run

May cause the opponent to react in the same way, even if the opponent did not intend to be forceful originally

Cannot take advantage of the strong sides of the other side’s position

Taking this approach may require a lot of energy and be exhausting to some individuals

Win-Win (Collaborating)

Also known as confronting the problem or problem solving. Collaboration involves an attempt to work with the other person to find a win-win solution to the problem at hand - the one that most satisfies the concerns of both parties. The win-win approach sees conflict resolution as an opportunity to come to a mutually beneficial result. It includes identifying your opponent’s underlying concerns and finding an alternative which meets each party's concerns.

Examples of when collaborating may be appropriate:

When consensus and commitment of other parties is important

In a collaborative environment

When addressing the interests of multiple stakeholders is required

When a high level of trust is present

When a long-term relationship is important

When you need to work through hard feelings, animosity, etc.

When you don't want to take full responsibility

Possible advantages of collaborating:

Leads to solving the actual problem

Leads to a win-win outcome

Reinforces mutual trust and respect

Builds a foundation for effective collaboration in the future

Shared responsibility of the outcome

You earn a reputation as a good negotiator

For those involved, the outcome of the conflict resolution is less stressful (however, the process of finding and establishing a win-win solution may be very involved – see the caveats below)

Some caveats of collaborating:

Requires a commitment from all parties to look for a mutually acceptable solution

May require more effort and more time than some other methods. A win-win solution may not be evident

For the same reason, collaborating may not be practical when timing is crucial and a quick solution or fast response is required

Once one or more parties lose their trust in an opponent, the relationship falls back to other methods of conflict resolution. Therefore, all involved parties must continue collaborative efforts to maintain a collaborative relationship

Compromising

Also known as reconciling. Compromising looks for an expedient and mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties.

Examples of when compromise may be appropriate:

When the goals are moderately important and not worth the use of more assertive or more involved approaches, such as forcing or collaborating

To reach temporary settlement on complex issues

To reach expedient solutions on important issues

As a first step when the involved parties do not know each other well or haven’t yet developed a high level of mutual trust

When collaborating or forcing do not work

Possible advantages of compromise:

Faster issue resolution. Compromising may be more practical when time is a factor

Can provide a temporary solution while still looking for a win-win solution

Lowers the levels of tension and stress resulting from the conflict

Some caveats of using compromise:

May result in a situation where both parties are not satisfied with the outcome (a lose-lose situation)

Does not contribute to building trust in the long run

May require close monitoring and control to ensure the agreements are met

Withdrawing

Also known as avoiding. This is when a person neither pursues their own concerns nor those of their opponent. He or she does not address the conflict but sidesteps, postpones or simply withdraws.

Examples of when withdrawing may be appropriate:

When the issue is trivial and not worth the effort

When more important issues are pressing, and you don't have time to deal with it

In situations where postponing the response is beneficial to you, for example -

When it is not the right time or place to confront the issue

When you need time to think and collect information before you act (e.g. if you are unprepared or taken by surprise)

When you see no chance of getting your concerns met or you would have to put forth unreasonable effort

When you would have to deal with hostility

When you are unable to handle the conflict (e.g. if you are too emotionally involved or others can handle it better)

Possible advantages of withdrawing:

When the opponent is forcing or attempts aggression, you may choose to withdraw and postpone your response until you are in a more favorable circumstance for you to push back

Withdrawing is a low stress approach when the conflict is short

Gives the ability/time to focus on more important or more urgent issues instead

Gives you time to better prepare and collect information before you act

Some caveats of withdrawing:

May lead to weakening or losing your position; not acting may be interpreted as an agreement. Using withdrawing strategies without negatively affecting your own position requires certain skill and experience

When multiple parties are involved, withdrawing may negatively affect your relationship with a party that expects your action

Smoothing

Also known as accommodating. Smoothing is accommodating the concerns of other people first, rather than prioritizing one’s own concerns.

Examples of when smoothing may be appropriate:

When it is important to provide a temporary relief from conflict or buy time until you are in a better position to respond or push back

When the issue is not as important to you as it is to the other person

When you accept that you are wrong

When you have no choice or when continued conflict would be detrimental

Possible advantages of smoothing:

In some cases smoothing will help to protect more important interests while giving up on some less important ones

Gives an opportunity to reassess the situation from a different angle

As a rule, does not require much effort

Some caveats of smoothing:

The risk of being abused is real, i.e. the opponent may try to constantly take advantage of your tendency toward smoothing/accommodating. Therefore, it is important to maintain the right balance and this requires some skill

May negatively affect your confidence in your ability to respond to an aggressive opponent

Makes it more difficult to transition to a win-win solution in the future

Some of your supporters may not like your smoothing response and be turned off

The conflict process

Stage V: outcomes

Functional outcomes: improve group’s performance, improves quality of decisions, stimulates creativity and innovation.

