For A-Plus Writer

10ch_losh_behavior.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >For A-Plus Writer

Group Cooperation and Conflict

Learning Objectives

What We Will Be Investigating • What are the dynamics between those who regard themselves as part of the in-group and those who are perceived to be part of the out-group?

• What role does stereotyping play in developing group unity? How can such stereotyping be destructive?

• How can companies recognize that collaboration is more beneficial to all involved, rather than strict competition?

• What is a zero-sum game, and how does it apply to cooperation, competition, and collaboration?

• What does the Prisoner’s Dilemma tell us about decision strategies and about the information available to those making the decisions?

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 201 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Introduction

Chapter Outline

“A ‘No’ uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please,

or what is worse, to avoid trouble.” —Mohandas Gandhi

Muzafer Sherif’s classic “Robber’s Cave” experiment (1961) remains one of the most famous studies in the group dynamics literature. Conducted in the mid-1950s, the study brought “well-adjusted” 11-year-old American boys to a camp in order to see how they interacted in groups. The study was set to function in three phases: first, in-group forma- tion; second, friction; third, integration. For phase one, in-group formation, the research- ers brought the boys to camp in two groups, and each group was initially separated from the other. Neither group initially knew of the other’s existence. Each had time then to form its own in-group identity. Each group chose a name for itself; one group named itself the Rattlers, the other group named itself the Eagles. Gradually, each group was made aware of the other.

The second phase—friction—was to test the in-group loyalty of these groups by setting up a series of competitions. In a matter of days, in-group loyalty led to the development of rivalry between the groups. Once the groups viewed each other as rivals, intergroup friction emerged that was notably hostile. The two groups began calling each other names, for example, and refused to eat together.

The friction between the groups was so strong that the experimenters ended this phase of the study early to move on to the third phase—integration—which was designed to reduce the friction between the two groups. Sherif designed various ways of generating cooperation between the groups, particularly in coming together to work on specific goal- oriented tasks as one unit. By the end of this third phase of the experiment, the groups had sufficiently overcome the conflict that had initially developed.

10.1 Contexts for Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation

10.2 Creating Conflict Scarce Resources History of Hostilities Out-Group Status In-Group Solidarity Diversity Personal Attributes

10.3 Creating Cooperation What Doesn’t Work What Does Help

10.4 Cognitive Modifiers Cognitions That Breed Cross-Group Conflict How Stereotypes Work in Group Conflict and

Cooperation The Role of Cognition: Cause or

Consequence? Some Insights from Game Theory A Side Note on Groupthink

10.5 Is Conflict All Bad?

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 202 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 Contexts for Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation

It was a pivotal study in seeing firsthand how groups take shape, how rivalries develop, and how conflict between groups can be resolved. Much research has been dedicated to figuring out how best to resolve differences and diminish conflict among groups with dif- ferent identities and agendas. This chapter focuses on the efficacy of strategies employed to that end. We examine various types of conflict as well as ways of bridging differences and fostering environments that can lead to group harmony and productivity.

10.1 Contexts for Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation There are many different contexts for conflict or cooperation. Often the situation deter- mines the dynamic within and among groups. For example, typically we think of conflict as occurring across groups and cooperation as occurring within groups. But that’s not always the case. Conflict can arise just as swiftly within a group provided it has certain contextual factors.

Factions, coalitions, and exploitation can occur within groups, making cooperation among members difficult, and sometimes even impossible. At its worse, the group may finally become dysfunctional and even disintegrate. This is an area where leadership is neces- sary; developing a shared vision is critical and often falls to the leader to provide. While we may at first think about the arguments and conflicts of interest that seem more typical of informal friendship groups, group conflict can arise in formal group settings as well, often with severe consequences. For example, about 25 years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention, then one of the largest religious denominations in America, fractured into what so far has become three distinct groups, none of which so far is as successful as the original religious denomination; the three religious groups are now doctrinally very distinct. Another example is when a corporation becomes so internally fractured that the company goes out of business. The family-owned former Pic N’ Save in north Florida was a large chain of discount and salvage stores. Because the family members who owned the chain simply could not agree on how to run the business after their parents died, the com- pany went into bankruptcy, never reemerged from it, and then totally went out of busi- ness. As can be seen here, internal conflict in different kinds of organizations may lead to distinct kinds of outcomes. A church may divide into doctrinally distinct denominations, while a business may end up having to terminate employees, relocate some employees, and, at the extreme, go out of business. In any case, such internal competition can be detrimental to group cohesion and lead to members resenting one another. In classrooms, we see this in the use of curves for grading. “Win-lose” evaluations, sometimes called zero-sum matrices (Osborne, 2004), or hierarchical rating systems in employment and other group endeavors for a limited number of member rewards can sometimes lead to sabotaging other members’ efforts and thus lower group productivity.

