Managing Conflict and

Negotiations
Intergroup conflict
 Contemporary perspective on
intergroup conflict
Traditional assumption – any and all conflict was
bad and should be eliminated. That is not the case,
conflict is neither inherently good nor bad, but it is
inevitable. Some conflict situations produce nothing
positive. Other conflict situations may be beneficial
if they are used as instruments for change or
innovation. Evidence suggests conflict can improve
the quality of decision making and Ee relations in
org’ns. Thus, in dealing w/ conflict the critical issue
is not so much the conflict itself but how it is
managed.
 Conflict in terms of its effect on the
org’n.
Functional conflict. A confrontation between
groups that enhances and benefits the org’ns
performance. (For ex. 2 depts may be in a
conflict over the most efficient and adaptive
method of delivering a particular service to low-
income groups.) Dysfunctional conflict is a
confrontation or interaction between groups
that harms the org’n or hinders the
achievement of org’tl goals.
 Conflict and organizational
performance
Conflict may have either positive/negative consequences
for the org’n, depending on how much exists and how it
is managed. Every org’n has an optimal level of conflict
that can be cosidered highly functional – it helps generate
positive performance. When the conflict level is too low,
performance can also suffer. Innovation and change are
less likely to occur, and the org’n may have difficulty
adapting to its changing environment. If a low conflict
level continues, the very survival of the org’n can be
threatened. On the other hand, if the conflict level
becomes too high, the resulting chaos can also threaten
the org’ns survival.
 Factors that contribute to group
conflict
Work interdependence – occurs when two or more orgt’l
groups must depend on one another to complete their
tasks. Conflict potential here ranges from relatively low
to very high, depending on the nature of the
interdependence. Pooled interdependence requires no
interaction among groups because each group, in effect,
performs separately. However the pooled performances
of all the groups determine how successful the org’n is.
(i.e. staff of regional sales offices). Conflict potential in
pooled interdependence is low, and mgmt can rely on
standard rules and laws developed at the main office for
coordination. Sequential coordination requires one
group to complete its task before another group can
 Factors that contribute to group
conflict (con’t)
complete its task. Tasks are performed in a sequential
fashion. (i.e. in a manufacturing plant the product must
be assembled before it can be painted.) under these
circumstances since the output of one group serves as
the input for another, conflict between the groups is
more likely to occur.Reciprocal interdependence requires
the output of each group to serve as input to other
groups in the org’n. (For ex. those in a hospital operating
room and those in airport operations.) the potential for
conflict is great in any of these situations. Effective
coordination involves mgmt’s skillful use of the
organizational processes of communication and decision
making.
 Factors that contribute to group
conflict (con’t)
All org’ns have pooled interdependence among groups.
Complex org’ns also have sequential interdependence. The
most complicated org’ns experience pooled, sequential, and
reciprocal interdependence among groups. The more
complex the org’n, the greater are the potentials for conflict
and the more difficult is the task facing management.
Goal differences can also create conflict. This happens in the
case of groups w/ mutually exclusive goals, when limited
resources must be allocated between groups, and the
different time horizons needed by groups to achieve their
goals. Goal differences can be accompanied by differing
perceptions of reality, and disagreements over what
constitutes reality can lead to conflict. Major factors that
cause orgt’l groups to form differing perceptions of reality
 Consequences of dysfunctional
intergroup conflict
include status incongruency, inaccurate perceptions, and different
perspectives.
Consequences of dysfunctional intergroup conflict:
Changes within groups. These changes generally result in either a
continuance or an escalation of the conflict. (increased group
cohesiveness, emphasis on loyalty, rise in autocratic leadership, and
focus on activity.)
Changes between groups. These include distorted perceptions
(stronger opinions of the importance of one’s unit), negative
stereotyping, and decreased communications. The latter can be
extremely dysfunctional, especially where sequential interdependence
or reciprocal interdependence relationships exist between groups.
Tension also occasionally results in creativity among individuals and
groups.
 Approaches to managing conflict
Dominating. Represents a group’s maximum focus on
meeting its own concerns, coupled w/ a minimal focus on
meeting the concerns of the other group. Tends to be a
power-oriented approach. To be successful, it requires that
the using group have sufficient power to “force” its resolution
on the other group. Despite the potential problems
associated w/ the use of domination as a means of resolving
conflict, it may be very appropriate and useful in some
instances. When rapid and decisive action is important,
dominating can represent the most time-effective means of
resolution. Dominating may also be the best approach in
resolving important issues when unpopular courses of action
must be taken, such as layoffs, implementing new schedules,
or enforcing unpopular policies and procedures.
 Approaches to managing conflict
(con’t)
Accommodating. Although it may appear to be “giving in”
this may be an extremely beneficial approach for a conflicting
group to use in some situations. If the issue is critical to one
group and of little importance to the other, obliging the first
group through accommodating costs the second group little
and may be seen as a goodwill gesture that helps maintain a
cooperative relationship.
