3.explain The Sources and Process of Conflict

 

3. Explain Explain the Sources Sources and Process Process of conflic conflict. t. Discuss Discuss various various conflict-a conflict-avoi voidan dance ce strateg strategies ies being followed by an organization, citing example from the organization you are working in or any organization you are familiar with. Briefly describe the organization you are referring to. Sources of Conflict and Methods of Conflict Resolution

Introduction: Conflict occurs between people in all kinds of human relationships and in all social settings. Because of the wide range of potential differences among people, the absence of conflict usually signals the absence of meaningful interaction. Conflict by itself is neither good nor bad. However, the manner in which conflict is handled determines whether it is constructive or destructive (Deutsch & Coleman, 2000). Conflict Confli ct is define defined d as an incomp incompati atibil bility ity of goals goals or values values between between two or more more partie partiess in a relationship, combined with attempts to control each other and antagonistic feelings toward each other  (Fisher, 1990). The incompatibility or difference may exist in reality or may only be perceived by the  parties involved. Nonetheless, the opposing actions and the hostile emotions are very real hallmarks of  human conflict. Conflict has the potential for either a great deal of destruction or much creativity and positive social change (Kriesberg, 1998). Therefore, it is essential to understand the basic processes of conflict so that we can work to maximize productive outcomes and minimize destructive ones. This paper will briefly describe some common sources of conflict, the levels of social interaction at which conflict occurs, and the general ge neral strategies of approaching conflict that are available.

Sources of Conflict: Early reviews in the field of conflict resolution identified a large number of schemes for describing sources or types of conflict (Fink, 1968; Mack & Snyder, 1958). One of the early theorists on conflict, Daniel Katz (1965), created a typology that distinguishes three main sources of conflict: economic, value, and power. 1. Economic conflict involves competing motives to attain attain scarce resources. Each party wants to to get the most that it can, and the behavior and emotions of each party are directed toward maximizing its gain. Union and management conflict often has as one of its sources the incompatible goals of how to slice up the “economic pie”. 2. Value conflict involves incompatibility in ways of life, ideologies – the preferences,  principles principles and  practices that people believe in. International conflict (e.g., the Cold War) often has a strong value component, wherein each side asserts the rightness and superiority of its way of life and its politicaleconomic system. 3. Power conflict occurs when each party wishes to maintain or maximize the amount of   influence that it exerts in the relationship and the social setting. It is impossible for one party to be stronger  without the other being weaker, at least in terms of direct influence over each other. Thus, a power  struggle ensues which usually ends in a victory and defeat, or in a “stand-off” with a continuing state of tension. Power conflicts can occur between individuals, between groups or between nations, whenever one or both parties choose to take a power approach to the relationship. Power also enters into all conflict since the parties are attempting to control each other. It must be noted that most conflicts are not of a pure type, but involve a mixture of sources. For  example, union- management conflict typically involves economic competition, but may also take the form of a power struggle and often involves different ideologies or political values. The more sources

 

that are involved, the more intense and intractable the conflict usually is. Anothe Anot herr im impor porta tant nt sour source ce of conf confli lict ct is in inef effe fect ctiv ivee co comm mmuni unicat catio ion. n. Misc Miscom ommu muni nicat catio ion n and and misunderstanding can create conflict even where there are no basic incompatibilities. In addition,   parties may have different perceptions as to what are the facts in a situation, and until they share inform inf ormati ation on and clarif clarify y their their percep perceptio tions, ns, resolu resolutio tion n is imposs impossibl ible. e. Self-c Self-cent entere erednes dness, s, select selective ive   perception, emotional bias, prejudices, etc., are all forces that lead us to perceive situations very differently from the other party. Lack of skill in communicating what we really mean in a clear and respectful fashion often results in confusion, hurt and anger, all of which simply feed the conflict  process. Whether the conflict has objective sources or is due only to perceptual or communication  problems, it is experienced as very real by the parties involved.