Dysfunctional outcomes: uncontrolled opposition, discontent, dissolve common ties, destruction of the group.

Managing conflict

Ask if there really is a disagreement.

Clarify the factors that are important , focus on how to meet top needs.

Discuss differences of opinion openly, ready to manage conflict when it arises.

Emphasise shared interests.

jcu.edu.au

Stage V: Outcomes—Outcomes may be functional in that the conflict results in an improvement in the group’s performance, or dysfunctional in that it hinders group performance. Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of decisions, stimulates creativity and innovation and so on. Dysfunctional outcomes, such as uncontrolled opposition, breed discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. Among the more undesirable consequences are a retarding of communication, reductions in group cohesiveness and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting between members.

Negotiation

Negotiation is defined as a process that occurs when two or more parties decide how to allocate scarce resources.

Every negotiation in the organisation affects the relationship between the negotiators and the way they feel about themselves.

‘Negotiation’ and ‘bargaining’ are often used interchangeably.

Bargaining strategies

Distributive bargaining

Fixed pie

Integrative bargaining

jcu.edu.au

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-distributive-bargaining-integrative-bargaining-11582.html

When you’re a business owner, it’s inevitable that you will have to engage in some type of negotiation, whether it involves your employees, a vendor, a customer or a potential investor. The challenge, however, is that if you don’t enter into those negotiations with a strong strategy, you will likely settle for less and will get less than you settled for, which is a losing situation. That’s why it's important to understand the differences between distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining, because it can help you decide which strategy to pursue, based on the stance taken by the person or the people involved in the negotiation.

Distributive Bargaining Elements

There are some instances in which you are negotiating for what are known as fixed resources, which typically means the price of a product or service. In these situations, you may need to adopt a distributive bargaining strategy, which is based on the idea that your gain means the other party’s loss. In other words, your goal is to negotiate in such a way that when you reach an agreement, you have given up less than the other party. Your goal is to win as much as you can during the negotiation, and, typically, that means that the other party has to give up something.

There is not enough for everyone to get what they want, so when one side gets something, the other side loses something. For example, let’s say a vendor’s “walk-away” price for a service is $5,000, but your “walk away” price is $4,800. Your goal is to get the vendor as close to your walk away price as possible without blowing the deal. If you get that vendor to agree to $4750, that vendor loses $250 and you lose $50, which means you gave up less than the other party.

Integrative Bargaining Elements

There are some negotiations in which it’s in your interest to find a solution in which both parties feel as if they gained something in the deal. This is known as integrative bargaining, and the best way to think about this strategy is that it’s a “win-win” for both parties. The idea is that you’re negotiating in such a way that you take the other party’s wants, needs, fears, and concerns into the equation. Instead of simply worrying about losing less than the other party, you are looking for a solution in which both parties have to give up something to finalize the deal.

Using the previous illustration of negotiating with a vendor, integrative bargaining would seek to ensure that both you and the vendor lost an equal amount. With that in mind, you would agree to a price of $4,900, which means that the vendor loses $100 in the negotiation, and you also lose $100. You would both leave the negotiation table, with both of you feeling that you compromised but took each other’s wants and needs into consideration.

Difference Between Distributive and Integrative Bargaining

The primary difference between these two bargaining strategies is that in distributive bargaining, you don’t take the other party’s needs into consideration when making a deal. You are simply concerned with losing less than the other party, and all your focus is on getting a better deal than the other side.

In contrast, integrative bargaining begins with the assumption that both parties need to feel as if they gave up an equal amount or that they compromised equally to complete a deal. Distributive bargaining is often filled with conflict, because both parties maintain an intractable position in their attempt to lose less than the other side. Integrative bargaining is typically less fraught with tension, as both sides enter the negotiation with the willingness to compromise to achieve a consensus.

Exhibit 13.6

Distributive versus integrative bargaining

jcu.edu.au

What are the differences between distributive and integrative bargaining? Distributive bargaining is negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources; a win–lose situation. Integrative bargaining is negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win–win solution. These approaches to bargaining differ in their goal and motivation, focus, interests, information sharing and duration of relationship.

How do individual differences influence negotiations? Personality, moods, emotions, culture and gender can influence negotiations. Personality traits, such as those of extroverts and agreeable people, are less successful at distributive negotiation. In contrast, disagreeable introverts are best at this type of negotiation. Intelligence is also a weak indicator of bargaining effectiveness.