Problem Solving. Might appear to be the theoretically ideal
or best approach to conflict resolution but can be an
extremely difficult approach to implement effectively.
Sometimes called collaborating or integrating, problem
solving seeks to resolve conflict by placing maximum focus on
both groups’ concerns. Successful problem-solving requires
that conflicting groups display a willingness to work
 Approaches to managing conflicts
(con’t)
collaboratively toward an integrative solution that satisfies the
needs of al concerned. The greatest obstacle that must be
overcome is the win-lose mentality that so often characterizes
conflicting groups. Unless the parties involved can rise above
that kind of thinking, problem solving is not likely to be
successful. Sometimes the problem solving process is aided by
focusing on a superordinate goal, one that cannot be attained
by one group singly and supersedes all other concerns of any
of the individual groups involved in the conflict.
Avoiding. May be used as a temporary alternative. When the
conflict is a particularly heated one, temporary avoidance
gives the involved parties an opportunity to cool down and
regain perspective. It may also buy time needed by one or
more of the groups to gather add’tl information needed.
 Approaches to managing conflicts
(con’t)
Compromising. A traditional method for resolving intergroup
conflict, there is no distinct winner or loser, and the resolution
reached may not be ideal for either group. Compromising can
be used very effectively when the goal sought (e.g., money)
can be divided equitably. If this is not possible, one group
must give up something of value as a concession.
Compromising might be useful when two conflicting parties
w/ relatively equal power are both strongly committed to
mutually exclusive goals. It may also represent a way of
gaining a temporary settlement to particularly complex and
difficult issues. Compromising is a good “back up” strategy
that conflicting parties can fall back on if their attempts at
problem solving are unsuccessful. Sometimes, compromising
may involve third-party interventions.
 Stimulating constructive intergroup
conflict
Hire or transfer in individuals whose attitudes,
values, and backgrounds differ from those of the
group’s present members.
Changing the structure of the organization.
Stimulating competition. The use of a variety of
incentives, such as awards and bonuses for
outstanding performance, often stimulates
competition.
Using programmed conflict.
 negotiations
A process in which two or more parties attempt to reach
acceptable agreement in a situation characterized by some
level of disagreement. In an organizational context,
negotiation may occur (1) between two people (as when a
manager and subordinate decide on the completion date for a
new project the subordinate has just received); (2) within a
group (most decision-making situations); (3) between groups
(such as the purchasing dept and a supplier regarding price,
quality, or delivery date); and (4) over the Internet.
Regardless of the setting or the parties involved, negotiations
have at least four elements. First, some disagreement or
conflict exists. This may be perceived, felt, or manifest.
Second, there is some degree of interdependence between
the parties. Third, the situation must be conducive to
 Negotiations (continued)
Oportunistic interaction. This means that each party has
both the means and inclination to attempt to influence the
other. Finally, there exists some possibility of agreement.
When negotiations are successful, each party feels that it has
significantly benefited from the resolution. When they fail,
the conflict often escalates.
Win-lose negotiating. Also known as distributive
negotiating. The term refers to the process of dividing, or
“distributing” scarce resources. Such a win-lose approach
characterizes numerous negotiating situations. In
organizations, win-lose negotiating is quite common. It
characterizes most bargaining involving material goods, such
as the purchase of supplies or manufacturing raw materials.
Win-lose negotiating can be seen in organizations where
 Negotiations (con’t)
units attempt to negotiate the best budget for itself,
regardless of its effect on others. The most variable
examples of distributive negotiations in org’ns are those
that take place between laborand mgmt. Issues involving
wages, benefits, working conditions, and related matters
are seen as a conflict over limited resources.
Win-win or integrative negotiating brings a different
perspective to the process. Unlike the zero-sum
orientation in win-lose, win-win negotiation is a positive-
sum approach, where each party gains w/o a
corresponding loss for the other party. An agreement has
been reached that leaves all parties better off than they
were before the agreement.
 Negotiation tactics
To achieve a win-win or win–lose situation
outcome, a variety of specific negotiation tactics
can be employed by managers. Some of the most
frequently used tactics are: good-guy/bad-guy
team, the nibble, joint problem solving, power of
competition, and splitting the difference. (Note: for
discussion on these tactics, and other topics on
negotiations read pps. 296-300 of Organizational
Behavior and Management (2018), 11th ed. by
Konopaske, Ivancevich and Matteson.
 End-topic assignments
Reference: organizational behavior and
management (2018), 11th ed. By Konopaske,
Ivancevich and Matteson.
Individual work. 1.take the self-assessment
exercise on p. 289. submit paper discussing your
test results and your personal reactions/insights. 2.
read p. 290 (Information you can use.) 3. pps. 305-
306, Case 11.1 Conflict at Walt Disney Company.
Paper submission required for 1 and 3 only.
Group work. Read Exercise 11.1 pps. 302-303. this
will be a class activity.