{"id":40,"date":"2019-06-19T01:11:11","date_gmt":"2019-06-19T01:11:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadingleadingteams\/chapter\/10\/"},"modified":"2023-03-24T14:56:41","modified_gmt":"2023-03-24T14:56:41","slug":"10","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadingleadingteams\/chapter\/10\/","title":{"raw":"Conflict and Negotiation","rendered":"Conflict and Negotiation"},"content":{"raw":"Most people regard conflict as something to avoid at all costs. Still, we\u2019d all agree that it\u2019s a familiar, perennial, and powerful part of human interaction, including among groups and teams. In this chapter, we will define conflict, consider whether conflict is functional or dysfunctional, discuss the conflict process, and identify strategies for preventing and reducing conflict in groups.\n

Definitions of Conflict<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n
\n\nConflict is a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values, and\/or interests between people working together. Conflict on teams takes many forms and can be minor, causing only brief disruption, or major, threatening the team\u2019s ability to function and attain its goals.\n\nManaging Conflict, https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/boundless-management\/chapter\/managing-conflict\/ from Boundless Management. \u00a0CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>\n\n
\n\n

The Positive and Negative Sides of Conflict<\/strong><\/h3>\nThere are some circumstances in which a moderate amount of conflict can be helpful. For example, conflict can stimulate innovation and change. Conflict can help individuals and group members grow and develop self-identities. As noted by Coser (1956):\n\nConflict, which aims at a resolution of tension between antagonists, is likely to have stabilizing and integrative functions for the relationship. By permitting immediate and direct expression of rival claims, such social systems are able to readjust their structures by eliminating their sources of dissatisfaction. The multiple conflicts which they experience may serve to eliminate the causes for dissociation and to reestablish unity. These systems avail themselves, through the toleration and institutionalization of conflict, of an important stabilizing mechanism.<\/em>\n\nConflict can have negative consequences when people divert energies away from performance and goal attainment and direct them toward resolving the conflict. Continued conflict can take a heavy toll in terms of psychological well-being. Conflict has a major influence on stress and the psychophysical consequences of stress. Finally, continued conflict can also affect the social climate of the group and inhibit group cohesiveness.\n\nTherefore, conflict can be either functional or dysfunctional depending upon the nature of the conflict, its intensity, and its duration. Indeed, both too much and too little conflict can lead to a variety of negative outcomes, as discussed above. In such circumstances, a moderate amount of conflict may be the best course of action. The issue for groups, therefore, is to eliminate conflict but rhow to manage and resolve it when it occurs.\n

Types of Conflict<\/strong><\/h3>\nGroup conflicts may deal with many topics, needs, and elements. Kelly (2006) identified the following five types of conflict:\n\nFirst, there are conflicts of substance.<\/strong> These conflicts, relate to questions about what choices to make in a given situation, rest on differing views of the facts. If Terry thinks the biology assignment requires an annotated bibliography but Robin believes a simple list of readings will suffice, they\u2019re in a conflict of substance. Another term for this kind of conflict is \u201cintrinsic conflict<\/span>.\u201d\n\nConflicts of value<\/strong> are those in which various parties either hold totally different values or rank the same values in a significantly different order. The famous sociologist Milton Rokeach (1979), for instance, found that freedom and equality constitute values in the four major political systems of the past 100 years\u2014communism, fascism, socialism, and capitalism. What differentiated the systems, was the degree to which proponents of each system ranked those two key values. According to Rokeach\u2019s analysis, socialism holds both values highly; fascism holds them in low regard; communism values equality over freedom, and capitalism values freedom over equality. As we all know, conflict among proponents of these four political systems preoccupied people and governments for the better part of the twentieth century.\n\nConflicts of process<\/strong> arise when people differ over how to reach shared goals or values. For example, how closely should they stick to rules and timelines? Or, when should they let their hair down and brainstorm new ideas? What about when multiple topics and challenges are intertwined; how and when should the group deal with each one? Another term for these disputes is \u201ctask conflicts.\u201d\n\nConflicts of misperceived differences<\/strong> occur when people interpret each other\u2019s actions or emotions erroneously. You can probably think of several times when you first thought you disagreed with another people but later found out that you\u2019d just misunderstood something they said and that you actually shared a perspective with them. Or perhaps you attributed a different motive to them than what really underlay their actions. One misconception about conflict, however, is that it always arises from misunderstandings. This isn\u2019t the case, however. Robert Doolittle (1976) noted that \u201csome of the most serious conflicts occur among individuals and groups who understand each other very well but who strongly disagree.\u201d\n\nThese four types of conflict may interact with each other over time, either reinforcing or weakening each other\u2019s impact. They may ebb and flow according to the topics and conditions a group confronts. Even if they\u2019re well dealt with, further emotional and personal kinds of conflict can occur in a group. Relationship conflicts,<\/strong> also known as personality clashes, often involve people\u2019s egos and sense of self-worth. Relationship conflicts tend to be particularly difficult to cope with, since they frequently aren\u2019t admitted for what they are. Many times, they arise in a struggle for superiority or status.\n