Another broad determinant of conflict and cooperation is whether contact between groups or individuals within groups is anticipated or unanticipated. Continued competi- tive interactions, such as traditional football game rivalries, may create anticipated con- flict, which changes the nature of that conflict. Corporations, too, are regularly ranked by several agencies, for example, Consumers Union, and thus know in advance who the competition will be. In many ways, then, the nature of the competition—good-natured or

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 203 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Creating Conflict

cutthroat—is determined by the advance knowledge of who the competition will be. This consequently influences how the groups deal with each other.

A “go for the win” strategy, or a distributed negotiation, appears most pronounced not only when parties do not regularly interact but also do not anticipate future interaction (Heide & Miner, 1992; Insko, et al., 2001. Under these circumstances groups do not see mutual interests or any advantage to cooperation. In fact, the group may believe that its own negative actions will not have any consequences.

On the other hand, integrative negotiation, or problem-solving attempts to maximize joint benefits, should be more common when regular interaction is expected. Football teams from adjacent high schools, whose members interact in several other contexts, still want to win but may also be less likely to engage in truly “dirty” ploys (see supportive evidence, Feagin, 2006). Two car rental agencies may cooperate during shortages that occur during their busy season to ensure that all customers who want to lease a car are able to do so. The benefits of such arrangements can be evaluated in terms of the short term (both companies do better during the busy season) and, at least potentially, the long term (such an ongoing coopera- tive effort can become a seasonal norm, and thus be factored into long-term planning).

10.2 Creating Conflict For several reasons, it appears much easier to create conflict among groups than to create cooperation. What follows in this section are factors that increase animosity across groups.

Scarce Resources

As noted earlier, competition for scarce resources can create conflict both within and across groups. Within groups, com- petitive individual interests may be at odds with group interests, especially in the short term. The tragedy of the com- mons (Hardin, 1968) refers to the tendency of individuals in search of their own interests to deplete group resources. Ulti- mately all group members, including those who initially profited, are far worse off.

It doesn’t take much to set off individual competitive inter- ests within a group. Some company common practices,

Scarce resources often create conflict. Depending on how scarce the resource is, the depletion can even cause conflict within a group. The conflict between these two Haitian men, for example, is likely due to the depletion of resources in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake that devastated the country.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 204 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Creating Conflict

such as using the star system to reward employees or the use of counteroffer raises, fos- ter such competition. For most of us much of the time, resources are short, and desirable resources always appear short, such as a tight job market, a selective graduate program, or shortage of affordable places to live. In such instances, competition is naturally bred.

Free-market economists often argue that competition brings out the best in us. Competi- tion is assumed to make us sharper and more productive, and so it can. But competi- tion, especially tumultuous competition, can also generate sabotage, scapegoating, rumor mongering about colleagues, and conflict across and within groups. Fierce competition within a group is especially dangerous because it hinders that group’s ability to produc- tively contend with its external competitors. If the competitive scenario is regarded as a zero-sum situation—where one loses if the other wins—this may prevent these organiza- tions from recognizing an alternative strategy. Effective leadership may be able to see that a collaborative strategy between two organizations can actually lead to better results for both (a “plus sum” situation).

Competition theories do not tell us which groups will be scapegoats, what the outcomes are likely to be under which circumstances, or whether the competitive target will be groups rather than random individuals. But we can glean some insight in looking to history.

History of Hostilities

It’s not clear whether competition among groups that have been situated close to each other for some time creates hostilities, or whether the rancor created by long-standing animosities provides a convenient target for aggression. We do know that out-groups are seldom randomly chosen. There is political animus between African Americans and Lati- nos as the two groups compete for national resources. African Americans are no longer the largest racial minority in the country. Sometimes a similar animus occurs in universi- ties as different colleges and their members within the university vie for the resources of the university. Such hostilities can be long lasting and unproductive. One might also, on a smaller scale, consider two pizza delivery companies serving the same general area. Each company regards a gain made by its a competitor as a direct loss to itself (again, a zero- sum situation); it is easy to imagine how this could easily heighten tension between the companies and their employees.

Out-Group Status

Out-groups tend to be low enough in social standing that negative actions taken against them fail to be met with swift punishment or enforced restraint from legitimate authorities or powerful allies. In times of despair or anxiety in a given culture, out-groups become especially vulnerable. They often become the target of the larger in-group majority pre- cisely because they have little standing to fight back.

Exempting one’s own group, which is usually ranked highly, competitive groups appear to agree on the rank order standing of other collectivities in society (Ikegami & Ishida, 2007). Identifiable groups low in power and resources often become scapegoats for many of the groups that socially rank above them. Sociologists sometimes refer to the intersection

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 205 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Creating Conflict

of race-gender-class to desig- nate groups that may be par- ticularly vulnerable (Tatum, 1997).

In the business environ- ment scapegoating can occur between management and labor unions when the two cannot come to agreement at contract time. The scapegoat- ing in such situations is often committed by both groups. When labor relations suffer, the organization often gar- ners national attention with both groups voicing their opinions. Management insists the corporate problems are due to the intransigence of the union, while the union responds that management refuses to cooperate. This can become very negative and cause the two sides to separate even more.

