Conflict and Negotiation: How to get from a Problem to a Solution.


Published on

This presentation was part of my graduate studies.

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Conflict and Negotiation: How to get from a Problem to a Solution.

  1. 1. Conflict and Negotiation: How to get from a Problem to a Solution. Matthew J. Hendrickson Ball State University Psysc 618: Thinking
  2. 2. Conflict (Psychologically Defined) <ul><li>Two Main Types: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Beneficial -the desire of two or more members with differing ideas and interests to understand the views of the other. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tends to strengthen relationships because members feel more confident that future conflicts can also be resolved. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Competitive -the desire to win, to be “right” in a contest of opinions and values. Seen as a test of status, power, and credibility. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tends to be damaging to relationships. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Conflict (Management Defined) <ul><li>Conflict -a disagreement over issues of substance and/or an emotional antagonism. </li></ul><ul><li>Substantive Conflict -involves disagreements over goals, resources, rewards, policies, procedures, and job assignments. </li></ul><ul><li>Emotional Conflict -results from feelings of anger, distrust, dislike, fear, and resentment as well as from personality clashes. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Functional/Dysfunctional Conflict <ul><li>Functional (constructive) Conflict -is constructive and helps task performance. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stimulates people toward greater work efforts, cooperation, and creativity. It helps groups achieve their goals. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dysfunctional (destructive) Conflict -is destructive and hurts task performance. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hinders group success. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Not all conflict is bad and the absence of conflict is not always good. </li></ul><ul><li>To determine if conflict is beneficial, you must consider: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. The intensity of the conflict. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. How well the conflict is managed. </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Conflict/Performance Relationship
  6. 6. Causes of Conflict <ul><li>Role Ambiguities -i.e. unclear job expectations and task uncertainties increase the probability of groups working at different goals (substantive). </li></ul><ul><li>Resource Scarcities -sharing or competing for resources creates substantive conflict. </li></ul><ul><li>Task Interdependencies -i.e. depending on outputs from others to perform well at your task can create both substantive and emotional conflict. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Causes of Conflict continued… <ul><li>Competing Objectives -for poorly defined objectives or rewards, substantive conflict is created as individuals work for their own advantage. </li></ul><ul><li>Structural Differentiation -the differences in a company structure or those performing those duties may create incompatible approaches toward work (emotional). </li></ul><ul><li>Unresolved Prior Conflicts -these tend to be recurring and create future conflicts (emotional). </li></ul>
  8. 8. Psychological Contract <ul><li>The implied exchange relationship that exists between an employee and the organization. </li></ul><ul><li>This relationship is continually revised through one’s tenure at that organization. </li></ul><ul><li>This is a mediating issue concerning negotiation and conflict as it focuses on what the employee and the organization “owe” each other. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Psychological Contract continued… <ul><li>Founded on Two Principles: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Mutuality -the extent to which employees share beliefs about specific terms of the exchange. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Reciprocity -the employees’ and organizations’ commitments to each other. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two Types: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Transactional -characterized by short time frames and specific duties. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Based on pure self-interest. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Relational -characterized by long-term interactions and a wide variety of duties. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acknowledge the relationship itself. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Psychological Contract
  11. 11. Approaches to dealing with conflict: <ul><li>Appealing to Superordinate Goals -provides a common goal for the group. </li></ul><ul><li>Making More Resources Available to Everyone -removes continuing conflict which is caused by competition for resources. </li></ul><ul><li>Changing the People -resolves conflict caused by poor interpersonal relationships by moving one or more parties. </li></ul><ul><li>Altering the Physical Environment -rearranging facilities, work space, or workflows to physically separate conflicting parties and decrease interactions. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Approaches to dealing with conflict: continued… <ul><li>Integrating Devices -by improving coordination in an organization, you can also deal with conflicts. Liaison personnel, special task forces, cross-functional teams, and matrix organization can change interaction patterns. </li></ul><ul><li>Changing Reward Systems -rewarding cooperation and encouraging teamwork promoting practices. </li></ul><ul><li>Changing Policies and Procedures -redirects behavior to minimize known conflict-prone situations. </li></ul><ul><li>Training in Interpersonal Skills -prepares employees to communicate more effectively. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Berne’s Transactional Analysis (Review by Dévényi & Somogyvári, 2002) <ul><li>The self is the beginning and end of all communications. </li></ul><ul><li>The Three Ego States: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Parent -judgmental, tradition-based, prejudiced, and regulatory. Acts as a status figure and demands conformity. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Critical Parent -controlling, judging, and prescriptive of the child. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Nurturing Parent -rewards, protects, and cares for the child. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adult -rational, logical, pragmatic, and problem solving. Ensures the parent or child does not “contaminate” the negotiation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Child -emotional, instinctual, and impulsive. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Natural Child -uninhibited and very emotional. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adapted Child -can deal with adults, can adhere to norms prescribed by adult. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Little Lawyer -tries to transgress under the prescribed norms. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Berne’s Transactional Analysis continued… <ul><li>Transactions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complementary -simplest form. The only true effective transaction. The arrows of communication are parallel. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crossed -disrupt communication. The stimulus initiated by one ego state is responded to be another. The arrows cross. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hidden -when a speaker says one thing but means another, thus addressing two ego states at once. The arrows from the speaker go to different points. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stroke -a unit of social recognition. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Games and Scripts -strokes where a series of covert transactions are used to manipulate another. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Life Positions -determine our feelings of “OK/Not-OK.” </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Complementary Transaction
