COMMGMT 3506 – Lecture 1
Modules 1 & 2
The nature of conflict and negotiation
Adapted from:
Hames, D. S. (2012). Negotiation: Closing deals, settling
disputes, and making team decisions, SAGE Publications.
Lewicki, R.J. Barry, B. and Saunders, D.M. 2010.
Negotiation, 6th ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston.
Lecturer: Dr Valerie Caines
Course overview
• Weekly readings are provided on MyUni
There is no set text
• Seminar preparation & participation
• Individual report – analysis & reflection
• Group presentation
• End-of-semester case study (to be completed individually and in
lieu of exam)
• Refer to MyUni for details and submission dates
Assessments
Course overview
Seminar preparation & participation
◦ Marks will be allocated for the quantity and
quality of preparation and participation, not
for attendance, although attending class is
important.
◦ From time-to-time I will collect your
preparation so please make sure that you
come prepared each week.
◦ Preparation must be submitted in class on the
day. Late submissions will not be accepted.
◦ Preparation is not required for all workshops
so please take note of the requirements on
MyUni.
Negotiation exercises
Individual assignment is based on negotiation exercises
◦ Essential for everyone to participate in these negotiations in
order to complete the first assignment (and to achieve key
learning outcomes)
Negotiation exercises
Major negotiation is in Week 5 – conducted in the
workshop
• Briefing papers will be provided at the commencement of the
workshop, groups to organise when and where teams will meet for
the negotiation preparation
• Note that all team members are expected to be present at the
workshop for this exercise
• Make sure that you allow the full two hours– this is a complex
negotiation!
Module 1
Introduction to conflict
Conflict…
What are the first words that come to
mind when you hear the word ‘conflict?
Conflict…
◦ Think about the last time you
experienced conflict, either at
work or in your personal life.
• What was the main trigger
for the conflict?
• What were the symptoms of
the conflict ?
• How did you respond?
• Was the conflict resolved
satisfactorily?
Individual &
group activity
Some basic
questions…
▪ Is all conflict bad?
▪ Can conflict lead to
positive outcomes?
▪ Does organisational
change inevitably lead to
conflict?
▪ Examples of change
factors
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
Is conflict
inevitable in orgs?
Conflict is often a product of
environmental stressors
◦ Constant change
◦ Greater employee diversity
◦ More teams (virtual and self managed)
◦ Less face-to-face interaction (more
electronic)
◦ A global economy with more cross-cultural
dealings (Kreitner and Kinicki 2010)
Defining conflict…
No single agreed definition but often seen as
a process:
◦ “the process that begins when one party
perceives that another has frustrated, or is
about to frustrate, some concern of his”
(Thomas 1976 p 891)
◦ 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” (Robbins et al 2008, p502)
Defining conflict…
• In an organisational setting conflict is
generally caused by incompatible concerns
between parties – individuals, groups,
departments)
• During periods of change, concerns and
priorities of various parties are often
impacted
• Change does not benefit all parties equally
Perspectives on conflict
Traditional view
◦ All conflict is bad and to be avoided
◦ Associated with terms such as ‘violence’, ‘destruction’
and ‘irrationality’ (Robbins et al 2008, p502)
Human relations school of thought
◦ Conflict is a natural occurrence and therefore should be
accepted
Interactionist view
◦ Conflict can be a positive force and therefore should be
encouraged rather than merely accepted or avoided
◦ But depends on type of conflict i.e. functional vs
dysfunctional
But I don’t like conflict!
Individual responses
What is your natural response to conflict?
Why do you usually react in that way?
Discuss
Levels of conflict
◦ Intrapersonal e.g. Role conflict
◦ Interpersonal e.g. Personality
differences
◦ Intragroup e.g. Differing goals
◦ Intergroup e.g. Disputes over
resources
◦ Inter-organizational e.g.
Competition issues
Types of conflict
Task conflict (What)
◦ Content and goals of the work
Relationship conflict (Who)
◦ Interpersonal aspects of the work
Process conflict (How)
◦ How the work gets done
The conflict process
Antecedent
conditions
•Communication
•Structure
•Personal
variables
Perceived
conflict
Felt
conflict
Conflict
handling
intentions
Overt
conflict
•Party’s
behaviour
•Other’s
reaction
Decreased
group
performance
Increased
group
performance
(Robbins & Judge 2013, p450)
Stage 1
Potential
opposition or
incompatibility
Stage 2
Cognition &
personalisation
Stage 3
Intentions
Stage 4
Behaviour
Stage 5
Outcomes
The conflict process – stage 1
(cont..)