The way moods and emotions work depends on the emotion as well as the context. A negotiator who shows anger generally induces concessions, for instance, because the other negotiator believes no further concessions from the angry party are possible. One factor that governs this outcome, however, is power—you should show anger in negotiations only if you have at least as much power as your counterpart.

Culturally, it appears that people generally negotiate more effectively within cultures than between them. For example, a Colombian is apt to negotiate more successfully with a Colombian than with a Sri Lankan. Second, it appears that in cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially important that the negotiators be high in openness. This suggests choosing cross-cultural negotiators who are high on openness to experience, but also avoiding factors—such as time pressures—that tend to inhibit learning to understand the other party.

With gender, men and women negotiate the same way, but they may experience different outcomes. Women and men take on gender stereotypes in negotiations such as tender and tough, respectively. In addition, women are less likely to negotiate.

What are the roles and functions of third-party negotiations? There are three basic third-party roles:

Mediator—a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning, persuasion and suggestions for alternatives

Arbitrator—a third party to a negotiation who has the authority to dictate an agreement

Conciliator—a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent.

The two general approaches to negotiation are distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining.40 These differ in goal, motivation, interests, focus, information sharing and relationship duration. Exhibit 13.6 defines both approaches and illustrates the differences.

Check your conceptual understanding

In your own words,

Explain the different types of conflict in the workplace. Provide an example of a type of organisational conflict you have explained.

How is distributive bargaining different from integrative bargaining?

To answer go to:

jcu.edu.au

The bargaining zone

Exhibit 13.7 Staking out the bargaining zone

Target point = what each party would like to achieve.

Resistance point = the lowest outcome that is acceptable. The point below which the party would break off negotiations rather than accept a less favourable settlement.

Bargaining tactics

Powerful individuals engaging in distributive bargaining are more likely to make initial and aggressive offers, speak first at meetings and thereby gain an advantage.

A savvy negotiator sets an anchor with their initial offer, and many negotiation studies show that this greatly favours the person who sets it.

Another distributive bargaining tactic is setting a deadline.

jcu.edu.au

The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 13.7. Parties A and B represent two negotiators. Each has a target point that defines what they would like to achieve. Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest outcome that’s acceptable—that is, the point below which the party would break off negotiations rather than accept a less favourable settlement. The area between these two points makes up each party’s aspiration range. As long as there’s some overlap between A’s and B ’s aspiration ranges, a settlement range exists in which each party’s aspirations can be met.

Powerful individuals engaging in distributive bargaining are more likely to make initial and aggressive offers, speak first at meetings and thereby gain an advantage. One reason for this is the anchoring bias. As people tend to fixate on initial information, it’s difficult to adjust an anchoring point, no matter what subsequent information is provided. A savvy negotiator sets an anchor with their initial offer, and many negotiation studies show that this greatly favours the person who sets it.

Imagine that you’ve been offered a job and your prospective employer asks you what starting salary you want. This may seem like a great gift—you have a chance to set an anchor and can ask for the best salary you think the employer could reasonably offer. Demanding a million dollars would only make most of us look ridiculous, which is why we suggest the need to be reasonable. However, people are often over-cautious, afraid of scaring off the employer and settling for too little. It is possible to scare off an employer and most employers don’t like candidates to be too assertive in salary negotiations, but liking isn’t the same as doing what it takes to hire or retain someone. So, what often happens is that people ask for less than they could have received.

Another distributive bargaining tactic is setting a deadline. Erin is a human resources manager, negotiating salary with Ron, a highly sought-after new hire. Because Ron knows the company needs him, he asks for a high salary and many benefits. Erin tells Ron that the company can’t meet his requirements. Ron responds that he will think things over. Worried that the company is going to lose Ron to a competitor, Erin introduces time pressure, explaining that, if they don’t reach agreement, she’ll have to offer the job to someone else. Such deadlines can hurry concessions from their negotiating counterparts, making them reconsider their position. And even though some negotiators don’t think this tactic works, in reality negotiators who impose deadlines do better.

The negotiation process

Preparation and planning

“Best ALTERNATIVE TO a negotiated agreement” (BATNA)

Represent the point at which a party would seek an alternative solution or ”walk away point”.

Definition of ground rules – who, where, time constraints, issues, procedures, exchange initial proposals or demands.

Clarification and justification – informing stage; explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, justify original demands.

Bargaining and problem solving – actual give-and-take, make concessions.

Closure and implementation – formalise the agreement.

jcu.edu.au

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-negotiation-the-five-steps-of-the-negotiation-process.html

Companies have to negotiate in numerous areas of organizational conflict. Negotiation is an open process for two parties to find an acceptable solution to a complicated conflict. There are five steps to the negotiation process.

