Managing Conflict

Bus117 W4D2 Notes

CHAPTER 13 Conflict and Negotiation

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

· ■ Define conflict and differentiate between the traditional, interactionist, and managed-conflict views of conflict.

· ■ Outline the conflict process.

· ■ Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining.

· ■ Apply the five steps of the negotiation process.

· ■ Show how individual differences influence negotiations.

· ■ Describe cultural differences in negotiations.

Conflict can often turn personal. It can create chaotic conditions that make it nearly impossible for employees to work as a team. However, conflict also has a less well-known positive side. We’ll explain the difference between negative and positive conflicts in this chapter and provide a guide to help you understand how conflicts develop. We’ll also present a topic closely akin to conflict: negotiation.

A DEFINITION OF CONFLICT

We can define  conflict , then, as a process that begins when one party perceives another party has or is about to negatively affect something the first party cares about. 1  This definition is purposely broad. It describes that point in any ongoing activity when an interaction crosses over to become an interparty conflict. It encompasses the wide range of conflicts people experience in organizations: incompatibility of goals, differences over interpretations of facts, disagreements based on behavioral expectations, and the like. Finally, our definition is flexible enough to cover the full range of conflict levels—from overt and violent acts to subtle forms of disagreement.

TRANSITIONS IN CONFLICT THOUGHT

It is entirely appropriate to say there has been conflict over the role of conflict in groups and organizations.

One school of thought has argued that conflict must be avoided—that it indicates a malfunctioning within the group. We call this the traditional view. Another perspective proposes not only thatconflict can be a positive force in a group but that some conflict is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively. We label this the interactionist view. Finally, recent research argues that instead of encouraging “good” or discouraging “bad” conflict, it’s more important to resolve naturally occurring conflicts productively. This perspective is the managed conflict view. Let’s take a closer look at each view.

The Traditional View of Conflict

The early approach to conflict assumed all conflict was bad and to be avoided. It was viewed negatively and discussed with such terms as violence, destruction, and irrationality to reinforce its negative connotation. This  traditional view of conflict  was consistent with attitudes about group behavior that prevailed in the 1930s and 1940s. Conflict was a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communication, a lack of openness and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of their employees.

The view that all conflict is bad certainly offers a simple approach to looking at the behavior of people who create conflict. We need merely direct our attention to the causes of conflict and correct those malfunctions to improve group and organizational performance. This view of conflict fell out of favor for a long time as researchers came to realize that some level of conflict was inevitable.

Conflict is an inherent part of organizational life. Indeed, some level of conflict is probably necessary for optimal organizational functioning.

The Interactionist View of Conflict

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. 2  The major contribution of this view is recognizing that a minimal level of conflict can help keep a group viable, self-critical, and creative.

The interactionist view does not propose that all conflicts are good. Rather,  functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves its performance and is, thus, a constructive form of conflict. A conflict that hinders group performance is a destructive or  dysfunctional conflict . What differentiates functional from dysfunctional conflict? The evidence indicates we need to look at thetype of conflict—task, relationship, and process. 3

Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work.  Relationship conflict  focuses on interpersonal relationships.  Process conflict  relates to how the work gets done. Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts are almost always dysfunctional. 4  Why? It appears that the friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks. Unfortunately, managers spend a lot of effort resolving personality conflicts among staff members; one survey indicated this task consumes 18 percent of their time. 5

Task conflict is more constructive than process or, especially, relationship conflict.

In contrast, low levels of process conflict and low to moderate levels of task conflict can be functional, but only in very specific cases. Recent reviews have shown that task conflicts are usually just as disruptive as relationship conflicts. 6  For process conflict to be productive, it must be kept low. Intense arguments about who should do what become dysfunctional when they create uncertainty about task roles, increase the time to complete tasks, and lead to members working at cross-purposes. Low to moderate levels of task conflict stimulate discussion of ideas. This means task conflicts relate positively to creativity and innovation, but they are not related to routine task performance. Groups performing routine tasks that don’t require creativity won’t benefit from task conflict. Moreover, if the group is already engaged in active discussion of ideas in a nonconfrontational way, adding conflict will not help generate more ideas. Task conflict is also related to these positive outcomes only when all members share the same goals and have high levels of trust. 7

Resolution Focused View of Conflict

Researchers, including those who had strongly advocated the interactionist view, have begun to recognize some problems with encouraging conflict. As we will see, there are some very specific cases in which conflict can be beneficial. However, workplace conflicts are not productive; they take time away from job tasks or interacting with customers, and hurt feelings and anger often linger after conflicts appear to be over. People seldom can wall off their feelings into neat categories of “task” or “relationship” disagreements, so task conflicts sometimes escalate into relationship conflicts. 8  Conflicts produce stress, which may lead people to become more close minded and adversarial. Studies of conflict in laboratories also fail to take account of the reductions in trust and cooperation that occur even with relationship conflicts. Longer-term studies show that all conflicts reduce trust, respect, and cohesion in groups, which reduces their long-term viability. 9

In sum, the traditional view took a shortsighted view in assuming all conflict should be eliminated. The interactionist view that conflict can stimulate active discussion without spilling over into negative, disruptive emotions is incomplete. The managed conflict perspective does recognize that conflict is probably inevitable in most organizations, and it focuses more on productive conflict resolution. The research pendulum has swung from eliminating conflict, to encouraging limited levels of conflict, and now to finding constructive methods for resolving conflicts productively so their disruptive influence can be minimized.