Personal variables
➢Different values & needs, cultural & family
traditions, education, breadth of experience,
gender etc.
The conflict process – stage 1
Antecedent conditions
• Differences in perception
• Limited resources
• Departmentalisation & specialisation
• The nature of work activities
• Inequitable treatment
• Violation of territory (Mullins 2005)
The conflict process – stage 1
(cont..)
Structural variables
➢Information processes
◦ Poor or inadequate communication
➢Role incompatibility
◦ Interdependent but incompatible
roles
➢Environmental stress
◦ Resource issues, working conditions
& work practices
What are the
main causes of
conflict in your
workplace?
The conflict process – stage 2
Perceived conflict – awareness that
there is a ‘problem’
Felt conflict – emotional involvement
(anxiety, tension, frustration, hostility)
◦ what the conflict is about – ‘sense making’
◦ determines how conflict is approached and
range of outcomes
◦ importance of emotions
The conflict process – stages 3
to 5
Stage 3 – conflict handling
intentions
Stage 4 – behaviours and
reactions
Stage 5 – outcomes (e.g.
improved or decreased group
performance)
Individuals and
conflict
Conflict has a cognitive (thinking)
component
………..and an affective (feeling)
component
Individual approaches to conflict
influenced by:
(Thomas 1976, Kilmann & Thomas 1977)
Personality
dimensions
Strategic
decisions
Individual
preferences
Individual approaches to conflict…
Individual preferences:
▪Previous experiences
▪Cultural background
Strategic decisions:
▪What are the short-term and
longer-term outcomes of my
approach?
Groups and conflict
WHICH PICTURE BEST DESCRIBES YOUR RECENT GROUP EXPERIENCES?
Groups and conflict
Causes of intergroup conflict
▪ Goal differences
▪ My goals differ from your goals (individual and
organisational)
▪ Perceptual differences
▪ My view of the task/process/relationship differs from
others’ views)
▪ Work interdependence
Group interdependence
Group
A
Group
A
Group
B
Group
B
Group
B
Group
A
GOALS
GOALS
GOALS
POOLED
SEQUENTIAL
RECIPROCAL
GOALS
Summary
Challenges for managers (and future
managers)
◦ Learning how to feel comfortable with conflict
◦ Learning different styles and strategies for
handling conflict
◦ Understanding ‘optimal’ conflict; discovering
strategies to promote functional conflict?
Module 2
Introduction to negotiation
The Essence of Negotiation
We begin
negotiating when
we are very young.
People negotiate
every day
Every time you ask
for something you
are actually
negotiating.
What is Negotiation?
a technique that people use to resolve their differences
a social process by which interdependent people with conflicting
interests determine how they are going to allocate resources or
work together in the future to achieve their desired outcomes
viewed widely as a collaborative process that is used to find the
best solutions for everyone involved
What is Negotiation?
It is a social process because people must interact with others to
achieve their desired outcomes.
We have something they need or they have something we need.
How we initiate an interaction depends upon the nature of our
prior interactions with the other party, and how we convey
information to him or her influences how he or she responds.
When do People Negotiate?
When we believe we can
achieve more with others
than without them.
If we interact with
someone because we want
him or her to take
something from us, or
because we want
something from him or her
Why Has Negotiation Become
an Important Skill
Technology
Organisations are flatter
More emphasis on teams
Diversity
Why Has Negotiation Become
an Important Skill
▪Managers spend a substantial amount of their time
at work dealing with employee conflict or helping
other managers deal with conflict.
▪Like conflict, organizational change is ubiquitous and
must be managed to be successful.
▪When businesses expand their operations overseas,
they sometimes do so by forming joint ventures or
strategic alliances with a company in the host
country.
▪Generally speaking, we negotiate with others if we
need their cooperation and we cannot command
them to do something.
The Dual Concerns Model
How People
Negotiate –
The Dual
Concerns
Model
Five different approaches for handling conflict:
1. Competitive or ‘win-lose’ strategy - People who
attach substantially more importance to their
own outcomes than they attach to the other
party’s outcomes This strategy is typically called
distributive, positional, zero-sum or win-lose
negotiating.