Escalation of Conflict: A final source of conflict is more additional than basic, that is, it comes in after the conflict has started. Conflicts have a definite tendency to escalate, i.e., to become more intense and hostile, and to develop more issues, i.e., what the parties say the conflict is about. Therefore, escalating conflicts  become more difficult to manage. The process of escalation feeds on fear and defensiveness. Threat leads to counterthre Threat counterthreat at , usually usually with higher stakes at each go-round. Selective Selective and distorted distorted  perception justifies a competitive and cautious approach as opposed to a trusting and cooperative one. Through Deutsch’s crude law of social relations (1973), competition breeds competition, rather than cooperation. The self-fulfilling prophecy comes into play. Each party believes in th thee evil evil in inte tent ntio ions ns of th thee ot other her and th thee in inev evit itabi abili lity ty of di disa sagr gree eeme ment nt,, and and th ther eref efor oree ta take kess  precaution  preca utionary ary actions actions which signal mistrust mistrust and competitive competitiveness ness (Blake, Shepard & Mouton, 1964). When the other party then responds with a counteraction, this is perceived as justifying the initial  precaution  preca utionary ary measure, and a new spiral of action action and counteraction counteraction begins. Through the norm of  recipr rec iprocit ocity, y, str stronge ongerr attemp attempts ts to contro controll are met not only only with with str strong onger er resist resistance ance,, but more more contentious attempts to gain the upper hand. With each succeeding spiral of conflict, polarization grows and the parties become more adamant and intransigent in their approach to the situation. Even though the intensity of the conflict may moderate for periods of time, the issues remain, and a triggering event induces conflictual behavior with negative consequences, and the conflict has moved one more step up the escalation staircase. When parties  become “locked in” to a conflict they are usually unable to get out by themselves, and the intervention of a third party in the role of arbitrator, mediator or consultant may be required (Fisher, 1972, 1997).

Levels of Conflict: Conflict can occur at a number of levels of human functioning. Conflict in your head between opposing motives or ideas is shown by your “internal dialogue” and is at the intrapersonal level. Beyond that, the primary concern here is with social conflict, i.e., conflict between people whether  they are acting as individuals, as members of groups, or as representatives of organizations or nations. Interpersonal conflict occurs when two people have incompatible needs, goals, or approaches  in their  relationship. Communication breakdown is often an important source of interpersonal conflict and learning communication skills is valuable in preventing and resolving such difficulties. At the same time,, very real differences time differences occur between people that cannot be resolved resolved by any amount of improved improved communication. “Personality conflict” refers to very strong differences in motives, values or styles in dealing with people that are not resolvable. For example, if both parties in a relationship have a high need for power and both want to be dominant in the relationship, there is no way for both to be satisfied, and a power struggle ensues. Common tactics used in interpersonal power struggles include the exagger exaggerate ated d use of reward rewardss and punish punishmen ments, ts, decept deception ion and evasio evasion, n, threat threatss and emotio emotional nal  blackmail, and flattery or ingratiation. Unresolved power conflict usually recycles and escalates to the

 

 point of relationship breakdown and termination. Role conflict involv involves es very real differences differences in role definitions, definitions, expectations expectations or responsibil responsibilities ities  between individuals who are interdependent in a social system. If there are ambiguities in role definitions in an organization or unclear boundaries of responsibilities, then the stage is set for  inte interp rper erso sona nall fr fric icti tion on betwe between en th thee pers person onss in invol volve ved. d. Unfo Unfort rtun unat atel ely, y, th thee confl conflic ictt is of ofte ten n misdiagnos misd iagnosed ed as interperso interpersonal nal conflict conflict rather rather than role conflict, conflict, and resolution resolution is then complicated complicated and misdirected. The emotional intensity is often quite high in role conflict since   people are directly involved as individuals and there is a strong tendency to personalize the conflict. Intergroup conflict   departments collections of people such as ethnic or racial groups, or levels of decision occurs makingbetween in the same organization, and union and management. Competition for  scarce resources is a common source of intergroup conflict, and societies have developed numerous regulatory regul atory mechanisms, mechanisms, such as collective collective bargaining and media mediation, tion, for dealing dealing with intergroup intergroup conflict confl ict in less disruptive disruptive ways. Social-psychol Social-psychological ogical processes are very important in inter intergroup group conflict (Fisher, 1990). Group members tend to develop stereotypes (oversimplified negative beliefs) of the opposin opposing g group, group, tend tend to blame blame them them for their own proble problems ms (scape (scapegoat goating ing), ), and practi practice ce discrimination against them. These classic symptoms of intergroup conflict can be just as evident in organizations as in race relations in community settings. Intergroup conflict is especially tense and  prone to escalation and intractability when group identities are threatened. The costs of destructive intergroup conflict can be extremely high for a society in both economic and social terms. Multi-Party Conflict occurs in societies when different interest groups and organizations have  varying  prior  pr ioriti ities es over resour resource ce managem management ent and policy policy develo developme pment. nt. These These comple complex x conflic conflicts ts ty typic picall ally y involve a combination of economic, value and power sources. This complexity is often beyond the reach of traditional authoritative or adversarial procedures, and more collaborative approaches to  building consensus are required for resolution (Cormick et al, 1996; 19 96; Gray, 1989). International conflict occurs between states at the global level. Competition for resources certainly  plays a part, but value and power conflict are often intertwined and sometimes predominate. The differences are articulated through the channels of diplomacy in a constant game of give and take, or  threat and counterthreat, sometimes for the highest of stakes. Mechanisms of propaganda can lead to many of the same social-psychological distortions that characterize interpersonal and intergroup conflict.

