Conflicts and Negotiations

Within Organizations

By

Doug O'Rear

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements of

LEAD 575 Organizational Structures and Behavior

September 2009

Abstract

Conflict is an unavoidable process that every organization will experience, whether it is

so minimal as to not even be noticed or so immense that it brings an organization's

productivity to a complete stand-still. Knowing how to negotiate through these conflicts

can be the difference between an organization's success or failure. Trying to avoid

conflict completely is not the correct course of action as recent studies seem to show that

conflict can bring about many positive benefits to an organization if it is controlled in

moderate doses. If an organization can harness the power of the many conflicts it

experiences daily and is able to negotiate positive outcomes from these conflicts, a whole

new level of productivity and positive growth could be within reach.

2

Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Table of Contents 3

Introduction 4

Conflict Defined 5

Effects of Conflict 6

Sources of Conflict 8

Conflict Resolution Strategies 10

Negotiations 13

Conclusion 15

References 16

3

Introduction

For over a century, conflict has had a perception of being a negative influence within

organizations. In the 1930's and 1940's, two renown sociologists, Elton Mayo and Talcott

Parsons, helped set the tone with regard to this popular perception. Mayo believed that

"organizational conflict was an evil to be eliminated" and Parsons believed that conflict

"was a deviance that upsets the careful balance and stability of organizational function."

(Wayne, 2004) Both statements seem to have some truth to them. However, conflict is

like one's diet, if properly monitored, can prove to be healthy.

About 80 years ago, Mary Parker Follett came up with the radical idea that conflict

can be a positive influence. Her theory was slow to catch on, but by the 1970's, " the

conflict-is-bad perspective had been replaced by the optimal-conflict perspective, which

holds that organizations are most effective when employees experience some level of

conflict in discussions but that organizations become less effective when they have high

levels of conflict." (McShane, Von Glinow, 2008) Today, many researchers believe that

"conflict may be helpful in order to bolster innovation and performance. Conflict that

enhances group productivity is viewed as useful, and conflict that hinders group

performance is viewed as counterproductive." (Hughes, Ginnett, Curphy, 2002)

Another popular theory on conflict is that there are two types of conflict, constructive

and relationship. Constructive conflict takes place when the people involved on both

sides of the conflict focus their discussions strictly on the issue itself all-the-while

showing respect for those with different opinions. This helps prevent natural defense

mechanisms from kicking which can cause the discussion to go sour very quickly.

Relationship conflict, on the other hand, is when the discussions are focused on

4

individuals instead of on the issue. Both sides try to question the credibility and

competency of each other. Needless to say, this leads to very heated discussions that can

cause permanent or long-term damages with relationships. Although it would seem an

easy fix to avoid any relationship conflict and focus strictly on constructive conflict, this

is not as simple as it may be. "Most of us experience some degree of relationship conflict

during and after any constructive debate." (McShane, Von Glinow, 2008)

Some experts in the field of conflict management have determined that there are

three strategies that can help minimize the levels of relationship conflict during

constructive conflict conversations. These strategies include emotional intelligence,

cohesive teams, and supportive team norms. (McShane, Von Glinow, 2008) On the same

line, "effectively dealing with conflict with a person or group requires people to develop

an understanding of other perspectives, to become better able to differentiate others'

points of view from their own, and perhaps to reshape their own points of view."

(McCauley, Van Velsor, 2004)

Conflict Defined

I have discussed many aspects of conflict but have not defined what it conflict

actually is. There are probably as many definitions of conflict as there are opinions

whether conflict is good or bad. A few commonly accepted definitions of conflict

include: "Conflict is a process in which one party perceives that his or her interests are

being opposed or negatively affected by another party." (McShane, Von Glinow. 2008)

"Conflict occurs when two opposing parties have interests or goals that appear to be

incompatible." (Hughs, Ginnett, Curphy, 2002) "Conflict is a struggle over values and

claims to scarce status, power, and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to