In-Group Solidarity

When groups are internally very cohesive, especially on the interpersonal dimension, they are often less friendly toward other groups (Tajfel, 1974). The strong interpersonal ties that are generated within the group makes potential alliances across groups seem less useful. When this occurs, the chances of across-group conflict increases. Competing beer distributors covering the same geographic area, for instance, may have strong intragroup solidarity. Each company may have various structures in place to promote this unity: soft- ball teams, company picnics, bowling teams, and so on. Yet while the competitive nature of some of these structures will generate solidarity within each group, they also can sim- ply reinforce the tensions, competitiveness, and even hostility between the groups.

Such in-group solidarity can also occur when individuals identify very strongly with a group. They are also then less affable toward other groups. You may be surprised to learn how trivially easy it can be to activate social identity. As we saw in the Sherif study, name- calling between the groups increased friction between the Rattlers and the Eagles with members of each group defining themselves more by their in-group membership. Cul- tural symbolism, such as flags, songs, photos, mottos, sports insignia, which occur plenti- fully in many groups, also can activate social identity.

Management and union conflict is often contentious and almost always leads to scapegoating, wherein each group blames the other for lack of agreement. This was seen on the national stage in 2011 with the conflict between National Foot- ball League owners and the player’s union. Shown here are Roger Goodell (left), the NFL commissioner, and DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the players’ union.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 206 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Creating Cooperation

Diversity

Differences in personal styles such as authoritarianism, diversity issues such as gender or ethnicity, and power differentials can also increase the potential for within or cross-group conflict. Different background experiences generate different expectations. This is par- ticularly the case if there is fusion across different levels; for example, power differentials on positional authority might coincide with gender. Within a collectivity, lower-status members will be distrustful and higher-status members will tend to overestimate their contributions to a group. Mailroom clerks, custodians, secretaries, and others may feel isolated and that they lack genuine access to that part of a corporation where decisions are made. This can, in turn, alienate them from the corporation, particularly if there is little indication of promotion within that corporation, leading to a less productive and efficient workplace overall.

Personal Attributes

Are some people particularly prone to create or aggravate group conflict? In other words, are there just some people who, in a group setting, seem naturally to cause that group to work less effectively by rubbing other members of the group the wrong way? Lawrence Wrightsman’s philosophies of human nature (1974) describes one type of individual who sees the world as an untrustworthy place. Such individuals tend to go into situations with a “win-lose” perspective rather than a focus on problem solving. Of course, unwittingly, these jungle fighters (Maccoby, 1976) may create the very competitive and abrasive situ- ations that they claim to abhor. Others then react to these initial dominance attempts and what is easily perceived as outright greed with escalated competition and rancor—and the battle is on. Unfortunately, Prisoner’s Dilemma studies discussed later in this chapter indicate that it is easier to lose trust and create competitive situations than it is to create or recreate cooperative relationships. Once lost, trust is not easily regained.

10.3 Creating Cooperation As in the Sherif Robber’s Cave experiment, there are in fact ways of fostering cooperation to offset the potential hazards of conflict creation. This section examines in more detail some of those strategies. But before we look to what can bring about harmony and coop- eration in a group, we need to highlight what does not work.

What Doesn’t Work

It is often challenging to create circumstances in which cooperation can flourish. If one approach does not work, the advice is try, try again. Adversarial parties in conflict often don’t want to meet and don’t want to work together. In an atmosphere of suspicion, a situation can emerge in which each side fears that any of its attempts at reconciliation will

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 207 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Creating Cooperation

be seen as weakness or concessions, ultimately leaving the advance party worse off than before. A history of conflict makes the situation worse. This section details those strategies that typically do not work.

Simple Contact The idea that we can merely put together different factions, coalitions, gangs, or other warring entities in the same room, the same school, or the same neighborhood is popu- lar among laypersons. Unfortunately it is also ineffective. Not only do groups rarely become more positive toward each other by simply meeting, straightforward contact appears augmented by selective perception and stereotypes. People enter groups with various ideas that may be already fixed; they may think members of a certain religion behave in a certain way, or that members of some ethnic group are not hard working. Without specific structures in place to combat these stereotypes, a person may simply see his or her biases confirmed—while ignoring counterexamples. Such a self-fulfilling prophecy, based on such stereotypes and generalizations, can become very destructive and hamper the group from working well. What happens then is that groups typically become more hostile toward one another (Gittler & Harper, 1955). Contact is seen as the vehicle to fuel negative impressions, hurl insults at the other group, and damage the other group’s credibility.

Part of the problem is that what appears to be straightforward group contact is often instead simultaneously stratified or unequal contact. For example, when largely White schools are integrated with Hispanic or Black students, Whites often have an advantage, coming in higher proportions from more affluent school districts with better resources. Whites, therefore, are more often placed into Honors classes, and the Hispanic or Black

kids, originally from schools with fewer resources, are disproportionately placed in remedial courses. Thus, each side looks around to see their worst ethnic stereotypes reaffirmed.