Negotiation

The Ninja Corporation has one of the largest factories on the East Coast. Every five years, the company puts out a request for bids for businesses to clean and paint the factory floor. Once a contractor is selected, Ninja Corporation starts a negotiation process in order to facilitate the best price and service on this massive undertaking. Negotiation is an open process for two parties to find an acceptable solution to a complicated conflict. There are some specific conditions where negotiation will achieve the best results:

When the conflict consists of two or more parties or groups

A major conflict of interest exists between both parties

All parties feel that the negotiation will lead to a better outcome

All parties want to work together, instead of having a dysfunctional conflict situation

Ninja Corporation has received numerous bids for the factory painting job. The company has decided to enter negotiations with Wet Paint Biz. There are five steps to the negotiation process, which are:

Preparation and planning

Definition of ground rules

Clarification and justification

Bargaining and problem solving

Closure and implementation

Wet Paint Biz and Ninja Corporation are starting to get organized for the big negotiation meeting that will be held at the local town office.

https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/batna

What BATNAs Are

BATNA is a term coined by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their 1981 bestseller, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In.[1] It stands for "Best ALTERNATIVE TO a negotiated agreement." Said another way, it is the best you can do if the other person refuses to negotiate with you--if they tell you to "go jump in a lake!" or "Get lost!" So it is not necessarily your ideal outcome--unless your ideal outcome is something you can get without the cooperation of the other person. It is the best you can do WITHOUT THEM.

BATNAs are critical to negotiation because you cannot make a wise decision about whether to accept a negotiated agreement unless you know what your alternatives are. If you are offered a used car for $7,500, but there's an even better one at another dealer for $6,500--the $6,500 car is your BATNA. Another term for the same thing is your "walk away point." If the seller doesn't drop her price below $6,500, you will WALK AWAY and buy the other car.

Your BATNA "is the only standard which can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept."[2] In the simplest terms, if the proposed agreement is better than your BATNA, then you should accept it. If the agreement is not better than your BATNA, then you should reopen negotiations. If you cannot improve the agreement, then you should at least consider withdrawing from the negotiations and pursuing your alternative (though the relational costs of doing that must be considered as well).

Having a good BATNA increases your negotiating power. If you know you have a good alternative, you do not need to concede as much, because you don't care as much if you get a deal. You can also push the other side harder. If your options are slim or non existent, the other person can make increasing demands, and you'll likely decide to accept them--because you don't have a better option, no matter how unattractive the one on the table is becoming. Therefore, it is important to improve your BATNA whenever possible. If you have a strong one, it is worth revealing it to your opponent. If you have a weak one, however, it is better to keep that detail hidden.

"The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating. What are those results? What is that alternative? What is your BATNA -- your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement?

Exhibit 13.8

The negotiation process

jcu.edu.au

Exhibit 13.8 illustrates a simple model of the negotiation process. It defines five steps: (1) preparation and planning, (2) definition of ground rules, (3) clarification and justification, (4) bargaining and problem solving and (5) closure and implementation.

Preparation and planning

Before negotiating, always do your homework. What’s the nature of the conflict? What’s the history leading up to this negotiation? Who is involved and what are their perceptions of the conflict? What do you want from the negotiation? What are your goals? For example, if you’re a supply manager at Dell and your goal is to coax a large cost reduction from your computer keyboard supplier, ensure this goal stays paramount in your discussions and isn’t obscured by other concerns (but do try to be open to integrative factors—there’s a thin line between positive focus and closed stubbornness). It often helps to put your goals in writing and develop a range of outcomes—from ‘most hopeful’ to ‘minimally acceptable’—to keep your attention focused.

You also need to assess what you think are the other party’s goals. What are they likely to ask for? How entrenched is their position likely to be? What intangible or hidden interests may be important to them? What might they be willing to settle on? When you can anticipate their position, you’re better equipped to counter arguments with facts and figures that support your position.

Negotiations do change relationships, so take that into consideration. If you can only ‘win’ a negotiation by pushing the other party into resentment, it may be wiser to demand a little less. If preserving the relationship will make you seem weak and easily exploited, you may prefer a more aggressive style, although ethics also complicate such decisions. Returning to employment negotiations, people who feel good about the process of job offer negotiations are more likely to be satisfied in their job and less likely to leave early, regardless of the negotiation outcomes. Employers who insist on terms of employment that satisfy them, but not the new hire, endanger the long-term employment relationship.