5

neutralize, injure, or eliminate the rivals." (Wilmot, Hocker, 2007) "Conflict is a

process that begins when an individual or group feels negatively affected

by another person or group," (Wayne, 2004) Finally, "Conflict is an expressed

struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals,

scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals."(Wilmot, Hocker,

2007) From these definitions, one would assume that conflict is definitely a negative

process. In fact, the words most commonly associated with the word conflict include

destruction, anger, disagreement, hostility, war, anxiety, tension, alienation, violence,

competition, threat, heartache, pain, hopelessness, and stress. (Wilmot, Hocker, 2007)

Although all of the definitions of conflict I have researched seem to view it as a negative

process, conflict is still considered to be a positive process within organizations.

Effects of Conflict

Conflict can have many different effects, some being positive and some being

negative, that are dependent upon many factors. Some possible negative effects include:

Reduced productivity

Decreased communication

Negative feelings

Stress

Poorer decision making

Decreased cooperation

Political backstabbing

Some possible positive effects include:

Increased effort

Feelings get aired

6

Better understanding of others

Impetus for change

Better decision making

Key issues surfaced

Critical thinking stimulated

(Hughs, Ginnett, Curphy, 2002) What is interesting is that conflict can have opposite

effects depending on the various factors. In all of the readings I have done, the amount of

conflict within an organization was a major determinate if the conflict can be positive or

negative. If there is too much conflict within an organization, then the negative effects

will definitely prevail as the energies required to overcome such high amounts of conflict

would not be able to be replenished. If there is too little conflict within an organization,

performance can suffer as well as the organization's growth could be limited. Moderate

conflict "prevents organizations from stagnating and becoming nonresponsive to their

external environment." (McShane, Von Glinow, 2008) On the same line, "conflict is

crucial to change and creativity. Where dissent is valued and considered, groups face

more challenges in making decisions and as a result make higher-quality decisions."

(Wayne, 2004) And finally, "some level of conflict may be helpful in order to bolster

innovation and performance." (Hughs, Ginnett, Curphy, 2002) Finding the optimum level

of conflict for an organization will vary, but if the proper indicators are monitored,

certain conflict resolution strategies can be used to heighten or lessen the current levels to

reach these optimal levels. But first, the sources of the conflict must be determined.

7

Sources of Conflict

In order for a leader or an organization to be able to minimize the negative effects of

conflict or maximize the positive effects of conflict, the source of the conflict must be

known. There are six popular sources of conflict. They include:

Incompatible goals

Differentiation

Interdependence

Scarce resources

Ambiguous rules

8

Poor communication

(McShane, Von Glinow, 2008) When a unit within an organization has a goal that is

incompatible with another unit, they are said to have incompatible goals. Differentiation

describes the conflict that generates from people with differing experiences, trainings,

values, and beliefs. Interdependence occurs "when team members must share common

inputs to their individual tasks, need to interact in the process of executing their work, or

receive outcomes that are partly determined by the performance of others." (McShane,

Von Glinow, 2008) Scarce resources can generate conflict as everyone that uses the

resource hurts everyone else that needs that resource to achieve their goals. Ambiguous

rules breeds conflict as uncertainty reigns which will cause some to interfere with others

which will cause conflict. Conflict from communication problems often occur "due to

lack of opportunity, ability, or motivation to communicate effectively." (McShane, Von

Glinow, 2008)

Another interesting view with regard to sources of conflict involve the views of a

rational man. A rational man must consider four items when dealing with conflict: reality,

context, responsibility, and effort. For reality, "A wish or desire or emotion is not primary

but is caused by one's subconscious ideas, including values. For a rational person, desires

are not the starting point in deciding how to act or what is good. One first has to identify

and validate a proper code of morality. For context, "A rational person thinks long range,

not just for the range of the moment. For responsibility, "A rational person takes

responsibility for knowing the conditions required to achieve his goals." For effort, "A

rational individual knows that all values must be produced by human effort and that one

9

person's effort to achieve values are not made at the expense of those who do not exert

effort." (Ciulla, 2004)