THE CONFLICT PROCESS

The  conflict process  has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes.

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 simplicity’s sake, these conditions (which we can also look at as causes or sources of conflict) have been condensed into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables.

COMMUNICATION

Communication can be a source of conflict. Opposing forces arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the communication channels. A review of the research suggests that differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedent conditions to conflict. Research has further demonstrated a surprising finding: The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place. Apparently, an increase in communication is functional up to a point, after which it is possible to overcommunicate, with a resultant increase in the potential for conflict.

STRUCTURE

The term structure in this context includes variables such as size, degree of specialization 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 specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict. Tenure and conflict have been found to be inversely related; the potential for conflict is greatest when group members are younger and when turnover is high. The greater the ambiguity about where responsibility for actions lies, the greater the potential for conflict to emerge. Such jurisdictional ambiguities increase intergroup fighting for control of resources and territory. Diversity of goals among groups is also a major source of conflict. Reward systems, too, create conflict when one member’s gain comes at another’s expense. Finally, if a group is dependent on another group (in contrast to the two being mutually independent), or if interdependence allows one group to gain at another’s expense, opposing forces are stimulated.

PERSONAL VARIABLES

Our last category of potential sources of conflict is personal variables, which include personality, emotions, and values. Personality does appear to play a role in the conflict process: some people just tend to get in conflicts a lot. In particular, people high in the personality traits of disagreeableness, neuroticism, or self-monitoring are prone to tangle with other people more often, and to react poorly when conflicts occur. 10  Emotions can also cause conflict. An employee who shows up to work irate from her hectic morning commute may carry that anger with her to her 9:00 AM meeting. The problem? Her anger can annoy her colleagues, which can result in a tension-filled meeting.

Stage II: Cognition and Personalization

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

As we noted in our definition of conflict, one or more of the parties must be aware that antecedent conditions exist. However, because a conflict is a  perceived conflict  does not mean it is personalized. 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 towardB.” 11  It is at the  felt conflict  level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that parties experience anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility.

Keep in mind two points. First, stage II is important because it’s where conflict issues tend to be defined. This is the point when the parties decide what the conflict is about. The definition of a conflict is important because it typically delineates the set of possible settlements. Second, emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. Negative emotions allow us to oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpretations on the other party’s behavior. 12  In contrast, positive feelings increase our tendency to see potential relationships among the elements of a problem, take a broader view of the situation, and develop more innovative solutions. 13

Stage III: Intentions

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

We separate out intentions as a distinct stage because we have to infer the other’s intent to know how to respond to his or her behavior. A lot of conflicts are escalated simply because one party attributes the wrong intentions to the other. There is also typically a great deal of slippage between intentions and behavior, so behavior does not always accurately reflect a person’s intentions.

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

· 1. Competing. When one person seeks to satisfy his or her 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.

· 2. Collaborating. When parties in conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns of all parties, there is cooperation and a search for a mutually beneficial outcome. In  collaborating , the parties intend to solve a problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating various points of view. If you attempt to find a win–win solution that allows both parties’ goals to be completely achieved, that’s collaborating.

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

· 4. Accommodating. A party who seeks to appease an opponent may be willing to place the opponent’s interests above his or her own, sacrificing to maintain the relationship. We refer to this intention as  accommodating . Supporting someone else’s opinion despite your reservations about it, for example, is accommodating.

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

Intentions are not always fixed. During the course of a conflict, they might change if the parties are able to see the other’s point of view or respond emotionally to the other’s behavior. However, research indicates people have preferences among the five conflict-handling intentions we just described 14  and tend to rely on them quite consistently. We can predict a person’s intentions rather well from a combination of intellectual and personality characteristics.

Stage IV: Behavior

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

It helps to think of stage IV as a dynamic process of interaction. For example, you make a demand on me, I respond by arguing, you threaten me, I threaten you back, and so on.  Exhibit 13.2  provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. All conflicts exist somewhere along this continuum. At the lower part are conflicts characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension, such as a student questioning in class a point the instructor has just made. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this upper range. For the most part, you should assume conflicts that reach the upper ranges of the continuum are almost always dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower range of the continuum.

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 techniques of  conflict management . We have already described several as conflict-handling intentions. This shouldn’t be surprising. Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into comparable behaviors.

Stage V: Outcomes

The action–reaction interplay between the conflicting parties results in consequences. As our model demonstrates (see  Exhibit 13.1 ), these outcomes may be functional, if the conflict improves the group’s performance, or dysfunctional, if it hinders performance.