A Model of the Conflict Process<\/strong><\/h2>\nThe most commonly accepted model of the conflict process was developed by Kenneth Thomas (1976). This model consists of four stages: (1) frustration, (2) conceptualization, (3) behavior, and (4) outcome.\n

Stage 1: Frustration<\/strong><\/h3>\nConflict situations originate when an individual or group feels frustration\u00a0in the pursuit of important goals. This frustration may be caused by a wide variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to get a promotion or pay raise, a fight over scarce economic resources, new rules or policies, and so forth. In fact, conflict can be traced to frustration over almost anything a group or individual cares about.\n

Stage 2: Conceptualization<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn the conceptualization stage of the model, parties to the conflict attempt to understand the nature of the problem, what they want as a resolution, what they think their opponents want as a resolution, and various strategies they feel each side may use to resolve conflict. This stage is really the problem-solving and strategy phase. For instance, when management and union negotiate a labor contract, both sides attempt to decide what is most important and what can be bargained away in exchange for these priority needs.\n

Stage 3: Behavior<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe third stage of Thomas\u2019s model is actual behavior<\/em>. As a result of the conceptualization process, parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving problems. A major task is to determine how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to attempt to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for conflict resolution: (1) competing, (2) collaborating, (3) compromising, (4) avoiding, and (5) accommodating (see Table 1<\/strong>).\n\nThe choice of an appropriate conflict resolution mode depends to a great extent on the situation and the goals of the party. According to this model, each party must decide the extent to which it is interested in satisfying its own concerns\u2014called assertiveness\u2014and the extent to which it is interested in helping satisfy the opponent\u2019s concerns\u2014called cooperativeness. Assertiveness can range from assertive to unassertive on one continuum, and cooperativeness can range from uncooperative to cooperative on the other continuum.\n\nOnce the parties have determined their desired balance between the two competing concerns\u2014either consciously or unconsciously\u2014the resolution strategy emerges. For example, if a union negotiator feels confident she can win on an issue that is of primary concern to union members (e.g., wages), a direct competition mode may be chosen. On the other hand, when the union is indifferent to an issue or when it actually supports management\u2019s concerns (e.g., plant safety), we would expect an accommodating or collaborating model.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 1 \u2014 Five Modes of Resolving Conflict<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Conflict-Handling Modes<\/strong><\/td>\nAppropriate Situations<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Source:<\/em> Adapted from Thomas (1976).\u00a0 (Credit: <\/em>Rice University\/OpenStax\/CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Competing<\/td>\n\n
    \n \t
  1. When quick, decisive action is vital\u2014e.g., emergencies<\/li>\n \t
  2. On important issues where unpopular actions need implementing\u2014e.g., cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline<\/li>\n \t
  3. On issues vital to company welfare when you know you\u2019re right<\/li>\n \t
  4. Against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Collaborating<\/td>\n\n
    \n \t
  1. When trying to find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised<\/li>\n \t
  2. When your objective is to learn<\/li>\n \t
  3. When merging insights from people with different perspectives<\/li>\n \t
  4. When gaining commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus<\/li>\n \t
  5. When working through feelings that have interfered with a relationship<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Compromising<\/td>\n\n
    \n \t
  1. When goals are important but not worth the effort or potential disruption of more assertive modes<\/li>\n \t
  2. When opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals<\/li>\n \t
  3. When attempting to achieve temporary settlements to complex issues<\/li>\n \t
  4. When arriving at expedient solutions under time pressure<\/li>\n \t
  5. As a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Avoiding<\/td>\n\n
    \n \t
  1. When an issue is trivial, or when more important issues are pressing<\/li>\n \t
  2. When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns<\/li>\n \t
  3. When potential disruption outweighs the benefits of resolution<\/li>\n \t
  4. When letting people cool down and regain perspective<\/li>\n \t
  5. When gathering information supersedes immediate decision<\/li>\n \t
  6. When others can resolve the conflict more effectively<\/li>\n \t
  7. When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of other issues<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Accommodating<\/td>\n\n
    \n \t
  1. When you find you are wrong\u2014to allow a better position to be heard, to learn, and to show your reasonableness<\/li>\n \t
  2. When issues are more important to others than yourself\u2014to satisfy others and maintain cooperation<\/li>\n \t
  3. When building social credits for later issues<\/li>\n \t
  4. When minimizing loss when you are outmatched and losing<\/li>\n \t
  5. When harmony and stability are especially important.<\/li>\n \t
  6. When allowing subordinates to develop by learning from mistakes.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nWhat is interesting in this process is the assumptions people make about their own modes compared to their opponents\u2019. For example, in one study of executives, it was found that the executives typically described themselves as using collaboration or compromise to resolve conflict, whereas these same executives typically described their opponents as using a competitive mode almost exclusively (Thomas & Pondy, 1967). In other words, the executives underestimated their opponents\u2019 concern as uncompromising. Simultaneously, the executives had flattering portraits of their own willingness to satisfy both sides in a dispute.\n