Similarly when a larger com- pany merges with a smaller one, the larger company typically has more assets and more management personnel. Members of the smaller com- pany may feel overwhelmed and reinforce their stereo- types about the “fat cats” at the larger corporation. Lay- ing off employees from the smaller company, as often

It’s often believed that merely bringing two warring parties together is enough to bridge their differences. Unfortu- nately, this strategy is rarely effective.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 208 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Creating Cooperation

occurs, only makes things worse. Anything that segregates a particular group and makes it visible (e.g., women’s auxiliaries) will not create more positive cross-group attitudes.

Contact Under Pleasant Circumstances Perhaps a variation on mere contact could work, so the somewhat simple-minded idea goes: We can place warring factions together to enjoy a pleasant experience such as a good meal or a movie. Unfortunately, that approach does not promote cooperation either (Brewer, 1999). In fact, despite the pleasant experiences, again the occasion may provide the opportunity for rival groups to call each other names, “gather more dirt,” or even throw food as the Robber’s Cave campers did in the Sherif experiments.

Provide Positive Information About the Other Group Because of prior hostilities, group members don’t pay much attention, remember very little new positive information, and are highly skeptical and cynical about what they do recall when affirmative information is provided about a rival. Although it may not hurt, providing positive propaganda about a conflicting group probably won’t help either.

Business in the Real World Competition and Its Hazards

Two roofing companies dominate the market in a medium-sized town. Southtown Roofing and Northside Roofing are, naturally, quite competitive. The relatively new Eastview Roofers has been trying to gain market share, but so far has been unsuccessful. Southtown and Northside have both been in business for approximately the same number of years and have generally the same recommendations from the Better Business Bureau and other such agencies, and neither seems to have had much luck entering the other’s territory. With profits flat, the presidents of each company are trying to determine strategies to increase their business.

Consider each of these suggestions, and explain why they may or may not be good strategies for Southtown, Northside, or both companies to try. At the same time, consider the effect the suggestion may have on Eastview Roofers, and whether it offers them a business opportunity. Finally, consider what the results will be for employ- ees if one or more of these suggestions is adopted.

• Make sure your salespeople tell potential customers as many negative things as possible about the compet- ing company.

• Offer to meet with the other company to see if a more collaborative approach is possible, and to discuss what it might look like.

• Undercut the prices offered by your competitor. • Hack into your competitor’s Facebook page and leave embarrassing messages and graphics. • Invite your competitor’s employees to your company Christmas party. • Try to get your company softball team into your competitor’s softball league. • Have your employees anonymously call and e-mail business rating agencies (such as the Better Business

Bureau and Angie’s List) and complain about your competitor. • Have a monthly joint “happy hour” for the employees of both companies.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 209 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Creating Cooperation

What Does Help

Here are some suggestions that may foster cross-group cooperation (including hostile groups working for the same company or coalitions within the same group). Give any of these suggestions at least a few weeks (in some cases longer) a chance to work. Remember it’s easier to instill suspicion than trust.

Contact Must Be Equal Status As discussed above, it is very hard to foster cooperation when two groups enter into a negotiation at unequal status. To offset this initial stumbling block, it can help greatly to get each side to see that they are of equal status. This of course is rarely easy, and, in fact, sometimes impossible. But the more two rivals can see themselves on equal or similar footing, the better the chances of generating a productive meeting.

In employing this strategy a lot of work must be done in the beginning to gather informa- tion on both sides so as to find common ground. This information must be given at the start to these groups so that they can begin to see that they are equal with respect to the task. A jigsaw approach (see below) may be useful.

Creating equal status contact can be especially complicated when a company is hierar- chically stratified. If there are marked status discrepancies across groups, suspicion and conflict will not be ameliorated. On the other hand, new groups to foster cooperation across company layers can be formed from those employees who are at approximately the same hierarchical level, for example, office managers. Groups assembled in such a way as to minimize, or even eliminate, status distinctions can often avoid the pitfalls and risks generated by groups having clearly identified status differentials. If a group member doesn’t know where a fellow group member ranks in the organizational scheme, such a rank becomes irrelevant, or at least much less significant.

Fostering Inclusion Must Begin at the Top For several years, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has wanted to increase the num- bers of women and Black or Hispanic minorities in particular branches of science, such as physics. Some of the studies they funded have visited college campuses to conduct in-depth interviews with faculty, staff, and administration. One conclusion the NSF has reached is that if top university or college administrations support inclusion, the result is an increase in women or minority doctorates awarded and changes in faculty and administration composition. If support at the top appears lukewarm or nonexistent, not much gets done. Members of organizations respond to signals given by their leaders, managers, bosses, and others. These members will react, accordingly, depending on whether that signal is posi- tive (support) or negative (lack of support). Often, that support simply takes the form of allowing considerable more independence and creativity in making day-to-day decisions.