  16. 16. Crossed Transaction
  17. 17. Hidden Transaction
  18. 18. Stroke/Games & Scripts/Life Positions Transactions
  19. 20. Negotiation <ul><li>Negotiation -the process of making joint decisions when the parties involved have different preferences. </li></ul><ul><li>Two goals of negotiation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Substance Goals -concerned with outcomes. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Deal with content issues of the negotiation. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Relationship Goals -concerned with processes. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Deal with the way individuals or groups interact while negotiating and how they will work together in the future. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Three criteria for effective negotiation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Quality -is fair and serves all sides. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Cost-efficiency- using the fewest resources required. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3. Harmony -fosters interpersonal relationships. </li></ul></ul>
  20. 21. Negotiation continued… <ul><li>Distributive Negotiation -focuses on “win-lose” claims from each side for their own agendas. </li></ul><ul><li>Principled/Integrative Negotiation -focuses on “win-win” aspects to reach an acceptable solution. </li></ul><ul><li>Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) -answers the question “What will I do if an agreement can’t be reached?” </li></ul><ul><li>Bargaining Zone -the area between one party’s minimum reservation point and the other party’s maximum reservation point. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Basically, this is the range that the parties will meet, if there is an overlap. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mediation -a neutral party attempts to improve communication among conflicting parties to reach an agreement. </li></ul><ul><li>Arbitration -a neutral party issues a decision to resolve a dispute. </li></ul>
  21. 22. Four Rules of Principled Negotiation <ul><li>1. Separate the people from the problem </li></ul><ul><li>2. Focus on interests, not on positions </li></ul><ul><li>3. Generate many alternatives before deciding what to do </li></ul><ul><li>4. Insist that results be based on some objective standard </li></ul>
  22. 23. Negotiation “Pitfalls” <ul><li>1. Falling prey to the myth of the “fixed pie”: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One does not have to give something up for the other to gain. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2. Nonrational escalation of conflict: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Adherence to initial demands and needs to protect one’s ego or to “save face.” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3. Overconfidence and ignoring the other’s needs: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Feeling that one’s position is the only “right” one, thus failing to consider the needs of the other or their position. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>4. Too much “telling” and too little “hearing”: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A mutual lack of understanding, as neither side will consider the other. </li></ul></ul>
  23. 24. Becoming a Better Negotiator (Nadler, Thompson, Van Boven) <ul><li>Observational Learning -aka imitation/ modeling. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Becoming better at something by watching others. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Takes into account social learning theory. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Analogical Learning -focuses on the question “What are the conditions that allow the learner to recognize the applicability of the old problem to this new domain?(p.531)” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitates creativity and flexibility when negotiating. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of either of these methods lead to the most favorable outcome for both parties. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Simply having experience in negotiating is not enough to be effective at negotiation. </li></ul>
  24. 25. Structural Properties of Negotiation Vetschera (2006) <ul><li>Tested for various aspects of the negotiation and negotiators for what is effective. </li></ul><ul><li>Provides a moderate/weak fit, thus other factors have a large impact on the outcome as well. </li></ul><ul><li>Weights are different for subjects assigned the roles of buyers and sellers. </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiators with a higher weight in an attribute attain better results. </li></ul><ul><li>The less conflict, the more likely an agreement will be made. </li></ul>
  25. 26. Punitive Capability (De Dreu, Giebels, & Van de Vliert, 1998) <ul><li>Individualists -maximize own outcomes without regard of opposition. </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperators -maximize own outcomes in combination with opposition. </li></ul><ul><li>Punitive Capability -a form of power that refers to the degree to which an individual negotiator may negatively affect his/her opposing party’s outcomes. (p.409)” </li></ul>
  26. 27. Punitive Capability continued… <ul><li>High levels of punitive capability reduced trust. </li></ul><ul><li>This influences negotiators with a cooperative motive to a greater extent than those with an individualistic motive. </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiators with cooperative motives secure larger joint outcomes and share more information than individual motive negotiators. </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperatively motivated negotiators are more likely to avoid conflict under high rather than low levels of punitive capability because of decreased trust. </li></ul>
  27. 28. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Combines almost all social sciences and their research. </li></ul><ul><li>An informal study and view on the mechanics and implementation of negotiation. </li></ul><ul><li>Taken from interviews and acts as a “snapshot” of how negotiation is taught. </li></ul><ul><li>Commonalities among schools: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intellecutual frameworks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. BANTAs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simulations and debriefings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Practice negotiations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Time to generalize new knowledge </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-assessment and evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Find areas to improve </li></ul></ul></ul>
  28. 29. Questions? <ul><li>Time allotted for questions about my presentation. </li></ul>
  29. 30. References: <ul><li>De Dreu, C. K. W., Giebels, E., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Social motives and trust in integrative negotiation: The disruptive effects of punitive capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 408-422. </li></ul><ul><li>Dévényi, M., & Somogyv ári, M. (2002). Omega Films LTD.: A case study in negotiation. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(4), 341-354. </li></ul><ul><li>Fortang, R. S. (2000). Taking stock: An analysis of negotiation pedagogy across four professional fields. Negotiation Journal, October, 325-328. </li></ul><ul><li>Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (8 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. </li></ul><ul><li>Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & Van Boven, L. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer. Management Science, 49(4), 529-540. </li></ul><ul><li>Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. . </li></ul><ul><li>Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr. (2005). Management (8 th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. </li></ul><ul><li>Vetschera, R. (2006). Preference structures of negotiators and negotiation outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 111-125. </li></ul>