Methods of Conflict Resolution: Regardless of the level of conflict, there are differing approaches to deal with the incompatibilities that exist. Conflict can result in destructive outcomes or creative ones depending on the approach that is taken. If we can manage conflict creatively, we can often find new solutions that are mutually satisfactory to both parties. Sometimes this will involve a distribution of resources or power that is more equitable than before, or in creating a larger pool of resources or forms of influence than before. Creative outcomes are more probable when the parties are interdependent, i.e., each having some degree of independence and autonomy from which to influence the other, rather than one party being  primarily dependent on the other. Given interdependence, three general strategies have been identified that the parties may take toward dealing with their conflict; win-lose, lose-lose, and win-win (Blake, Shepard & Mouton, 1964). The win-lose approach is all too too common. People learn the behaviors of destructive conflict conflict early in life – competition, dominance, aggression and defense permeate many of our social relationships from the family to the school playground. The “fixed pie” assumption is made, often incorrectly, that what one party gains, the other loses. The strategy is thus to force the other side to capitulate. Sometimes,

 

this is done through socially acceptable mechanisms such as majority vote, the authority of the leader, or the determination of a judge. Sometimes, it involves secret strategies, threat, innuendo – whatever  works wor ks is accept acceptabl able, e, i.e., i.e., the ends ends justif justify y the means. means. There There is often often a strong strong we-the we-they y distin distincti ction on accompanied by the classic symptoms of intergroup conflict. The valued outcome is to have a victor  who is superior, and a vanquished who withdraws in shame, but who prepares very carefully for the next round. In the long run, everyone loses. The lose-lose strategy is exemplified by smoothing over conflict or by reaching the simplest of  compromises. In neither case is the creative potential of productive conflict resolution realized or  explored. Disagreement is seen as inevitable, so therefore why not split the difference or smooth over  difficulties in as painless a way as possible? Sometimes, this is indeed the reality of the situation, and the costs are less than in the win- lose approach, at least for the loser. Each party gets some of what it wants, and resigns itself to partial satisfaction. Neither side is aware that by confronting the conflict fully ful ly and cooper cooperati ativel vely y they they might might have have create created d a more more satisf satisfyin ying g soluti solution. on. Or the partie partiess may realistically use this approach to divide limited resources or to forestall a win-lose escalation and outcome. The win-win approach approach is a conscious and systematic attempt to maximize the goals of both parties through collaborative problem solving. The conflict is seen as a problem to be solved rather than a war  to be won. The important distinction is we (both parties) versus the problem, rather than we (one party) versus they (the other party). This method focuses on the needs and constraints of both parties rather  than than emph emphas asiz izin ing g stra strate tegi gies es desi design gned ed to conq conquer uer.. Fu Full ll prob proble lem m de defi fini niti tion on an and d anal analys ysis is and development of alternatives precedes consensus decisions on mutually agreeable solutions. The parties work toward common and superordinate goals, i.e., ones that can only be attained by both parties  pulling together. There is an emphasis on the quality of the long term relationships between the parties, rather than short term accommodations. Communication is open and direct rather than secretive and calculatin calcu lating. g. Threat and coercion coercion are proscribed. proscribed. The assumption assumption is made that integrative integrative agreements agreements are possible given the full range of resources existing in the relationship. Attitudes and behaviors are directed toward an increase of trust and acceptance rather than an escalation of suspicion and hostility. The win-win approach requires a very high degree of patience and skill in human relations and  problem solving.