It’s important for managers to be mindful of this; a big part of managing is reconciling dif- ferences and diffusing and resolving conflict between and among subordinates. It would be a critical mistake of any manager to think that such conflict in the ranks will simply resolve itself. Unfortunately, all too often this is exactly what managers (poor ones) think.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 210 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Creating Cooperation

Set Superordinate Goals Superordinate goals are goals that can only be achieved with the contribution of multiple groups or parties. The act of achieving this goal can—and ideally must—foster coopera- tion between or among the parties involved. This was the most famous conclusion to emerge from the Robber’s Cave studies. The researchers engineered a series of disas- ters that required cooperation from all campers, Rattlers and Eagles alike, to solve. For example, the water pump broke, then the truck broke down. Both Rattlers and Eagles had to retrieve the necessary parts for the campers to be able to use the truck or to repair the water supply.

A variation on superordinate goals is Aronson and Patnoe’s (1997) Jigsaw Classroom. The Aronsons and their colleagues created multidimensional tasks and ethnically integrated groups in school classrooms. Each child received one piece of the puzzle and had to teach other students in the group about it. Only when all group members contributed could the entire group complete the task. This approach has now been used in school systems all over the United States and is one large portion of what has come to be called cooperative learning. It has been suggested (Kouzes & Posner, 2008 ) that this technique has valuable applications in the business world as well. For instance, a group assembled from subdivi- sions of a corporation, the members of which generally have little interaction, can engage in similar cooperative tasks. This can help create group unity across subdivisions, rein- forcing corporate unity as a whole.

Take a Problem-Solving Approach As discussed earlier, integrative negotiations (Churchman, 1993) are more likely to result in cooperation than distribution negotiations in which people try to maximize payoffs. A focus on what group members (or groups) have in common as well as defining conflict as “localized” helps to mediate disagreement. Very often, groups at war still have common problems. Interest-based collective bargaining, which is now used in several companies, is one example of this kind of focus; labor and management analyze their situation to see where they have common interests.

For example, we all must live on the same planet. Clearly, disagreements will arise. But all of us, no matter what our allegiances or status, are possible victims of deadly flu epi- demics. Is H1N1 flu a new contagious virus that could create a pandemic? Is there really a global warming problem? Opposing sides will argue about the definition of the problem, whether there is a problem, and what to do about the problem. In a strategic planning

Creating superordinate goals whereby people must come together to accomplish one objective has proven an effective way to resolve conflicts.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 211 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Cognitive Modifiers

process it is important to properly define the problem. Coca-Cola, for instance, identi- fied a problem—that there was something wrong with its traditional recipe—that they proceeded to solve with New Coke. New Coke was a disaster, from both a business and a public relations perspective, largely stemming from a strategy developed to solve a “prob- lem” that may not even have existed.

Give It Time The Aronsons have found that students are initially hostile to members of other ethnic or gender groups. Numerous examples of such hostility can be seen throughout American history, when different ethnic groups move into a job market traditionally dominated by another ethnic group. Internationally, it has been the source of a great deal of tension as well, whether Indian shopkeepers in Tanzania or Chinese domination of certain markets in Malaysia. It can take several weeks—or much longer still—of working together pro- ductively to produce more positive views toward the other group and more interaction. Companies should consider this issue of time as they introduce diversity or globalization mandates. If there is initial antagonism across groups—or within a preexisting group—it will take time for group members to adjust and hostilities to dissipate.

It should be noted here, though, that “giving it time” is not to be understood as “do noth- ing.” As we discussed in the previous section, not being proactive in resolving conflict is usually a sure-fire way to keep the conflict going, or perhaps even allowing it to escalate. Rather, “giving it time” should be understood in the context of “giving a particular strat- egy time” to bring rival sides together. None of the strategies prescribed in this section are magic bullets; each one takes a lot of hard work, a lot of preparation, and, in some cases, a lot of time.

10.4 Cognitive Modifiers Cognitive modifiers refer to mental processes that can modify group members’ views of their own and other groups. Basically, there are tendencies in the way we think that shape the way we perceive the world. Some of these will help facilitate interaction and coop- eration within and across groups. Many others, however, will foster enmity and poten- tially increase conflict. Let’s begin with some basic cognitive processes that can foster cross-group conflict. Then, we will look at other factors that affect our perception of rival groups, such as stereotypes, game theory, and groupthink.

Cognitions That Breed Cross-Group Conflict

Knowledge is a powerful thing. In knowing what tendencies we have that can lead to conflict, or the perpetuation of conflict, we have a much greater chance of identifying and thus negating those tendencies.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 212 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Cognitive Modifiers

We Tend to Remember Vivid Information All it can take is one vivid incident about an indi- vidual or a group and that information tends to be remembered and generalized. For example, a rumor may spread about a particularly decep- tive—or even illegal—business practice engaged in by another company, for example, bribing a health inspector, and the information can circulate for months, even if it turns out to be false. Along these same lines, we also tend to remember infor- mation more consistent with preconceived ideas. If a particular company already has a bad reputa- tion, then data about the alleged malfeasance will be assimilated to this prior information.

We Convict Before We Defend Thank goodness our court system isn’t based on our natural human tendencies because it wouldn’t be very fair to the defendant. Cognitively, we draw our conclusions first, and then we selectively search for evidence to support our a priori conclusions.