    Stage 4: Outcome.<\/strong><\/h3>\nFinally, as a result of efforts to resolve the conflict, both sides determine the extent to which a satisfactory resolution or outcome has been achieved. Where one party to the conflict does not feel satisfied or feels only partially satisfied, the seeds of discontent are sown for a later conflict, as shown in the preceding figure. One unresolved conflict episode can easily set the stage for a second episode. Action aimed at achieving quick and satisfactory resolution is vital; failure to initiate such action leaves the possibility (more accurately, the probability) that new conflicts will soon emerge.\n

    Recognizing your Emotions<\/strong><\/h2>\nHave you ever seen red, or perceived a situation through rage, anger, or frustration? Then you know that you cannot see or think clearly when you are experiencing strong emotions. There will be times in groups and teams when emotions run high, and your awareness of them can help you clear your mind and choose to wait until the moment has passed to tackle the challenge. During this time avoiding can be useful strategy, at least temporarily.\n\nEmotions can be contagious, and fear of the unknown can influence people to act in irrational ways. The wise communicator can recognize when emotions are on edge in themselves or others, and choose to wait to communicate, problem-solve, or negotiate until after the moment has passed.\n\nBach and Wyden (1968) discuss gunnysacking<\/strong>\u00a0(or backpacking) as the imaginary bag we all carry, into which we place unresolved conflicts or grievances over time. Holding onto the way things used to be can be like a stone in your gunnysack, and influence how you interpret your current context.\n\nPeople may be aware of similar issues but might not know your history, and cannot see your backpack or its contents. For example, if you are used to things one way, and a group member handles them in a different way, this may cause you some degree of stress and frustration. Bottling up your frustrations only hurts you and can cause your relationships within the group to suffer. By addressing, or unpacking, the stones you carry, you can better assess the current situation with the current patterns and variables.\n\nPreventing and Reducing Conflict<\/strong>\n\nThere are many things group members can do to reduce or actually solve dysfunctional conflict when it occurs. These generally fall into two categories: actions directed at conflict prevention<\/em>\u00a0and actions directed at conflict\u00a0reduction.<\/em>\n\nStrategies for Conflict Prevention<\/strong>\n\nWe shall start by examining conflict prevention techniques, because preventing conflict is often easier than reducing it once it begins. These include:\n
      \n \t
    1. Emphasizing group goals and effectiveness.<\/em> Focus on group goals and objectives should prevent goal conflict. If larger goals are emphasized, group members are more likely to see the big picture and work together to achieve corporate goals.<\/li>\n \t
    2. Providing stable, well-structured tasks.<\/em> When work activities are clearly defined, understood, and accepted, conflict should be less likely to occur. Conflict is most likely to occur when task uncertainty is high; specifying or structuring roles and tasks minimizes ambiguity.<\/li>\n \t
    3. Facilitating dialogue.<\/em> Misperception of the abilities, goals, and motivations of others often leads to conflict, so efforts to increase the dialogue among group members and to share information should help eliminate conflict. As group members come to know more about one another, suspicions often diminish, and greater intergroup teamwork becomes possible.<\/li>\n \t