Once you’ve gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy. For example, expert chess players decide in advance how they will respond to many situations. To guide your strategy, try to determine your and their Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Your BATNA determines the level at which you would ‘walk away’ from the negotiations. For example, if you’re buying a house and your BATNA is $100 000, but this is too low for the vendor, your BATNA might be to remain in your current house or choose to rent a property. So, any offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than an impasse. Conversely, don’t expect success if your offer doesn’t exceed the other party’s BATNA. It’s not easy to identify other people’s BATNA and, although it’s unlikely that you can change someone’s BATNA during negotiations, you might over- or under-estimate it. People who under-estimate their opponent’s willingness to give in on key issues before the negotiation even starts, end up with lower outcomes from a negotiation.

BATNA - The Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement, representing the point at which a party would seek an alternative solution.

Definition of ground rules

After your planning and strategy formulation, you’re ready to begin defining the ground rules and procedures of the negotiation with the other party. Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints, if any, will apply? What issues will be included? What procedures would be used if an impasse is reached? During this phase, the parties also exchange their initial proposals or demands.

Clarification and justification

After clarifying initial positions, both you and the other party can explain, amplify, clarify, bolster and justify your original demands. This needn’t be confrontational. Rather, it’s an opportunity for educating and informing each other on the issues, why these are important and how you arrived at your initial demands. You can also introduce any documentation that supports your position.

Bargaining and problem solving

The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give-and-take in trying to work out an agreement. This is where both parties normally make concessions.

Closure and implementation

The final step in the negotiation process is formalising the agreement and developing and supervising the procedures necessary for implementation and monitoring. For major negotiations—from worker-management negotiations to bargaining over lease terms, buying real estate or negotiating a job offer for a senior management position—this requires finalising the specifics contractually. In many cases, closure is simply marked by a handshake.

Individual differences in negotiation effectiveness

Personality traits in negotiation

Overall agreeableness is weakly related to the negotiation outcome.

The degree to which agreeableness, and personality affects negotiation outcomes depends on situations. Eg how much the person reacts to one who is assertive, enthusiastic, cooperative, compliant, warmth or show empathy.

Agreeable individuals react more positively and experience less stress in integrative negotiations than in distributive ones.

In distributive negotiations, extraverted negotiators do less well because they tend to give away too much information.

No strong effect that intelligence predicts negotiation effectiveness.

We can all learn to be better negotiators, whatever out personality or intelligence.

jcu.edu.au

Research does suggest that intelligence predicts negotiation effectiveness, but, as with personality, the effects aren’t very strong.This suggests that you’re not severely disadvantaged, even if you’re an agreeable extravert with relatively low intelligence, when it’s time to negotiate. A key message here is that we can all probably learn to be better negotiators, whatever our personality or intelligence.

Moods and emotions can influence negotiations, but it depends on the emotion and the context. For example, a negotiator who shows anger can induce concessions, if the other negotiator believes concessions from the angry party are less likely.

Culture also influences how we negotiate. However, when considering success, it’s not as simple as ‘US negotiators are the best’. Once again, this depends on the context.

So, what can we say about culture and negotiation? First, people generally seem to negotiate more effectively within cultures than between them. So, a Colombian is apt to negotiate more successfully with another Colombian than with a Sri Lankan. Second, when negotiating cross-culturally, it’s important for negotiators to be high in openness. This suggests it’s a good strategy to choose cross-cultural negotiators who are high in openness to experience and to avoid factors such as time pressure that can inhibit learning about the other party.

Finally, because emotions are culturally sensitive, negotiators need to be especially aware of emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiations. For example, one study compared how US and Chinese negotiators reacted to an angry counterpart. The Chinese negotiators increasingly applied distributive negotiating tactics when the other party expressed anger, while US negotiators decreased such tactics. So, Chinese negotiators responded to anger by driving a harder bargain and US negotiators capitulated somewhat. This could be because individuals from East-Asian cultures feel that anger isn’t a legitimate negotiation tactic, so they refuse to cooperate with angry parties.

There are many areas of organisational behaviour in which men and women aren’t that different. Negotiation isn’t one of them. It now seems fairly clear that men and women negotiate differently and these differences affect outcomes.

A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative and pleasant in negotiations than men. Although controversial, there’s some merit to this assumption. Men tend to place more value on status, power and recognition, whereas women tend to value compassion and altruism more. Women also tend to value relationship outcomes more than men do, and men emphasise economic outcomes more than women do.

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/uncategorized/in-negotiation-how-much-do-personality-and-other-individual-differences-matter/

Negotiation styles vary has a lot to do with gender and cultural differences. We know, for example, that men tend to negotiate more often than women for career opportunities in certain environments, a gender difference that contributes to inequities overtime. Similarly, personality traits such as agreeableness and extraversion could harm you or help you depending on what country you’re negotiating in. What other differences could potentially lead to different negotiating outcomes?

