Presentation onConflict & negotiations in Organizational Behavior

AIM

To Acquaint the Students About Conflicts & Negotiations (in Organizations)

GROUP MEMBERS

MAJ FAWAD HUSSAIN (MBA 4TH )

CAPT AZEEM HAFEEZ (MBA 4TH )

MUHAMMAD QAISER (MBA 4TH )

• (MAJ FAWAD)

INTRODUCTION

• (MAJ FAWAD)

DEFINITIONS

• (CAPT AZEEM / QAISER)

CONFLICT

• (QAISER / MAJ FAWAD)

NEGOTIATIONS

• (QAISER / CAPT AZEEM / MAJ FAWAD)

CASE STUDIES

SEQUENCE

• CONFLICT

Is a process that begins when one party perceives that another

party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect,

something that the first party cares about.

DEFINITION

A process in which two or more parties exchange goods or

services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for

them.

• NEGOTIATIONS

DEFINITION

CAPT AZEEM HAFEEZ

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–8

Conflict

• Conflict Defined

– Is a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about.

• Is that point in an ongoing activity when an interaction “crosses over” to become an interparty conflict.

– Encompasses a wide range of conflicts that people experience in organizations

DEFINITION

• Traditional View of Conflict

• Human Relations View of Conflict

• Integrationists View of Conflict

TRANSITIONS IN CONFLICT THOUGHT

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–10

TRANSITIONS IN CONFLICT THOUGHT

Causes:

• Poor communication

• Lack of openness

• Failure to respond to employee needs

Traditional View of Conflict

The belief that all conflict is harmful and must be

avoided.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–11

TRANSITIONS IN CONFLICT THOUGHT

Human Relations View of Conflict

The belief that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any group.

TRANSITIONS IN CONFLICT THOUGHT

Integrationists View of Conflict

The belief that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but that it is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–13

FUNCTIONAL VERSUS DYSFUNCTIONAL CONFLICT

Functional Conflict

Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance.

Dysfunctional Conflict

Conflict that hinders group performance.

• Functional

– Increased group performance

– Improved quality of decisions

– Stimulation of creativity and innovation

– Encouragement of interest and curiosity

– Provision of a medium for problem-solving

– Creation of an environment for self-evaluation and change

• Dysfunctional

– Development of discontent

– Reduced group effectiveness

– Retarded communication

– Reduced group cohesiveness

– Infighting among group members overcomes group goals

© 2009 Prentice-Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

15-14

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–15

TYPES Of CONFLICTTask Conflict

Conflicts over content and goals of the work.

Relationship Conflict

Conflict based on interpersonal relationships.

Process Conflict

Conflict over how work gets done.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–16

THE CONFLICT PROCESS

E X H I B I T 14–1

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–17

STAGE I: POTENTIAL OPPOSITION OR INCOMPATIBILITY

• Communication– Semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise”

• Structure– Size and specialization of jobs– Jurisdictional clarity/ambiguity– Member/goal incompatibility– Leadership styles (close or participative)– Reward systems (win-lose)– Dependence/interdependence of groups

• Personal Variables– Differing individual value systems– Personality types

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–18

STAGE II: COGNITION AND PERSONALIZATION

Positive FeelingsNegative Emotions

Conflict Definition

Perceived ConflictAwareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise.

Felt ConflictEmotional involvement in a conflict creating anxiety, tenseness, frustration, or hostility.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–19

STAGE III: INTENTIONS

Cooperativeness:

• Attempting to satisfy the other party’s concerns.

Assertiveness:

• Attempting to satisfy one’s own concerns.

Intentions

Decisions to act in a given way.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–20

Dimensions of Conflict-Handling Intentions

E X H I B I T 14–2

Source: K. Thomas, “Conflict and Negotiation Processes in Organizations,” in M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1992), p. 668. With permission.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–21

STAGE III: INTENTIONS (cont’d)Competing

A desire to satisfy one’s interests, regardless of the impact on the other party to the conflict.

Collaborating

A situation in which the parties to a conflict each desire to satisfy fully the concerns of all parties.

Avoiding

The desire to withdraw from or suppress a conflict.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–22

STAGE III: INTENTIONS (cont’d)Accommodating

The willingness of one party in a conflict to place the opponent’s interests above his or her own.

Compromising

A situation in which each party to a conflict is willing to give up something.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–23

STAGE IV: BEHAVIORConflict Management

The use of resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–24

STAGE V: OUTCOMES

• Functional Outcomes from Conflict

– Increased group performance

– Improved quality of decisions

– Stimulation of creativity and innovation

– Encouragement of interest and curiosity

– Provision of a medium for problem-solving

– Creation of an environment for self-evaluation and change

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–25

STAGE V: OUTCOMES

• Dysfunctional Outcomes from Conflict

– Development of discontent

– Reduced group effectiveness

– Retarded communication

– Reduced group cohesiveness

– Infighting among group members overcomes group goals

RAO QAISER

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–27

CONFLICT-INTENSITY CONTINUUM

E X H I B I T 14–3

Source: Based on S.P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), pp. 93–97; and F. Glasi, “The Process of Conflict Escalation and the Roles of Third Parties,” in G.B.J. Bomers and R. Peterson (eds.), Conflict Management and Industrial Relations (Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1982), pp. 119–40.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–28

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Conflict Resolution Techniques

• Problem solving

• Super ordinate goals

• Expansion of resources

• Avoidance

• Smoothing

• Compromise

• Authoritative command

• Altering the human variable

• Altering the structural variablesE X H I B I T

14–4

Source: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), pp. 59–89

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–29

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Conflict Resolution Techniques

• Communication

• Bringing in outsiders

• Restructuring the organization

• Appointing a devil’s advocate

E X H I B I T 14–4 (cont’d)

Source: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), pp. 59–89

NEGOTIATIONS

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–31

NEGOTIATIONNegotiation

A process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them.