2. Accommodation is a ‘lose-win’ strategy. It is used
by those who place greater importance on the
other party’s outcomes than their own.
3. Avoid conflict. This is a ‘lose-lose’ strategy - Those
who have little concern for either party’s
outcomes .
4. Compromising is what people to do if they are
only moderately concerned about both parties’
outcomes.
5. Collaboration is the strategy of choice for people
who seek a ‘win-win’ outcome – they attach great
importance to both parties’ outcomes.
integrative, principled, interest- based, mutual
gains or win-win negotiating.
Which mode
is conflict
mode
appropriate?
Goals
Resources
Relationship
Trust
When To Use Different Styles?
Low High
Low
High
Concern For Other’s Agenda
C
o
n
ce
rn
F
o
r
O
w
n
A
g
en
d
a
Competing
Avoiding Accommodating
Collaborating
Compromising
• Quick, decisive action needed
• Important but unpopular issues are
at stake and where there isn’t “right”
way
• Trivial issues
• No chance of getting what you want
• Potential risk of confrontation outweigh
benefits of resolution
• Other better places to resolve the issue
• Moderately important goals but not worth potential disruption of
more assertive modes
• Two equally strong parties committed to mutually exclusive goals
• Expediency
• Back up competing/collaborating
• Issue much more important to other party
• To limit damage of continued conflict
• To bank favors
• When in the wrong
• Both sets of concerns too important to be
compromised
• Needs insights from different perspectives
• Increases others’ commitment to solutions
• Long-term major issues
When Not to Negotiate
If you may lose everything by negotiating.
If you do not have time, are inadequately
prepared or have no stake in the outcome.
If waiting will improve your ability to satisfy
your needs.
If the other party’s demands are unethical or
illegal.
What Does A Negotiation Look Like?
Suggestions
to Guide Your
Negotiations
Think of a negotiation as a life skill, not just a
business skill.
Like most skills, the ability to negotiate can be
learned.
When you must decide how you will negotiate,
consider the relative importance of your
relationship with the other party and the
substantive terms of the outcome for you.
However you choose to negotiate, preparation
is crucial because it builds the foundation for
your negotiation.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
It is faster and less expensive than the legal system.
It often yields solutions that are more beneficial for you
than walking away without an agreement or settling for a
court-imposed solution.
The most common forms of ADR are:
➢negotiation
➢mediation
➢arbitration
Dispute-Wise Organizations
Arbitration and mediation are both used if negotiations
fail, but mediation is preferred because it affords outcome
control to the negotiators.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
When ADR is Likely to be Used
When emotions preclude them from finding acceptable
solutions.
They are unable to correct poor communication without
assistance.
Misperceptions or stereotypes hinder productive information
exchanges.
Repeated negative behaviors such as blaming and name-calling
create barriers.
There are serious disagreements about data.
Real or perceived interests are incompatible.
They are unable to get past impasses.
They are unable to get the other party to the table.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Mediation is an extension or elaboration of
the negotiation process.
Mediators lack direct outcome control, but
they influence outcomes appreciably by
facilitating communication and problem
solving, and otherwise shaping the process.
Arbitration is not directly linked to the
negotiation process.
Arbitrators have outcome control because
they impose solutions on disputants that are,
in most cases, final and binding.
Mediators
Mediators have no authority to make final outcome
decisions – that is left to the negotiators.
They do manage or facilitate the process and that
includes making process-oriented decisions .
There are different models or approaches used by
mediators.
One of the key variables differentiating these
approaches is how directive the mediators are, or
how much control they exercise over the process.
Mediators
‘Orchestrators’ empower negotiators to solve their own problems and make their
own decisions. They focus on:
developing better relationships between the negotiators
assisting with the process
enhancing negotiators’ abilities to solve future problems
manage difficult negotiations without assistance
‘Dealmakers’ are more directive on both substantive and process interests. They:
delineate the problem-solving steps to be followed
determine who talks and when
decide whether the parties meet jointly or separately,
voice their opinions about the issues
assume a much more active role in inventing options with or for the
parties.
