Conflict and

Negotiation in
the Workplace

McGraw-Hill/Irwin
McShane/Von Glinow OB 5e Copyright © 2010 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Cross-Generational Conflict

To reward themselves for a

job well done, Generation-Y
(Millennial) employees
might throw a pizza party
during office hours, but this
practice bothers older
employees who have
different views about
appropriate workplace
behavior.

11-2
Conflict Defined

The process in which one

party perceives that its
interests are being opposed
or negatively affected by
another party

11-3
Is Conflict Good or Bad?:
Pre 1970s View
Good
Historically, experts viewed
conflict as dysfunctional
• Undermined relations

Conflict outcomes
• Wasted human energy
• More job dissatisfaction, 0
turnover, stress
• Less productivity,
information sharing

Bad
Low Level of conflict High

11-4
Is Conflict Good or Bad?: 1970s-
1990s View
Good Optimal
1970s to 1990s – belief in an
conflict
optimal level of conflict

Conflict outcomes
Some level of conflict is good
because:
• Energizes debate 0

• Reexamine assumptions
• Improves responsiveness
to external environment
• Increases team cohesion
Bad
Low Level of conflict High

11-5
Is Conflict Good or Bad?:
Emerging View
 Two types of conflict
• Constructive conflict -- Conflict is aimed at issue,
not parties
• Relationship conflict -- Conflict is aimed at
undermining the other party

11-6
Is Conflict Good or Bad?:
Emerging View
Good
 Goal: encourage
Constructive
constructive conflict, conflict
minimize relationship

Conflict outcomes
conflict
 Problem: difficult to 0
separate constructive from
relationship conflict Relationship
conflict
• Drive to defend activated
when ideas are critiqued
Bad
Low Level of conflict High

11-7
Constructive Confrontation at Intel

Intel employees learn to fully evaluate ideas

through “constructive confrontation.” The objective
is to attack the problem, not the employee, but
some critics claim the process is a license for
some Intel staff to be bullies.

11-8
Minimizing Relationship Conflict

Three conditions that minimize relationship conflict

while engaging in constructive conflict
1. Emotional intelligence
2. Cohesive team
3. Supportive team norms

11-9
The Conflict Process

Conflict
Perceptions
Sources of Manifest Conflict
Conflict Conflict Outcomes
Conflict
Emotions

Conflict
Escalation Cycle

11-10
Structural Sources of Conflict

Incompatible • One party’s goals perceived to interfere

Goals with other’s goals

• Different values/beliefs
Differentiation • Explains cross-cultural and generational
conflict

• Conflict increases with interdependence

Task
• Parties more likely to interfere with each
Interdependence
other

more
11-11
Structural Sources of Conflict

Scarce
• Motivates competition for the resource
Resources

Ambiguous • Creates uncertainty, threatens goals

Rules • Without rules, people rely on politics

• Increases stereotyping
Communication • Reduces motivation to communicate
Problems
• Escalates conflict when arrogant

11-12
Interpersonal Conflict Handling
Styles
 Win-win orientation
• believe parties will find a mutually beneficial
solution

 Win-lose orientation
• belief that the more one party receives, the less the
other receives

11-13
Five Conflict Handling Styles
High
Forcing Problem-solving
Assertiveness

Compromising

Avoiding Yielding

Low High
Cooperativeness
11-14
Conflict Handling Contingencies

Problem solving
• Best when:
- Interests are not perfectly opposing
- Parties have trust/openness
- Issues are complex
• Problem: other party take advantage of information
Forcing
• Best when:
- you have a deep conviction about your position
- quick resolution required
- other party would take advantage of cooperation
• Problems: relationship conflict, long-term relations

11-15
Conflict Handling Contingencies

Avoiding
• Best when:
- relationship conflict is high
- conflict resolution cost is higher than benefits
• Problems: doesn’t resolve conflict, frustration
Yielding
• Best when:
- other party has much more power
- issue is much less important to you than other party
- value/logic of your position is imperfect
• Problem: Increases other party’s expectations

11-16
Conflict Handling Contingencies

Compromising
• Best when…
- Parties have equal power
- Quick solution is required
- Parties lack trust/openness
• Problem: Sub-optimal solution where mutual gains
are possible

11-17
Structural Approaches to Conflict
Resolution
1. Emphasizing superordinate goals
• Emphasize common objective rather than
conflicting sub-goals
• Reduces goal incompatibility and differentiation

2. Reducing differentiation
• Remove sources of different values and beliefs
- e.g. Move employees around to different jobs

11-18
Structural Approaches to Conflict
Resolution (con’t)
3. Improving communication/understanding
• Employees understand and appreciate each other’s
views through communication
- Relates to contact hypothesis

• Two warnings:
a) Apply communication/understanding after reducing
differentiation
b) A Western strategy that may conflict with
values/traditions in other cultures

11-19
Structural Approaches to Conflict
Resolution (con’t)
4. Reduce Task Interdependence
• Dividing shared resources
• Combine tasks
• Use buffers

5. Increase Resources
• Duplicate resources

6. Clarify Rules and Procedures

• Clarify resource distribution
• Change interdependence

11-20
Resolving Conflict Through
Negotiation
 Negotiation -- attempting to resolve divergent
goals by redefining terms of interdependence
 Which conflict handling style is best in
negotiation?
• Begin cautiously with problem-solving style
• Shift to a win-lose style when
- Mutual gains situation isn’t apparent
- Other part won’t reciprocate info sharing

11-21
Bargaining Zone Model
Your Positions
Initial Target Resistance

Area of
Potential
Agreement

Resistance Target Initial

Opponent’s Positions

11-22
Situational Influences on Negotiation

 Location
 Physical setting
 Time passage and
deadlines
 Audience

Courtesy of Microsoft

11-23
Effective Negotiation Behavior

 Preparation and goal

setting
 Gathering information
 Communicating
effectively
 Making concessions

Courtesy of Microsoft

11-24
Types of Third Party Intervention
High
Mediation Inquisition

Level of
Process
Control

Arbitration

Low Level of Outcome Control High

11-25
Choosing the Best 3rd Party Strategy
 Managers prefer inquisitional strategy, but not
usually best approach
 Mediation potentially offers highest
satisfaction with process and outcomes
 Use arbitration when mediation fails

11-26
 Conflict and
Negotiation in
the Workplace

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2010 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.11-27
McShane/Von Glinow OB 5e