Conflict and Negotiations

This resource looks at the causes and variants of conflict, the consequences of short and long-term conflicts in teams and groups, and conflict resolution tactics. You will learn about the stages of negotiation, bargaining strategies, and the negotiation process. The text also considers international negotiations and how cultural differences impact those. As you reach the end of the text, ensure that you understand what a BATNA is and why it matters in negotiation.

Causes of Conflict in Organizations

A Model of the Conflict Process

Having examined specific factors that are known to facilitate conflict, we can ask how conflict comes about in organizations. The most commonly accepted model of the conflict process was developed by Kenneth Thomas. This model, shown in Exhibit 14.3, consists of four stages: (1) frustration, (2) conceptualization, (3) behavior, and (4) outcome.

Stage 1: Frustration. As we have seen, conflict situations originate when an individual or group feels frustration in the pursuit of important goals. This frustration may be caused by a wide variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to get a promotion or pay raise, a fight over scarce economic resources, new rules or policies, and so forth. In fact, conflict can be traced to frustration over almost anything a group or individual cares about.

Stage 2: Conceptualization. In stage 2, the conceptualization stage of the model, parties to the conflict attempt to understand the nature of the problem, what they themselves want as a resolution, what they think their opponents want as a resolution, and various strategies they feel each side may employ in resolving the conflict. This stage is really the problem-solving and strategy phase. For instance, when management and union negotiate a labor contract, both sides attempt to decide what is most important and what can be bargained away in exchange for these priority needs.

Stage 3: Behavior. The third stage in Thomas's model is actual behavior. As a result of the conceptualization process, parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving problems. A major task here is determining how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to attempt to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for conflict resolution, as shown in Exhibit 14.3. These are (1) competing, (2) collaborating, (3) compromising, (4) avoiding, and (5) accommodating. Also shown in the exhibit are situations that seem most appropriate for each strategy.

A diagram illustrating a model of the conflict process.

Exhibit 14.3 A Model of the Conflict Process


The choice of an appropriate conflict resolution mode depends to a great extent on the situation and the goals of the party. This is shown graphically in Exhibit 14.4. According to this model, each party must decide the extent to which it is interested in satisfying its own concerns - called assertiveness - and the extent to which it is interested in helping satisfy the opponent's concerns - called cooperativeness. Assertiveness can range from assertive to unassertive on one continuum, and cooperativeness can range from uncooperative to cooperative on the other continuum.

Once the parties have determined their desired balance between the two competing concerns - either consciously or unconsciously - the resolution strategy emerges. For example, if a union negotiator feels confident she can win on an issue that is of primary concern to union members (e.g., wages), a direct competition mode may be chosen (see upper left-hand corner of Exhibit 14.4). On the other hand, when the union is indifferent to an issue or when it actually supports management's concerns (e.g., plant safety), we would expect an accommodating or collaborating mode (on the right-hand side of the exhibit).

Five Modes of Resolving Conflict
Conflict-Handling Modes Appropriate Situations
Competing
  1. When quick, decisive action is vital - e.g., emergencies
  2. On important issues where unpopular actions need implementing - e.g., cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline
  3. On issues vital to company welfare when you know you're right
  4. Against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior
Collaborating
  1. When trying to find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised
  2. When your objective is to learn
  3. When merging insights from people with different perspectives
  4. When gaining commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus
  5. When working through feelings that have interfered with a relationship
Compromising
  1. When goals are important but not worth the effort or potential disruption of more assertive modes
  2. When opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals
  3. When attempting to achieve temporary settlements to complex issues
  4. When arriving at expedient solutions under time pressure
  5. As a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful
Avoiding
  1. When an issue is trivial, or when more important issues are pressing
  2. When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns
  3. When potential disruption outweighs the benefits of resolution
  4. When letting people cool down and regain perspective
  5. When gathering information supersedes immediate decision
  6. When others can resolve the conflict more effectively
  7. When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of other issues
Accommodating    
  1. When you find you are wrong - to allow a better position to be heard, to learn, and to show your reasonableness
  2. When issues are more important to others than yourself - to satisfy others and maintain cooperation
  3. When building social credits for later issues
  4. When minimizing loss when you are outmatched and losing
  5. When harmony and stability are especially important
  6. When allowing subordinates to develop by learning from mistakes
Table 14.1

A diagram illustrating approaches to conflict resolution.

Exhibit 14.4 Approaches to Conflict Resolution

What is interesting in this process is the assumptions people make about their own modes compared to their opponents'. For example, in one study of executives, it was found that the executives typically described themselves as using collaboration or compromise to resolve conflict, whereas these same executives typically described their opponents as using a competitive mode almost exclusively. In other words, the executives underestimated their opponents' concern as uncompromising. Simultaneously, the executives had flattering portraits of their own willingness to satisfy both sides in a dispute.

Stage 4: Outcome. Finally, as a result of efforts to resolve the conflict, both sides determine the extent to which a satisfactory resolution or outcome has been achieved. Where one party to the conflict does not feel satisfied or feels only partially satisfied, the seeds of discontent are sown for a later conflict, as shown in the preceding Exhibit 14.2. One unresolved conflict episode can easily set the stage for a second episode. Managerial action aimed at achieving quick and satisfactory resolution is vital; failure to initiate such action leaves the possibility (more accurately, the probability) that new conflicts will soon emerge.

Concept Check
  1. Why do organizations have so much conflict?
  2. Describe the process of the conflict model.