BATNA

The Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement; the lowest acceptable value (outcome) to an individual for a negotiated agreement.

MAJOR FAWAD HUSSAIN

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–33

BARGAINING STRATEGIESDistributive Bargaining

Negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources; a win-lose situation.

Integrative Bargaining

Negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–34

DISTRIBUTIVE VERSUS INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING

E X H I B I T 14–5

Bargaining Distributive Integrative

Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic

Available resources Fixed amount of Variable amount of

resources to be divided resources to be divided

Primary motivations I win, you lose I win, you win

Primary interests Opposed to each other Convergent or congruent

with each other

Focus of relationships Short term Long term

Source: Based on R. J. Lewicki and J. A. Litterer, Negotiation (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1985), p. 280.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–35

STAKING OUT THE BARGAINING ZONE

E X H I B I T 14–6

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–36

THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS

E X H I B I T 14–7

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14–37

ISSUES IN NEGOTIATION

• The Role of Personality Traits in Negotiation– Traits do not appear to have a significantly direct

effect on the outcomes of either bargaining or negotiating processes.

• Gender Differences in Negotiations– Women negotiate no differently from men, although

men apparently negotiate slightly better outcomes.– Men and women with similar power bases use the

same negotiating styles.– Women’s attitudes toward negotiation and their

success as negotiators are less favorable than men’s.

Third-Party NegotiationsMediator

A neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning, persuasion, and suggestions for alternatives.

Arbitrator

A third party to a negotiation who has the authority to dictate an agreement.

Third-Party Negotiations (cont’d)

Consultant

An impartial third party, skilled in conflict management, who attempts to facilitate creative problem solving through communication and analysis.

Conciliator

A trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent.

CASE STUDY

Shirley and Abdul both work for a software development company.

The manager of the new product division was originally the leader of

the project team for which she interviewed and hired Abdul. Shirley,

another project team member, also interviewed Abdul, but strongly

opposed hiring him for the project because she thought he was not

competent to do the job.

Seven months after Abdul was hired, the manager left the project to

start her own company and recommended that Abdul and Shirley

serve as joint project leaders. Shirley agreed reluctantly? With the

stipulation that it be made clear she was not working for Abdul. The

General Manager consented; Shirley and Abdul were to share the

project leadership. Within a month Shirley was angry because Abdul

was representing himself to others as the leader of the entire project

and giving the impression that Shirley was working for him. Now

Shirley and Abdul are meeting with you to see if you can resolve the

conflict between them.

Shirley says: "Right after the joint leadership arrangement was reached

with the General Manager, Abdul called a meeting of the project team

without even consulting me about the time or content. He just told me

when it was being held and said I should be there. At the meeting, Abdul

reviewed everyone's duties line by line, including mine, treating me as

just another team member working for him. He sends out letters and

signs himself as project director, which obviously implies to others that I

am working for him.“

Abdul says: "Shirley is all hung up with feelings of power and titles. Just

because I sign myself as project director doesn't mean she is working for

me. I don't see anything to get excited about. What difference does it

make? She is too sensitive about everything. I call a meeting and right

away she thinks I'm trying to run everything. Shirley has other things to

do? Other projects to run? so she doesn't pay too much attention to this

one. She mostly lets things slide. But when I take the initiative to set up a

meeting, she starts jumping up and down about how I am trying to make

her work for me."

• Abdul and Shirley seem to have several conflicts occurring simultaneously.

Identify as many of these individual conflicts as possible.

• What are the possible ways to deal with the conflict between Abdul and

Shirley (not just the ones that you would recommend, but all of the options)?

• What could or should have been done to avoid this conflict in the first place?

QUESTIONS

SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS TO THE

QUESTIONS ASKED

SOLUTION SUMMARY

In this case scenario there are several issues

between Shirley and Abdul. First and foremost,

Shirley feels that Abdul is incompetent, thus her

perceptions of his capabilities are skewed and

there is a lack of respect to begin with. Shirley

also seems to have an issue with titles and

placement of authority (as Abdul mentions in his

summation of the conflict).

SOLUTION SUMMARY

Possible way to deal with the situation is to clearly define theresponsibilities to be performed by the two.

Both should work within set boundaries without interfering in other’smatters or tasks and collaborating with each other .

Both should write Co – Project Director as designation with them.Thereby indicating to all concerned that the project is not a show ofa single person.

Shirley should give due attention to this project as well, or if notpossible then leave it to be handled singularly by Abdul .

Both should be accommodating to the suggestion / changessuggested by each other while doing the project.

SOLUTION SUMMARY

In order to avoid the conflict in first place followingcould have been done :-

Both should have avoided to create the issue.

Both should have accommodated each other in runningthe project.

Management should have used Authoritative command tosettle the issue at the start .

Independent tasks, goals and objectives could have beengiven to them to avoid conflict and increase efficiency ofAbdul and Shirley.

Smoothing should have be carried out by Management toplay down the differences between the two developing andsurfacing in the initial stages of project.

QUESTIONS IF ANY

THANKS