Here’s a list of five major areas in which people differ from one another, identified in the Journal of Research in Personality article by Hillary Anger Elfenbein (Washington University in St. Louis), Jared R. Curhan And Lucio Baccaro (Massachusetts Institute Of Technology), Noah Eisenkraft (University Of Pennsylvania), and Aiwa Shirako(University of California at Berkeley):

Positive beliefs about negotiation, such as comfort with negotiation skills and the belief that you can improve.

Conflict style, such as the inclination to collaborate rather than compete, and ethical tendencies, including willingness to make false promises.

Intelligence and creativity, as measured by diagnostic tests.

Personality traits, including conscientiousness, openness, and self-esteem.

Observable characteristics, such as gender, age, and physical attractiveness.

Do such differences predict negotiation outcomes, and if so, to what degree? To answer these questions, Elfenbein and colleagues subjected a group of nearly 150 MBA students to a battery of surveys that measured these differences.

Next, the students were divided into groups of four or five. Group Members then negotiated in pairs until each group member had engaged in a different simulation (including a merger and a car purchase scenario) with every other member, and each person’s ability to claim and create value was scored. This Round-robin method allowed the researchers to assess how consistently individuals behaved across several negotiations.

The final results? A whopping 46% of scoring variations could be tied to consistent individual performance differences across interactions. In other words, differences among negotiators were responsible for almost half of their outcomes. These differences influenced both their own behavior and their counterparts reactions—and mattered a great deal to the outcome of their negotiations.

Individual differences in negotiation effectiveness

Moods/emotions in negotiation

Moods and emotions can influence negotiations, but it depends on the emotion and the context.

For example, a negotiator who shows anger can induce concessions, if the other negotiator believes concessions from the angry party are less likely.

Outcome is influenced by power and how genuine is the anger. If angry negotiators have less power, anger can provoke “hardball” reactions.

A negotiator who perceives disappointment from their counterpart may concede more if disappointment makes the other party feel guilty.

Anxious negotiators expect lower outcomes, respond to offers more quickly and exit he bargaining process more quickly, leading to poor outcomes.

Emotions, especially negative ones, matter to negotiations.

jcu.edu.au

Culture also influences how we negotiate. However, when considering success, it’s not as simple as ‘US negotiators are the best’. Once again, this depends on the context.

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/uncategorized/in-negotiation-how-much-do-personality-and-other-individual-differences-matter/

Positive beliefs about negotiation, such as comfort with negotiation skills and the belief that you can improve.

Conflict style, such as the inclination to collaborate rather than compete, and ethical tendencies, including willingness to make false promises.

Intelligence and creativity, as measured by diagnostic tests.

Personality traits, including conscientiousness, openness, and self-esteem.

Observable characteristics, such as gender, age, and physical attractiveness.

Individual differences in negotiation effectiveness

Culture in negotiations

People generally seem to negotiate more effectively within cultures than between them.

When negotiating cross-culturally, it’s important for negotiators to be high in openness.

Be aware of emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiations. Eg. Chinese negotiators respond to anger by driving a harder bargain than US negotiators, ie applied distributive negotiating tactics.

jcu.edu.au

Culture also influences how we negotiate. However, when considering success, it’s not as simple as ‘US negotiators are the best’. Once again, this depends on the context.

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/uncategorized/in-negotiation-how-much-do-personality-and-other-individual-differences-matter/

Positive beliefs about negotiation, such as comfort with negotiation skills and the belief that you can improve.

Conflict style, such as the inclination to collaborate rather than compete, and ethical tendencies, including willingness to make false promises.

Intelligence and creativity, as measured by diagnostic tests.

Personality traits, including conscientiousness, openness, and self-esteem.

Observable characteristics, such as gender, age, and physical attractiveness.

Individual differences in negotiation effectiveness

Gender differences in negotiations

men and women negotiate differently, and these differences affect outcomes.

A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative and pleasant in negotiations than men.

Men tend to place more value on status, power and recognition, whereas women tend to value compassion.

Women also tend to value relationship outcomes more than men do.

Men emphasise economic outcomes more than women do.

jcu.edu.au

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/uncategorized/in-negotiation-how-much-do-personality-and-other-individual-differences-matter/

Positive beliefs about negotiation, such as comfort with negotiation skills and the belief that you can improve.

Conflict style, such as the inclination to collaborate rather than compete, and ethical tendencies, including willingness to make false promises.

Intelligence and creativity, as measured by diagnostic tests.

Personality traits, including conscientiousness, openness, and self-esteem.

Observable characteristics, such as gender, age, and physical attractiveness.

Negotiating in a social context

The negotiation becomes far more complex when there are multiple parties in the negotiation.