Suppose, for example, you’re told someone spent time in a juvenile detention center as kid. You will tend to select, accentuate, and remember informa- tion that is consistent with your schema, or cog- nitive picture, of a kid from a juvenile detention center without knowing any of the facts of why that person spent time in such a place or who that person is today. Alternatively, if you already believe a company uses dishonest business prac- tices, you may troll websites searching for data consistent with your conclusions.

We do this with just about everything—because we have a schema for just about everything based on information disseminated to us through formal and informal media, as well as our own personal experiences. We automatically do this. Think of the words jock, woman, politician, lawyer, Catho- lic, European, and so on. For each of these words, you have an automatic conception. Upon meet- ing someone that falls loosely under this label, the information you default to is that which reaffirms your schema. It may be positive or negative. But either way, it takes time, and an abundance of information, to override your preconceived ideas and far less to reaffirm it.

What schemas do you form when you find out someone was a jock, a cheer- leader, or a nerd in high school?

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 213 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Cognitive Modifiers

The Fundamental Attribution Error Research indicates that we are more likely to attribute our own actions to the environ- ment, the situation, or other people while we explain the actions of others in terms of their personal characteristics or dispositions (Byrne, 1961; Cialdini, 2000). This is called the fun- damental attribution error. This sets the stage to interpret actions performed by another group (or perhaps rivals within one’s own group) as personally intended or driven by malice or hostility, perhaps because the other group is a business competitor.

All of these kinds of processes can unwittingly support cross-group conflict. But probably the most studied cognitive phenomenon with respect to intergroup relations is stereotyp- ing. Stereotypes are a special type of mental prototype applied to large social groups.

How Stereotypes Work in Group Conflict and Cooperation

When we stereotype, we categorize. We take the people or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin with information about other people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as educational level, occupation, and age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of cognitive economy; for example, you might assume that one tube of a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty much the same as other tubes of that brand. However, stereotypes differ in key sinister ways from other forms of categorization.

Stereotypes Reduce Out-Group Variation When we stereotype, we see group members as more alike than they really are. For exam- ple, many individuals hold stereotypes about memory loss in older people. Workers at a rival company may be seen as remarkably similar to one another. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing on superficial similarities a competitor’s employees share, or even by attributing such similarities to them that have no basis in fact. This could take the form of describing the members of the rival company as particularly lazy, or unethical; this allows the stereotyping to continue and be strengthened, while of course the members of one’s own company are automatically characterized as hard working and very ethical.

Stereotypes Exaggerate Differences Between the In-Group and the Out-Group American workers may make derogatory comments about products from other countries, such as China or India. For two decades or so after World War II, “Made in Japan” was a stereotypical designation, indicating shoddy, inexpensive goods. (Of course, that ste- reotype changed dramatically in the ensuing decades.) Again, denigrating those in the out-group, by emphasizing the differences (and ignoring similarities as much as possible) reinforces the idea that the out-group is inferior in various ways. This can also reinforces the solidarity and unity of those in the in-group, by doing precisely the opposite: empha- sizing the similarities and ignoring the differences within the in-group.

Stereotypes Tend to Be Rigid When presented with contradictory information about other kinds of objects or individu- als, people tend to alter their generalizations, at least to some degree. However, we are

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 214 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Cognitive Modifiers

more likely instead to defend our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the exception that proves the rule. Recall from above that our tendency is to convict and then defend. This rigidity suggests that individuals have a kind of vested interest in believing their stereotypes are true.

Stereotypes Typically Rank Groups in a Social Hierarchy In-groups tend to be ranked higher, out-groups are ranked lower. The interesting thing is that it is largely rankings of the in-groups that are the most distorted compared with the rankings of others. One study of sororities at Tulane University in New Orleans found that sorority sisters nearly always rated their own sorority at the top of the list. However, their rankings of the other sororities were closely tied to rankings given across campus by other Greek houses.

Stereotypes Justify Poor Treatment of the Out-Group Members of the in-group may carefully explain the necessity for their condescending, segregating, or even cruel behavior toward out-groups. They must treat out-group mem- bers in these ways because out-group members behave in such shoddy, shabby, or even dangerous manners.

The cause of the hostilities is typically attributed to the out-group. Group members may believe that an out-group is so threatening that they must engage in preemptive strikes, damaging the out-group sufficiently before it can inflict harm on themselves. For example,

Management Connections Dealing with Cultural Stereotypes in the Workplace

You are a former professional football player; after retiring, you and two of your teammates started a sporting goods and sporting apparel business, initially marketing to American males. A design that your company intro- duced led to an extremely profitable line of shoes; your company used those profits to expand. Five years ago you began marketing women’s sporting goods and apparel; two years ago you began marketing to South America and Asia. As a result, a company that was once almost all male and American now has a large number of female employees and a large number of employees from India, Japan, Brazil, Venezuela, and China.