Conclusion: Conflict Confli ct is an inevit inevitabl ablee fact fact of human human existe existence nce.. If we work work to unders understan tand d and manage manage it effectively, we can improve both the satisfaction and productivity of our social relationships.

THE CONFLICT PROCESS

The conflict process can be seen as comprising comprising five stages: stages: potential potential opposition opposition or incompatibilit incompatibility, y, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes. Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility

The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportu-nities for conflict to arise. They need not lead directly to conflict, but one of these con-ditions is necessary if conflict is to surface. For simplicity’s sake, these conditions

 

(which also may be looked at as causes or sources of conflict) have been condensed into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables. 4 Communication The communication source represents the opposing forces that  arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and noise in the communication channels. Much of this discussion can  be related back to our comments on communi-cation in Chapter 10. 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. Evidence demonstrates that semantic difficulties arise as a result of  differences in training, selec-tive perception, and inadequate information about others. 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 commu-nication is functional up to a  point, whereupon it is possible to overcommunicate, with a resultant increase in the potential for  conflict. Too much information, as well as too little, can lay the foundation for conflict. Furthermore, the channel chosen for communicating communicating can have an influence influence on stimulati stimulating ng opposition. opposition. The filtering filtering  process that occurs as information is passed between members and the divergence of commu-nications from formal or previously established channels offer potential opportunities for conflict to arise.

Structure The term structure is used, in this context, to include variables such as size, degree of  sp spec ecia iali lizat zatio ion n in the the task taskss assi assign gned ed to group group memb member ers, s, juri jurisd sdic icti tion onal al cl clar arit ity, y, memb member er–go –goal al compat com patibi ibilit lity, y, leader leadershi ship p styles styles,, reward reward system systems, s, and the degree degree of depende dependence nce among among groups groups.. Research indicates that size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. The larger the group and the more specialized its activi-ties, the greater the likelihood of conflict. Tenure and conflict appear  inversely related, meaning the potential for conflict tends to be greatest when group members are younger and when turnover is high.

A close style of leadership—tight and continuous observation with general control of others’ behaviors   —incr —increas eases es conflic conflictt potent potential ial,, but the evidenc evidencee is not parti particul cularl arly y str strong. ong. Too much much relian reliance ce on  participation may also stimulate conflict. Research tends to confirm that participation and conflict are highly correlated, apparently because partici-pation encourages the promotion of differences. Reward systems, too, are found to create conflict when one member’s gain is at another’s expense. And if a group gro up is depende dependent nt on another another group group (in contrast contrast to the two being being mutual mutually ly indepe independen ndent) t) or if 

 

interdependence allows one group to gain at another’s expense, opposing forces are stimulated. Personal Variables As practical experience has taught us, some people are conflict oriented and others are conflict aversive. Evidence indicates that certain personality types—for example, individuals who are highly authoritarian and dogmatic—lead to potential conflict. Emotions can also cause conflict. For  example, an employee who shows up to work irate from her hectic morning commute may carry that anger to her 9:00 A.M. meeting. The problem? Her anger can annoy her colleagues, which may lead to a tension-filled meeting. In addition to personality traits, differing values can explain conflict. Value differences are the best explanation of diverse issues such as prejudice and disagreements over one’s contribution to the group, as well as the rewards one deserves. Say that John dislikes AfricanAmericans and Dana believes John’s position indicates his ignorance. Say that an employee thinks he is worth $55,000 a year but his boss believes him to be worth $50,000. These are all value dif-ferences, which are important sources for creating the potential for conflict. It is also important to note that culture can be a source of differing values. For example, research indicates that individuals in Japan and in the United States view conflict dif-ferently dif-ferently.. Compared Compared to Japanese negotiators, negotiators, Americans Americans are more likely to see offers from their counterparts as unfair and to reject such offers. Stage II: Cognition and Personalization