Conflict Resolution Strategies

There are five widely accepted strategies that a leader can use to help resolve

conflicts. These strategies are comprised from two independent dimensions:

assertiveness/unassertiveness and cooperativeness/uncooperativeness. "Conflict

resolution can be understood in terms of how cooperative or uncooperative the parties are

and how assertive or unassertive they are." (Hughes, Ginnett, Curphy, 2002) The five

strategies created from these two dimensions are:

10

Avoidance (Neglect)

Accommodation (Yielding)

Sharing (Compromising)

Competition (Forcing)

Collaboration (Problem solving)

Avoidance involves very little cooperation and very little assertiveness. Basically, it

suggests total neglect of interest. Accommodation involves very high cooperation with

little assertiveness. One basically gives in to another's concerns without trying to achieve

one's own. Sharing is a combination of cooperation and assertiveness. Both parties give a

bit as well as take a bit, yet they are only moderately satisfied. Competition has low

cooperation and a lot of assertiveness. This is where one tries to get what they want

without care of the cost to someone else. This is the driver of a win/lose orientation.

Collaboration involves high cooperation as well as high levels of assertiveness. Both

parties are satisfied with the outcome. This style can often times lead to a win/win

orientation.

Of these five styles, one or two may fit your particular style. Some may be assertive

and want to use a competitive or collaborative style while others may prefer to be

accommodating. It is natural to gravitate towards a particular style or two. However,

"most people recognize that they should use different conflict-handling styles in different

situations. In other words, the best style varies with the situation." (McShane, Von

Glinow, 2008. Each of the styles has contingencies and problems. Collaboration or

problem solving is preferred when the issues are very complex, the parties involved have

a mutual trust, are open, and have plenty of time to share information. The problem with

11

collaboration is that with all of the information sharing, there is a chance the other party

can use this information to their advantage. Avoiding is preferred if the conflict has

become very emotional for an individual or the cost to resolve the conflict is more than

the benefit itself. The problems with avoiding is the conflict is never really resolved and

it can increase the frustration level of the other party. The competition style is preferred if

one has a very deep conviction with their particular position, if the conflict needs to be

resolved quickly, or if there is belief the other party may take advantage of other styles.

The problems with the competition style is that it can cause a lot of relationship conflict

as well as potentially damage long-term relations. In fact, "every time we compel people

to bend to our will it creates a desolate and lonely work environment. Gone is mutual

respect and the camaraderie it engenders. Gone are the simple pleasantries associated

with rubbing shoulders with colleagues who admire and pull for each other. Gone is the

sense that we're laboring together to overcome common barriers."(Patterson, Grenny,

McMillan, Switzler, 2005) Accommodation is preferred when the other party definitely

has the upper hand with negotiations, the other party has a lot more interest in the issue

than you do, or if your importance and logic of your stance is not clear. The problem with

accommodation is that for future conflicts, the other party will have higher expectations.

Sharing is preferred when the involved parties have an equal amount of power, there is a

time restraint to resolve the issue, and the parties do not have enough trust or openness in

each other to warrant problem solving. As mentioned earlier, no single style "is likely to

be the right one all the time. There probably are circumstances when each of the modes

of conflict resolution can be appropriate. Rather than seeking to find some single best

12

approach to managing conflict, it may be wisest to appreciate the relative advantages and

disadvantages of all approaches." (Hughes, Ginnett, Curphy, 2002)

Negotiations

Negotiation occurs "when the parties recognize their interdependence, have been

able to establish their concerns, are willing to work on both incompatible and overlapping

goals, have been able to establish enough power balance so people can come to the table,

and when procedures are in place so people can talk to each other in a problem-solving

way." (Wilmot, Hocker, 2007) People negotiate if there is a probability that the

discussions can produce a more acceptable outcome with an exchange of either goods or

services or both. In the role of a leader in an organization, most if not all negotiations

should try to navigate towards a win/win or problem-solving resolution, although this

will not always be obtainable. However, a good negotiating practice is "to separate the

person from the problem, to focus on interests and not on positions, to invent options for

mutual gain, and to insist on objective criteria-some external standard or principle that

both parties can buy into." (Covey, 1989)