    4. Avoiding win-lose situations.<\/em> When win-lose situations are avoided, less potential for conflict exists.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nStrategies for Conflict Reduction<\/strong>\n\nWhere dysfunctional conflict already exists, something must be done, and you may pursue one of at least two general approaches: you can try to change attitudes,<\/em> or you can try to behaviors<\/em>. If you change behavior, open conflict is often reduced, but group members may still dislike one another; the conflict simply becomes less visible. Changing attitudes, on the other hand, often leads to fundamental changes in the ways that groups get along. However, it also takes considerably longer to accomplish than behavior change because it requires a fundamental change in social perceptions.\n\nNine conflict reduction strategies are discussed below. The techniques should be viewed as a continuum, ranging from strategies that focus on changing behaviors near the top of the scale to strategies that focus on changing attitudes near the bottom of the scale.\n
        \n \t
      1. Physical separation.<\/em> The quickest and easiest solution to conflict is physical separation. Separation is useful when conflicting individuals or groups are not working on a joint task or do not need a high degree of interaction. Though this approach does not encourage members to change their attitudes, it does provide time to seek a better accommodation.<\/li>\n \t
      2. Use of rules and regulations.<\/em> Conflict can also be reduced through the increasing specification of rules, regulations, and procedures. Again, however, basic attitudes are not modified.<\/li>\n \t
      3. Limiting intergroup interaction.<\/em> Another approach to reducing conflict is to limit intergroup interaction to issues involving common goals. Where groups agree on a goal, cooperation becomes easier.<\/li>\n \t
      4. Use of integrators.<\/em> Integrators are individuals who are assigned a boundary-spanning role between two people or groups. To be trusted, integrators must be perceived by both groups as legitimate and knowledgeable. The integrator often takes the \u201cshuttle diplomacy\u201d approach, moving from one person or group to another, identifying areas of agreement, and attempting to find areas of future cooperation.<\/li>\n \t
      5. Confrontation and negotiation.<\/em>\u00a0In this approach, competing parties are brought together face-to-face to discuss their basic areas of disagreement. The hope is that through open discussion and\u00a0negotiation, means can be found to work out problems. Contract negotiations between union and management represent one such example. If a \u201cwin-win\u201d solution can be identified through these negotiations, the chances of an acceptable resolution of the conflict increase.<\/li>\n \t
      6. Third-party consultation.<\/em> In some cases, it is helpful to bring in outside consultants to act as a third-party, who understand human behavior and can facilitate a resolution. A third-party consultant not only serves as a go-between but can speak more directly to the issues, because they is not a group member.<\/li>\n \t
      7. Rotation of members.<\/em> When group members are moved from one group to another, they come to understand the frames of reference, values, and attitudes of other members; therefore communication is increased. When those rotated are accepted by the receiving groups, change in attitudes as well as behavior becomes possible. This is clearly a long-term technique, as it takes time to develop good interpersonal relations and understanding among group members.<\/li>\n \t
      8. Identification of interdependent tasks and superordinate goals.<\/em> A further strategy is to establish goals that require groups to work together to achieve overall success.<\/li>\n \t
      9. Use of training.<\/em> The final technique on the continuum is training. Outside training experts are retained on a long-term basis to help groups develop relatively permanent mechanisms for working together. Structured workshops and training programs can help forge more favorable intergroup attitudes and, as a result, more constructive group behavior.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nReferences<\/strong>\n