If the conditions cited in stage I negatively affect something that one party cares about, then the  potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage. As our definition of conflict notes, perception is required. One or more of the parties must be aware of  the existence of the antecedent conditions. However, because a conflict is perceived does not make it  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 toward B.”6 It is at the felt level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that parties experience anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility. ho stility. Stage III: Intentions

Intentions intervene among people’s perceptions and emotions and overt behaviors. These intentions are decisions to act in a given way. Intentions are separated out as a distinct stage because you have to infer the other’s intent to know how to respond to that other’s behavior. A lot of conflicts are escalated merely by one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other party. In addition, there is typically a great deal of slippage between intentions and behavior, so behavior does d oes not always accurately reflect a person’s intentions. Exhibit 13-2 represents one author’s effort to identify the primary conf lict-handling 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: 3.

Competing: assertive and uncooperative, such as when you strive to achieve your goal   at the expense of the other party achieving his.

 

4.

5.

6.

7.

Collaborating: assertive and cooperative—intending to find a win–win solution that  makes both  parties happy.  Avoiding: unassertive and uncooperative, such as when you avoid a conflict based on  the hope it will just go away.  Accommodating: unassertive and cooperative, such as when you give in just to please   someone else. Compromising: mid-range on both assertiveness and cooperativeness, where the pie is   sliced down the middle).

People differ in the degree to which they generally rely on these strategies (e.g., some people are competitive in most situations), but the approach also will vary by the situ-ation (e.g., a strategy one intends to use in a conflict with a loved one will often differ from a conflict with strangers). 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. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s inte intent ntio ions ns,, bu butt th they ey have have a st stim imul ulus us qual qualit ity y th that at is separ separat atee from from in inte tent ntio ions ns.. As a resu result lt of  miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviors sometimes deviate from 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. All conflicts exist somewhere along this continuum. At the lower part of the continuum, we have conflicts characterized  by subtle, indirect, and highly con-trolled forms of tension, such as a student questioning in class a   point point the instru instructo ctorr has just just made. made. Confli Conflict ct int intens ensiti ities es escala escalate te as they they move move upward upward along along the continuum until they become highly destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this upper range. Fo Forr th thee most most part part,, conf confli lict ctss th that at reac reach h th thee upper upper range rangess of th thee cont contin inuu uum m are are al almo most st al alway wayss dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower range of the continuum. Stage V: Outcomes

 

The action–reaction interplay among the conflicting parties results in consequences. As our model (see Exhibi Exh ibitt 13-1) 13-1) demons demonstra trates tes,, these these outcom outcomes es may be functi functiona onall in that that the confli conflict ct result resultss in an im impr prove oveme ment nt in th thee gr grou oup’ p’ss perf perfor orma mance nce,, or it may may be dysf dysfun unct ctio ional nal in th that at it hi hind nder erss group group  performance. Functional Outcomes How might conflict act as a force to increase group perfor-mance? It is hard to visualize a situation in which open or violent aggression could be functional. Yet in a number of  inst instanc ances es,, it’s it’s possi possibl blee to envis envisio ion n how how lo low w or mode modera rate te le level velss of conf confli lict ct co coul uld d im impr prov ovee the the effectiveness of a group. Because people often find it difficult to think of instances in which conflict can be constructive, let’s consider some examples and then review the research evidence. Note how all

these examples focus on task and process conflicts and exclude the relationship v variety. ariety. Conflict is constructive when it: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

improves tth he quality of of decisions, stimulates creativit vity and innova ovation, en enco cour urag ages es inte intere rest st an and d cu curi rios osit ity y amon among g gro group up memb member ers, s, prov provid ides es th thee medi medium um thr throu ough gh whi which ch pro probl blem emss can can be ai aire red d and and tten ensi sion onss rrel elea ease sed, d, and and fost foster erss an en envi viro ronm nmen entt of self self-e -eva valu luat atio ion n and and ch chan ange ge..