Many factors may influence the effectiveness of negotiating. The four situational

factors that are most important include:

Location

Physical setting

Time

Audience

Location is important during the process of negotiation in that one will be more at ease,

just like having home-field advantage. You are familiar with your surroundings, will be

13

comfortable, and there is no added burden of travel or other needed resources. The

physical setting can play a role in negotiations as well. If the party's are arranged seating

face to face, there is a strong possibility that this will result in a win/lose resolution as this

is more a conflict-style arrangement. Often times the participants will be deliberately

interspersed to promote a win/win orientation. Time is a very powerful factor with regard

to negotiations. Whether it is the amount of time that a participant invests in the

negotiating process or if it is setting a deadline for completing the negotiations, time is

critical in the negotiating process. Some negotiators may use an audience during the

negotiations. With an audience, the mood and intensity of the negotiating process will

shift to a more aggressive style as the negotiator has the added pressure of saving face.

(McShane, Von Glinow, 2008)

Having proper negotiating skills is very important when trying to resolve conflicts.

Four of the most important negotiating skills include:

Setting goals

Gathering information

Communicating effectively

Making concessions

Being prepared and setting goals often leads to favorable results from negotiations.

Knowing in advance what your initial offer will be, as well as your target can be very

beneficial. Also, knowing what the other party wants from the negotiations can be huge

as well. Gathering information entails listening closely to the other party as well as

possibly having an audience during the negotiating process. The ability to communicate

effectively involves keeping the communication between the parties productive. Focus on

14

the problem or the issue instead of on the people. Making concessions is "important

because they (1) enable the parties to move toward the area of potential agreement, (2)

symbolize each party's motivation to bargain n good faith, and (3) tell the other party of

the relative importance of the negotiating items." (McShane, Von Glinow, 2008)

Conclusion

Conflict within an organization cannot be, nor should it be eliminated. Although

commonly viewed mostly as a negative influence, conflict can, in the right proportions,

be a very positive influence to an organization. Conflict can increase productivity,

promote better decision making, improve communication, stimulate growth, as well as

other positive factors.

Conflict within an organization has many sources which include incompatible goals,

differentiation, interdependence, scarce resources, ambiguous roles, and poor

communication. The five widely accepted strategies to resolving conflict include

avoidance (neglect), accommodation (yielding), sharing (compromising), competition

(forcing), and collaboration (problem solving).

Negotiations occur when conflicting parties attempt to eliminate their differing

objectives by redefining the conditions of their interdependence. Four situational factors

used in the negotiating process include location, physical setting, time passage, and

audience characteristics. Successfully negotiating conflicts requires skills. The four most

used skills during the negotiation process include setting goals, gathering information,

communicating effectively, and making concessions.

15

References

Ciulla, Joanne. (2004) Ethics, the Heart of Leadership (2nd edition). Praeger Publishers.

Westport, Ct.

Covey, Steven. (1998) The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Simon & Schuster. New

York, N.Y.

Hughes, Richard, Ginnett, Robert, Curphy, Gordon. (2002) Leadership Enhancing the

Lessons of Experience. McGraw-Hill/Irwin

McCauley, Cynthia, Van Velsor, Ellen. (2004) Handbook of Leadership Development

(2nd Edition). Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, Ca.

McShane, Steven, Von Glinow, Mary Ann. (2008) Organizational Behavior (5th

edition). McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Patterson, Kelly, Grenny, Joseph, McMillan, Ron, Switzler, Al. (2005) Crucial

Confrontations. McGraw-Hill

Thomas, K.W. (1976) Conflict and Conflict Management Handbook of Industrial and

Organizational psychology. M.D. Dunnette

Wayne, Ellen. (2004) Conflict in Organizations--is it always bad news? Washington

Business Journal, Dec. 2004 retrieved September 25, 2009 from

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2004/12/13/smallb4.html

Wilmot, William, Hocker, Joyce. (2007) Interpersonal Conflict (7th edition). McGraw-

Hill

16