Chapter 11: Conflict and Negotiation in the Workplace
CHAPTER SYNOPSIS
Con1lict is the process in which one party perceives that his or her interests are being opposed or negatively affected by
another party. For many years,
con1lict was viewed as undesirable and counterproductive. There is evidence that
con1lict can produce undesirable outcomes such as lower job satisfaction, team cohesion, and knowledge sharing as
well as higher organizational politics and turnover. However, experts later formed the opinion that organizations suffer
.
from too little as well as too much
con1lict. Research reports that moderate con1lict can improve decision making,
organizational responsiveness to the environment, and team cohesion (when
con1lict is with sources outside the team)
The current perspective involves distinguishing constructive
con1lict from relationship con1lict. The former focuses on
issues and a logical evaluation of ideas, whereas the latter pays attention to interpersonal incompatibilities and
1laws.
Although the ideal would be to encourage constructive
con1lict and minimize relationship con1lict, relationship con1lict
when tends to emerge in most
constructive‐con1lict episodes. However, relationship con1lict is less likely to dominate
the parties are emotionally intelligent, have a cohesive team, and have supportive team norms.
The
con1lict process model begins with the six structural sources of con1lict: incompatible goals, differentiation
(different values and beliefs), interdependence, scarce resources, ambiguous rules, and communication problems.
These sources lead one or more parties to perceive a
con1lict and to experience con1lict emotions. This, in turn,
ugh produces manifest
con1lict, such as hostile behaviors toward the other side. The con1lict process often escalates thro
a series of episodes.
Organizational behavior experts have
identi1ied several con1lict‐handling styles: problem solving, forcing, avoiding,
yielding, and compromising. People who use problem solving have a win‐win orientation. Other styles, particularly
forcing, assume a win‐lose orientation. In general, people gravitate toward one or two preferred
con1lict‐handling styles
that match their personality, personal and cultural values, and past experience. However, the best style depends on
various characteristics of the situation.
Structural approaches to
con1lict management include emphasizing superordinate goals, reducing differentiation,
improving communication and understanding, reducing interdependence, increasing resources, and clarifying rules and
procedures.
Negotiation occurs whenever two or more
con1licting parties attempt to resolve their divergent goals by rede1ining the
terms of their interdependence. Negotiations are
in1luenced by several situational factors, including location, physical
setting, time passage and deadlines, and audience. Important negotiator behaviors include preparation and goal setting,
gathering information, communicating effectively, and making concessions.
Third‐party
con1lict resolution is any attempt by a relatively neutral person to help the parties resolve their differences.
The three main forms of third‐party dispute resolution are mediation, arbitration, and inquisition. Managers tend to use
an inquisition approach, although mediation and arbitration are more appropriate, depending on the situation.