When Mediation is Most
Appropriate and Effective
Mediation is most appropriate when the conflict is:
➢moderately intense
➢the parties are receptive to assistance and motivated
to settle
➢they believe in the mediation process and are
committed to it
➢the issues are not limited to those involving severely
limited resources
➢the parties are relatively equal in power
➢the problem is more about creating terms of a new
contract or policy than interpreting an existing one
Mediators help negotiators:
➢save face
➢enhance relationships
➢remove or reduce obstacles to agreement
➢produce outcomes the negotiators desire and value
Mediation
How the Mediation Process Works
Negotiators are generally more satisfied with mediation
than arbitration and the legal system because:
➢ It is less costly and time consuming
➢ They participate directly in creating the outcome
Mediators attempt to:
➢ identify the issues or problems to be addressed
➢ determine what is causing them and their
consequences
➢ formulate plausible solutions
Arbitration
It is a method for resolving failed negotiations by
having a third party impose a decision on the
negotiators.
It is usually used to settle disputes – violations of
legal, contractual or policy provisions.
It is used to finish negotiations that fail to
produce a new contract.
A person who has no vested interest in the
outcome listens to the evidence and testimony
and renders a decision that is usually binding –
legally enforceable.
Arbitrators exert limited control over what
information is presented and how.
Arbitration
When Arbitration is Most Appropriate and Effective
Arbitration is most appropriate when:
The conflict is highly intense, the parties are not
motivated to settle.
The issues are limited to those involving severely
limited resources.
Special expertise is required.
The problem is more about interpreting a legal
principle or the provisions of an existing contract or
policy than creating a new one.
The primary advantages of arbitration are that it provides
A definitive resolution to the problem
It is simpler, faster and less costly than litigation
Arbitration
Problems with Arbitration
The biasing effect
The chilling effect
The decision-acceptance effect
The half-life effect
The narcotic effect
Mandatory Arbitration
How the Arbitration Process Works
Arbitration is most commonly invoked when parties believe that a legal,
contractual or policy provision has been violated.
Two of the most critical components of the arbitration process are how hearings
are conducted and how arbitrators decide cases.
Arbitration
Arbitrators are generally required to determine what
a legal, contractual or policy provision means when
they are deciding disputes.
The criteria arbitrators use to interpret these
provisions and determine whether just cause exists :
Interpretation Cases
➢ Custom and Past Practice
➢ Precedent Cases and Decisions.
➢ Other Provisions of the Contract
or Policy Manual
➢ Negotiating History
➢ Industry Practice
➢ The Ordinary Meaning of Words
Arbitration
Terminations for Just Cause
Does a Rule (or Performance Standard) Exist?
Is the Rule Reasonable?
Was the Rule Communicated to the Other Party?
Has the Rule Been Consistently Enforced?
Did the Party Actually Violate the Rule?
Was Progressive Discipline Administered to the Accused
Party?
Is the Penalty Reasonably Related to Seriousness of the
Offense?
Intervention Strategies for Managers
Managers as Third Parties
How Managers Should Intervene
Intervention Strategies
Determinants of Which Strategy is Most Appropriate
Before deciding which of these strategies is most
appropriate, managers must consider a variety of
contingencies or criteria. These include:
Goals of the manager
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Compliance
Arbitration
Characteristics of the conflict
The intensity of the conflict.
Time pressures for finding a solution to
the conflict.
Importance of the conflict to the
organization.
Characteristics of the parties
The power of the third party.
The relative power of the
disputants/negotiators.
The abilities of the
disputants/negotiators to create good
solutions.
Arbitration
Linking the Determinants and the
Intervention Strategies
The evidence suggests the following linkages
between these contingencies and the four
intervention strategies.
Conclusion
and
Implications
for Practice
The following suggestions should facilitate
your efforts to effectively deal with
conflict, formally or informally: Save
money and time, and enjoy better
relationships with employees, customers
and business partners by being ‘dispute
wise.’
Choose mediation when the negotiators
believe in the process, the conflict is
moderately intense and ripe and
integrative potential exists.
Choose arbitration when the conflict is
highly intense, the parties are not
motivated to settle, integrative potential
does not exist and special expertise is
required.
Conclusion
and
Implications
for Practice
1. Choose mandatory arbitration when you
want to minimize costs, time and
potentially negative publicity, and when
you want to preserve important
relationships.
2. Know how to prepare for mediation.
3. Know how to prepare for arbitration.
4. Choose a dispute resolution method that
will offer you the greatest advantages.