You have been receiving an increasing number of complaints from your newer employees. Many of the females have objected to being treated as second-class citizens who are not included in business decisions or in social out- ings where some important business has been discussed. They have also pointed to various kinds of behavior that could be regarded as sexual harassment. Some of your foreign employees have complained about hearing ethnic slurs, seeing offensive graffiti in the restrooms, and in other ways being treated badly by some of your American employees.

In addition to generating a relatively tense work environment, your lawyers have warned you that if the corporate culture does not change, you will be subject to lawsuits. The general result is that your company seems less effi- cient, less productive, and may be facing expensive legal action.

Consider some of the things you might do to change this. How can you change the stereotyping and offensive behavior of some of your employees? What strategies might you pursue to return your company’s culture to a pro- ductive and enjoyable work environment? Should you ask employees to turn in those responsible for these nega- tive actions? Should you schedule sensitivity trainings sessions? What other methods might you employ in order to minimize, or eliminate, what is poisoning your company’s atmosphere and its opportunity for further growth?

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 215 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Cognitive Modifiers

Jim Jones’s actions in Jonestown in shooting and killing visiting politicians from the United States were justified by explaining that the politicians had come to Guyana to harm Jones and the Jonestown community.

The Role of Cognition: Cause or Consequence?

Psychology typically locates the genus of action in the individual. Thus, psychologists tend to treat stereotypes and other ideological factors that individuals hold as causal to out-group hostility and scapegoating. Social psychologists recognize that some causes of our behavior are internal but that others emanate from the environment. Furthermore, social psychology has shown that if people change their behavior, perhaps due to outside forces, and feel committed to that behavior, attitudes will often follow suit and become consistent with the new behavior.

What does all this mean for the rhetoric of out-group hostilities? Some conflictual actions toward out-groups no doubt occur because as individuals we hold preexisting negative attitudes toward a particular group. However, it is also possible that because we treat members of a group poorly, we develop hostile attitudes toward them. To admit that we engaged in aggression toward members of another group, including cheating at games, stealing possessions, or even murder, because we were jealous, coveted their resources, felt bad because we had failed at something, or wanted an advantage toward some type of prize could induce considerable shame, guilt, and anxiety. To ameliorate these nasty feelings, we convince ourselves that members of the other group deserve it because of their derogatory characteristics. Thus, we feel better about our actions and ourselves. We may even glorify ill behavior toward out-groups, convincing ourselves that “society is better off.”

Some Insights from Game Theory

The police have nabbed two burglars in possession of stolen goods. The prisoners are brought to the station and placed in separate interview rooms. Each miscreant is told, “If you confess and implicate your partner, you will get a light sentence of a few months in the county jail but your partner will be sentenced to six years in prison. However, if you both confess, you will each receive a three-year sentence. If neither of you confess, you each will receive a one-year sentence.”

This is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Each partner is ignorant of which choice his partner will make. Although there is clearly an incentive to confess, if both burglars confess, each will be the poorer for it. If neither confesses, they will be even worse off.

Theorists who work with cooperative and competitive games such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma (Poundstone, 1992) use a variety of payoff matrices to study how groups and individuals interact. For example, in zero-sum games, what one person or group wins, the other loses. This, of course, is the case for most team sports, wherein only one team can win the game or the tournament. It is also often seen as the case in very competitive indus- tries, where a sale will come from only one company. For example, if a customer buys a Big Mac, they are unlikely to buy a Whopper as well on the same day.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 216 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Cognitive Modifiers

However, zero-sum is not nec- essarily the case in individual sports such as marathon run- ning, where players are rela- tively satisfied if they achieve a personal best. In non-zero- sum games, it is possible for all parties to win something, although the payoffs may vary to the different groups. For example, although the naïve outsider often believes that labor and management wage are in constant conflict, in fact unions can provide a structured and ritualized bargaining situation for both the union and administration to come to the table. Under these circumstances, agreements may be hammered out so that both parties believe they have gained. Superordinate goals also tend to create non-zero-sum games.

Of course, so much depends on the relative resources of all parties to the interaction. If a group holds few bargaining chips, there is little incentive for the more powerful group to bargain at all or to give concessions if it does so. The less powerful group may be able to appeal to altruism or to guilt over prior treatment. Less powerful groups also may be able to form coalitions thus making them more equal to groups holding more resources. Indeed, many of the disputes around organized labor—collective bargaining agreements, what is and isn’t subject to such agreements, and even the right to form a union—reflect this tension between the resources of employees and management. An interesting case study in the dynamics involved here is Walmart—the largest employer in the United States—and its persistent resistance to unionization.

A Side Note on Groupthink

Once again we quickly return to the combination of strong interpersonal cohesion and highly directive leadership that can produce groupthink. Here are several elements that Irving Janis identified in the syndrome that are cognitive characteristics that can foster cross-group conflict: heightened in-group identification; “we-they” thinking; a tendency to denigrate other groups and to see them as inferior to one’s own. One’s own group was seen as relatively invulnerable.