The evidence suggests that conflict can improve the quality of deci-sion making by allowing all points,  particularly the ones that are unusual or held by a minority, to be weighed in important decisions.8 Conflict Confl ict is an antidote antidote for groupthink. groupthink. It doesn’t doesn’t allow the group to passively passively rubber-stamp rubber-stamp decisions decisions that may be based on weak assumptions, inade-quate consideration of relevant alternatives, or other  debilities. Conflict challenges the status quo and therefore furthers the creation of new ideas, promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group will respond to change. You don’t have to look further than automobile behemoth General Motors to see a company that suffered because it had too little functional conflict. Many of GM’s problems, from the late 1960s to the late 1990s, can be traced to a lack of functional conflict. It hired and promoted individuals who were yes-men, loyal to GM to the point of never questioning company actions. Managers were, for the most part, homogenous: conservative white males raised in the midwestern United States who resisted change: They preferred looking back to past successes rather than forward to new challenges. They were almost sanctimonious in their belief that what had worked in the past would continue to work in the future. Moreover, by sheltering executives in the company’s Detroit offices and encouraging them to social-ize with others inside the GM ranks, the company further insulated managers from conflicting  perspectives. Yahoo! provides a more recent example of a company that suffered because of too little functional conflict.10 Begun in 1994, by 1999 Yahoo! had become one of the best-known brand names on the Internet. Then the implosion of dot.com stocks hit. By the spring of 2001, Yahoo!’s advertising sales were plunging and the company’s stock was down 92 percent from its peak. It was at this point that Yahoo! Yah oo!’s ’s most most criticriti-cal cal proble problem m became became exposed exposed:: The company company was too insula insulated ted and void void of  functional conflict. It couldn’t respond to change. Managers and staff were too comfortable with each other to challenge the status quo. This kept new ideas from percolating upward and held dissent to a minimum. The source of the problem was the company’s CEO, Tim Koogle. He set the tone of  nonconfrontation. Only when Koogle was replaced in 2001, with a new CEO who openly challenged the company’s conflict-free climate, did Yahoo! begin to successfully solve its problems. Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of conflict, demonstrating that, among amo ng establ establish ished ed groups groups,, perfor performan mance ce tended tended to improv improvee more more when when conflic conflictt occurre occurred d among among members than when fairly close agreement was preva-lent. When groups analyzed decisions made by

 

its individual members, investigators found the average improvement among the high-conflict groups was 73 percent greater than that of those groups characterized by low-conflict conditions.11 Others have found similar results: Groups composed of members with different interests tend to produce higher-quality solutions to a variety of problems than do homogeneous groups. Thee dest destru ruct ctiv ivee co cons nseq eque uenc nces es of co conf nfli lict ct on a grou group’ p’ss or  Dysfunctional Outcomes Dysfunctional Outcomes Th organi org anizat zation ion’s ’s perfor performan mance ce are general generally ly well well known. known. A reason reasonabl ablee summar summary y might might state state that that uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties, and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. And, of course, a substantial body of literature documents how conflict—  the the dy dysf sfun unct ctio iona nall varie varieti ties es—c —can an redu reduce ce grou group p ef effe fect ctiv iven enes ess. s.13 13 Among Among th thee more more unde undesi sira rabl blee consequences are a retarding of communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of  group goals to the primacy of infighting among members. At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and potentially p otentially threaten the group’s survival. The demise of an organization as a result of too much conflict isn’t as unusual as one might expect. For  instance, one of New York’s best-known law firms, Shea & Gould, closed down solely because the 80  partners couldn’t get along.14 As one legal consultant familiar with the organization said, “This was a firm that had basic and principled differences among the partners that were basically irreconcilable.” That same consultant also addressed the partners at their last meeting: “You don’t have an economic  problem,” he said. “You have a personality problem. You hate each other!”   Negot Negotiat iation ion permea permeates tes the intera interacti ctions ons of almost almost everyon everyonee in groups groups and NEGOTIATION organiza-tions. There’s the obvious: Labor bargains with management. There’s the not so obvi-ous: Manage Man agers rs negotia negotiate te with with employ employees ees,, peers, peers, and bosses bosses;; salesp salespeopl eoplee negoti negotiate ate with with custom customers ers;;  purchasing agents negotiate with suppliers. And there’s the subtle: An employee agrees to answer a colleague’s phone for a few minutes in exchange for some past or future benefit. In today’s loosely structured organizations, in which members are increasingly finding themselves having to work with colleagues over whom they have no direct authority and with whom they may not even share a common boss, negotiation skills become critical. We define negotiation as a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them.16 Note that we’ll use the terms negotiation and  bargaining interchangeably.