Reputation: trustworthy, integrity, competence, self-confidence reputation opens door to integrative negotiations that benefit both parties.

Relationships especially important for repeated negotiations.

jcu.edu.au

https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/negotiation-strategic-planning-social-context/

A negotiator must understand the social context of the negotiation. Negotiation occurs in a context of rules, such as customs, habits, situations, cultural norms, religious doctrine, laws, and political pressures. Understanding the social constraints on the negotiation, particularly social pressures, is extremely important. The negotiation becomes far more complex when there are multiple parties in the negotiation. Team negotiations involve multiple individuals representing each negotiating party. Multiple parties often lead to the formation of factions and coalitions. Negotiators may also have constituents whom they serve in the negotiation. Multiparty or team negotiations is discussed in detail in Ch. 10. The following sample questions may be useful in understanding the social context:

• Are there team dynamics at stake on either side of the negotiation? • Are there any third parties of interest, such as constituents represented in the negotiation? • Will anyone else be affected by the negotiation outcome? • Is there a prior relationship between the parties? • Will the relationship be affected by the outcome of the negotiation? • What social norms, customs, or rituals apply to the negotiation? • Are there legal or political pressures at stake?

Negotiating in a social context

So far we’ve mostly focused on negotiations between parties who meet only once and in isolation from other individuals. In organisations, however, many negotiations are open-ended and public. When you try to figure out who in a work group should do a tedious task, negotiate with your boss about an international assignment or request additional project funds, there’s a social component to the negotiation. You often negotiate with someone you already know and will work with again, so the negotiation and its outcome are likely to be discussed by other people. To understand negotiations in practice, then, we must consider the social factors of reputation and relationships.

Reputation

Your reputation is the way other people think and talk about you. When it comes to negotiation, having a reputation for being trustworthy matters. Trust opens the door to many forms of integrative negotiation strategies that benefit both parties. One way to build trust is to behave honestly across repeated interactions as others will then feel more comfortable making more open-ended offers. This helps achieve win–win outcomes, as both parties can work to achieve their own ends, while still benefitting the other party.

Sometimes our level of trust is based on word-of-mouth about a person’s characteristics. Which characteristics help a person develop a trustworthy reputation? Competence and integrity certainly help. In addition, negotiators higher in self-confidence and cognitive ability are seen as more competent and are more credible when they suggest solutions to impasses. Individuals who have a reputation for integrity can also be effective negotiators. They’re seen as more likely to keep their promises and present information accurately, so others are more willing to accept their promises. This opens more options for the negotiator than for someone seen as untrustworthy. Finally, individuals with solid reputations are better liked and have more friends and allies, and such social resources may give them more implicit power in negotiations.

Relationships

There’s more to repeated negotiations than just reputation. The social component of relationships with repeated negotiations encourages individuals to not only value what’s good for themselves, but to consider what’s best for the other party and the relationship as a whole.78 Repeated negotiations built on a foundation of trust also broaden the range of options because a favour or concession today can be reciprocated further down the road. Repeated negotiations also facilitate integrative problem solving, partly because people begin to see their negotiation partners more personally over time and come to share emotional bonds.

In summary, it’s clear that effective negotiators need to think beyond the outcome of a single interaction. Negotiators who consistently act in a way that demonstrates competence, honesty and integrity usually have better long-term outcomes.

Third-party negotiations

To date, we’ve discussed bargaining in terms of direct negotiations. Occasionally, however, negotiators reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve their differences through direct negotiations. In such cases, they may turn to a third party to help find a solution. There are three basic third-party roles: mediator, arbitrator and conciliator.

A mediator is a trusted third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by opening communication channels, helping the parties to understand each other and find possible solutions. Mediators are often used in worker-management negotiations and they can be impressively effective in terms of settlement rates and negotiator satisfaction. Once again situational variables are key to whether or not mediation will succeed. The conflicting parties must be motivated to bargain and resolve their conflict and mediation is most effective under moderate levels of conflict intensity. Finally, perceptions of the mediator are important: to be effective, the mediator must be perceived as trustworthy, neutral and non-coercive.

Mediator - A trusted third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by maintaining communication between conflicting parties.

An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate a settlement. Arbitration can be voluntary (requested by the parties) or compulsory (required by law or contract). The big plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a settlement. Whether or not there’s a negative side depends on how heavy-handed the arbitrator appears. If one party is left feeling overwhelmingly defeated, that party will be dissatisfied and unlikely to graciously accept the arbitrator’s decision. Therefore, the conflict may resurface at a later time.

Arbitrator - A third party to a negotiation who has the authority to dictate a settlement.

