Chapter Review

Key Terms

Below is a list of some of the key terms you have learned about in this chapter. 

Summary

Conflict has been defined as 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. There are three general schools of thought relating to conflict: the traditional view, the human relations view, and the interactionist view. The traditional (and the oldest view) view of conflict assumes that all disagreement is harmful and should be avoided. The human relationsview argues that conflict is a natural occurrence in all groups and, as such, it should be managed and not eliminated. The interactionistview proposes that conflict can be a positive force in a group and explicitly argues that some conflict is necessary for a group to perform effectively. According to the interactionist view, conflict can be functional or dysfunctional. Functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves it performance while dysfunctional conflict hinders group performance. Conflict can also be described by type: task, relationship, or process. Task conflict relates to the contents and goals of the work, while relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships. Process conflict, in contrast, relates to how the work gets done. Studies indicate that relationship conflict is almost always dysfunctional, while low levels of process conflict and low to moderate levels of task conflict are functional.

The process of conflict consists of five stages: potential opposition, cognition and personalization, intentions, behaviour, and outcomes. The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. These conditions may be condensed into three categories: communication, structure, and personal variables. Communication variables include semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and noise in communication channels. Structure variables include factors such as size, degree of specialization, jurisdictional clarity, member-goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of dependence between groups. Personal variables, in contrast, include personality, emotions, and values. 

The second state of the conflict process is cognition and personalization. For conflict to exist, perception is required. Further, the conflict must be felt and individuals must become emotionally involved. 

The third state in the conflict process is intentions. Intentions intervene between people's perceptions and emotions and their overt behaviour and may be described according to two dimensions: cooperativeness and assertiveness. The way in which individuals handle conflict has been characterized into five distinct intentions: competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (midrange on both assertive and cooperative). 

The next stage of the conflict process is behaviour. This is where conflict becomes visible, with statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties. Managers may control the level of conflict through conflict management and conflict stimulation techniques. Conflict management techniques include problem solving, superordinate goals, expansion of resources, avoidance, smoothing, compromise, authoritative command, altering the human variable, and altering the structural variables. In the event that a manager wishes to stimulate conflict, techniques such as communication, bringing in outsiders, restructuring the organization, and appointing a devil's advocate may be used. 

The final stage of the conflict process is outcomes. These outcomes may be either functional, resulting in an improvement in group performance, or dysfunctional, hindering group performance. 

Negotiation is the process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them. It can take an adversarial tone, known as distributive bargaining, in which parties engage in the zero-sum behaviours of arguing that your viewpoint is fair, while that of your opponent isn't, and attempting to get your opponent to feel emotionally generous toward you. A strategy that attempts to solve problems in a win-win manner that preserves the long term relationship between parties is known as integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining both parties leave the negotiating table feeling that they have achieved their target point (that which they would like to achieve), and that they were not forced to settle for their resistance (the lowest outcome that is acceptable). BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) determines the lowest value acceptable to a party for a negotiated agreement. 

The negotiation process consists of (1) preparation and planning; (2) definition of ground rules; (3) clarification and justification; (4) bargaining and problem solving; and (5) closure and implementation. 

Personality, moods and emotions, and gender all play a role in negotiations. While personality and negotiation were previously thought to be unrelated, negotiators who are agreeable or extraverted are less successful at distributive bargaining, as they tend to share too much information. The most effective distributive bargainer appears to be a disagreeable introvert. Interestingly, negotiators that show anger tend to be more successful in distributive negotiations, as they anger tends to induce concessions. In contrast, positive moods and emotions lead to more integrative agreements. While there is a popular stereotype that women are "nicer" or more cooperative in negotiations, this is not well supported by research. However, women demonstrate less confidence in anticipation of negotiating and are less satisfied with their performance after the negotiation process is complete. In addition, women may unduly penalize themselves by failing to engage in negotiations when such action would be in their best interests. Negotiation outcomes can be improved by using neutral third parties,like mediators (who facilitate solutions by using reasoning and persuasion), arbitrators (who dictate an agreement), conciliators (who provide an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent), and consultants (who attempt to facilitate problem solving through communication and analysis). 

There are a number of cultural differences in negotiations. When comparing US and Japanese negotiators, US managers tend to make early offers which anchor negotiations. In contrast, Japanese managers tended to share more information and participate in more integrative negotiations. When comparing North American, Russian, and Arab negotiators, North American managers tended to rely more on facts and logic, while Arab negotiators tended to appeal to emotion. Russian negotiators focused on ideals in their negotiations. There are even cultural differences in nonverbal communication, revealed in research of North American, Japanese, and Brazilian negotiators.