 

The Negotiation Process

Exhibit 13-5 provides a simplified model of the negotiation process. It views negotia-tion as made up of five steps: 1. 2. 3.

Preparation an and pl planning Definition of ground rules Clarificat cation an and d just ustification

4. 5.

Bargaining and problem solving Closure and implementation17 Preparation and Planning Before you start negotiating, you need to do your homework. What’s the nature of the conflict? What’s the history leading up to this negotiation? Who’s involved, and what are their perceptions of the conflict?

Conflict Avoidance Strategie Strategiess Conflict occurs when two or more parties more parties believe there is a threat to their individual needs, intere interests sts or concern concerns. s. Confli Conflicts cts involv involvee disagr disagreem eement entss and differ difference encess of opinio opinion. n. Someti Sometimes mes •

misunderst misu nderstandings andings exacerbate exacerbate disagreemen disagreements ts or create create perceptions perceptions of disagreement disagreement that do not reveal true conditions. Threatening situations elicit different kinds of responses from people. Some people engage threats aggressively, while others may engage with diplomacy to resolve conflicts. People who fear conflict may employ conflict avoidance strategies, because they fear pain or desire approval.

 

Swallow Feelings A person who avoids conflict by concealing his feelings is known as a feeling-swallower. The tactic involves concealing one's true feelings, emotions or opinions. A feeling swallower seeks approval from others and values approval more than expressing personal pain or distress. Feeling swallowers may smile while experiencing fear, pain or depression. Feeling swallowers do not work toward work toward conflict resolution and may allow others to take advantage, advan tage, abuse or injure them. Change Subject Some people use a conflict avoidance strategy that attempts to conceal a point of conflict by changing the subject. Subject-changes may believe that the issue or issues involved with a particular  conflict are too complex or difficult to deal with. Subject cchangers hangers attempt to distract conflicting parties

 by highlighting less contentious issues. Subject changers do not work toward conflict resolution and may create a backlash by postponing or preventing resolution of important conflict issues. Overt Avoidance A person who goes out of her way to avoid conflict employs an overt conflict avoidance strategy. These avoiders want to hide, retreat or escape from conflict. The overt avoider may alter her lifestyle and behavior to avoid specific spec ific places, people or activities. Self-Induced Self Deception People use self-deception to protect themselves from themselves and from other things that may harm them. Intentiona Intentionall self-decept self-deception ion is self-induc self-induced ed self-decept self-deception. ion. Self-induci Self-inducing ng self-deceiv self-deceivers ers intentionally adopt false opinions or beliefs to avoid pain or disappointment. The self-induced self-

deceiving conflict avoider actually desires a particular outcome or resolution of a particular conflict, but lies to himself about those desires to avoid conflict. These conflict avoiders may refuse to acknowledge factua fac tuall inform informati ation on and develop develop deep intern internal al conflic conflicts ts that that lead lead to feeli feelings ngs of alienat alienation ion and an inability to know the self.

Examples of Conflict Avoidance Conflict avoidance is a strategy that is used to conceal issues in relationships, relationships, at work  work or or in friendships. In relationships, conflict avoidance is often employed when a person doesn't want to address a situation that poses a problem. Conflict avoidance differs in the workplace, where workers employ this strategy to further their careers their careers or keep keep issues issues from from their their boss boss or manage managers. rs. Conf Conflic lictt avoidance can be successful or can fail miserably, depending on the severity of the situation. Compliance Compliance has proven to be an unsuccessful way to avoid conflict in many situations. Many   peopl peoplee face face thi thiss proble problem m at work. work. When When your your superv superviso isorr gives gives you more work work than than you could reasonably complete, you become a victim of a bullying boss. Not Clearly Expressing Feelings "Sugar-coating" words, or being unclear about and minimizing a situation, is a prime example of conflict avoidance. When dealing with a challenging problem, confront the problem forthrightly, without being concerned about hurting feelings. Though there is a line between being rude and being upfront, it's better in the long run for people to know how you feel without misunderstanding what you meant, especially if future plans or serious agreements are involved. Ignoring the Issue

Simply pretending there isn't a problem may work for a while, but will eventually make the situation much worse. Over time, a problem tends to progress and become more complicated than it would have been if it had been solved at the outset.