Conciliation is similar to mediation, but there’s a difference. While mediators seek to focus on a specific dispute, helping the parties to reach a mutually acceptable settlement, a conciliator has a broader purpose. Although they work with parties to a specific conflict, they often seek to uncover a violated right and are more likely to suggest solutions than mediators. They also engage in fact-finding, interpret messages and persuade disputants to develop agreements. We can see this as a little less formal than arbitration, but more formal than mediation. The Australian Human Rights Commission uses conciliation, rather than courts, to address complaints. So, conciliation is organised officially (by the commission), but does not guarantee a solution (unresolved cases may progress to the courts).

Conciliator - A neutral third party who provides a communication link between conflicting parties.

Negotiating in a social context

Third-party negotiations used when negotiators reach a stalemate and unable to resolve their differences through direct negotiations.

Mediator: a trusted third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by maintaining communication between conflicting parties.

Arbitrator: A third party to a negotiation who has the authority to dictate a settlement.

Conciliator: A neutral third party who provides a communication link between conflicting parties.

jcu.edu.au

https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/negotiation-strategic-planning-social-context/

Negotiating in a social context

Reputation

Relationships

Third-party negotiations

Mediator - A trusted third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by maintaining communication between conflicting parties.

Arbitrator - A third party to a negotiation who has the authority to dictate a settlement.

Conciliator - A neutral third party who provides a communication link between conflicting parties.

Summary

Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit.

An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released and initiates the seeds of change, without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities.

jcu.edu.au

While many people assume that conflict lowers group and organisational performance, this assumption can be incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. Levels of conflict can be either too high or too low to be constructive. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released and initiates the seeds of change, without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities.

Implications for managers

Authoritarian management styles may suffice in emergencies, when unpopular actions are called for (such as implementing change, or enforcement of unpopular rules) and when the organisation’s welfare is at stake. Be certain to communicate your logic, when possible, to ensure employees remain engaged and productive.

Seek integrative solutions whenever possible, to merge insights from people with different perspectives, to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus and to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship.

Take care with issues that seem trivial or symptomatic of other challenges, when more important issues are pressing, when you perceive no chance of satisfying everyone’s concerns, when people need to cool down and regain perspective, when gathering information and when others can resolve the conflict more effectively.

You can build trust by accommodating others if you find you’re wrong, if you need to demonstrate reasonableness, if other positions need to be heard, if issues are more important to others than to yourself, if you want to satisfy others and maintain cooperation, if you can build social credits for later issues, to minimise loss if you are outmatched and losing and to help employees learn from their own mistakes.

Avoid intransigence if your goals are important but not worth potential disruption, if opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals and if you need temporary settlements to complex issues.

Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but often reduces the satisfaction of one or more parties because it’s confrontational and short-term. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, helps find outcomes that satisfy all parties and build lasting relationships.

Non-union positions and the gig economy are bad for workers

Workshop – individual activity

‘Teams negotiate better than individuals in collective cultures.’ Though this appear obvious, the attached study has found the exact opposite.

Read the findings in the next slide, do you agree with the research findings or the context statement? Besides cultural factors, what other factors should be considered for negotiation effectiveness?

Post your answer in LearnJCU, subject homepage, Workshop Discussions – Workshop 8: Conflict and negotiation. Apply the learning in today’s lecture. Provide deep answers to demonstrate your knowledge and insights in this topic.

Then, respond to at least one other posts from your classmates. You need to post first before you can reply to others.

This discussion board will close on 11 Jan 2022 5pm Singapore.

jcu.edu.au

Workshop – individual activity

Context: “Teams negotiate better than individuals in collective cultures”

Although this statement may seem common sense, it’s not quite so simple. In general, literature suggests that teams negotiate more effectively than individuals alone. There’s also some evidence that team negotiations create more ambitious goals and that team members communicate better with each other than individual negotiators. So surely this would be especially true in collective cultures, where people give more attention to collective goals and are more comfortable working in teams.

A study of team negotiation in the United States and Taiwan, suggests that this is not always so. The researchers conducted two studies comparing two-person teams with individual negotiators. They defined negotiating effectiveness as the degree to which the negotiation produced an optimal outcome for both sides. In the US, teams did better than solo individuals in both studies. In Taiwan, solo individuals did better than teams.

The research found that in Taiwan norms respecting harmony already exist and negotiating in teams amplifies that tendency. This is problematic because when harmony is very high, teams often satisfice to avoid conflict. In contrast, in the more individualistic US, solo teams may amplify their tendency to focus on self-interest, which makes reaching integrative solutions harder. So, these findings suggest that negotiating individually works better in collectivistic cultures and negotiating in teams work better in individualistic cultures.

Source: textbook pp 351

jcu.edu.au