The guilty party that contributes so much of the research in this section is a strong sense of group identity. Is cross-group antagonism inevitable? Some social and behavior scientists think that it is, because competition constantly occurs for valued and scarce goods. On the other hand, insights from game theory and negotiating suggest cautious optimism. By changing the definition of the situation, we may be able to maintain cohesive productive groups yet minimize out-group hostility.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma sets up a number of scenarios for the two parties involved in the negotiations.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 217 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.5 Is Conflict All Bad?

10.5 Is Conflict All Bad? It is important to remember that although conflict is typically treated as destructive and to be avoided, it can be positive for groups. At least some theorists have observed a “storm- ing” period that can occur in group development. For example, within-group conflict can force a group to clarify and prioritize its goals. Debate about a new product can sharpen group opinion about its essential features.

Within-group conflict can also foster the development of skills. Members can learn how to negotiate and to compromise. In the give and take of group discourse, members can get to know one another better and develop tolerance for those with different views.

Cross-group conflict can strengthen in-group identity. It can create cross-group commu- nication that might not occur otherwise. Ultimately such conflict may force groups to cooperate for their own mutual benefit.

Of course, so much relies on how conflict is handled. For within-group conflict, a lot depends on the group leader. He or she must be objective to all sides, allow disagreement to be aired, and insist that interaction remain courteous. If the atmosphere is particularly rife, the larger organization may need to send a neutral party to oversee conflict, decide if it can be reconciled, or whether the group must be disbanded.

Cross-group conflict can be particularly destructive. Rival companies can slander each other’s products, may indulge in industrial sabotage, plant spies, and otherwise try to severely damage their opponent’s reputation and productive capacity. If an area of poten- tial cooperation is found, outside arbiters should try their best to use it. It may take a court system to intervene to stop a degenerative spiral of rancor.

If either within- or cross-group cooperation can be achieved, the payoff can be enormous. The group can become considerably more productive and a more pleasant ambiance can decrease turnover. Groups that can cooperate together can share ideas and develop new products. It is to everyone’s advantage to create a more cooperative atmosphere.

Summary Conflict occurs both within and between groups. Internal competition can have a nega- tive effect on the productivity or future viability of the group. Conflict between groups is more likely when resources are scarce, groups have a past history of hostilities, status differences exist between groups, the ingroup has a great deal of solidarity, diversity in personal styles and expectations are experienced, and people with personal attributes that aggravate conflict are present. Researchers have found that strategies like simply having contact between groups is not very helpful to reducing conflict. What is helpful in reduc- ing conflict is promoting contact between groups that involves equal status, support from authority for lessening conflict, superordinate goals, integrative negotiations, and time for these strategies to take effect. A number of mental processes, including our tendency to stereotype, help promote conflict across groups. Research on game theory and groupthink can provide us with some insights on how to deal with conflict, and we must remember

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 218 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10What Did We Discover?

that not all conflict is bad. Conflict can serve to sharpen the focus of a group, help the group develop skills it might need in the future, and strengthen the group’s identity.

What Did We Discover? • Those in the in-group may develop group solidarity, but develop artificial hostil-

ity toward those they perceive to be in the out-group, which can have destructive results.

• Stereotyping can foster group unity by reinforcing perceived differences that characterize others. Yet such stereotypes can be harmful both within a group and between groups.

• Competitors can sometimes recognize that collaboration—if only temporary coop- eration—can be more beneficial to both competitors, but the situation must be understood as offering such an opportunity.

• Scenarios where a win by one competitor entails a loss by the other competitor are zero-sum games. In business, such situations are frequent, but failing to recognize alternative scenarios may prevent one from identifying opportunities and poten- tial benefits.

• The Prisoner’s Dilemma reveals, among other things, that decisions often are made on the basis of incomplete information, and that in some cases, that incom- plete information possessed by competitors eliminates the possibility of determin- ing the correct solution.

Business Application Exercises

1. Identify some stereotype you may have been guilty of attributing to someone in the past. How were you able to overcome the generalization involved, and treat the person in question as an individual? How would you handle an employee of yours making such an unfair attribution to another employee?

2. What kinds of organizations, other than unions, do employees have available to them where they can raise important problems they might see in a company?

3. How has your status affected your role in a group you have been in? How did you let the status of others—whether above or below you—affect how you treated them? How might one go about overcoming such obstacles? List five guidelines you would want all of your employees to abide by in terms of working with those who may be different than themselves. Make sure your guidelines account for all types of differences—race, gender, nationality, age, religion, and so on.

4. How do you regard your competitors, whether at work, school, or in other con- texts? What tendency have you seen in yourself to generalize about them? Were those generalizations accurate as far as you know? In what ways did those gen- eralizations unify you with those with whom you worked? In what ways were these generalizations destructive about those with whom you competed?

5. Under what circumstances might two competing companies consider collaborat- ing? How can such collaboration be beneficial to both companies? Describe a specific business scenario where such a cooperative strategy would benefit two competing businesses.

Los66308_10_c10_p201-220.indd 219 9/1/11 9:54 AM

CHAPTER 10What Did We Discover?

Key Terms