Conflict and Negotiation in Organisations - Term Paper Example

Conflict and Negotiation in Organisations Abstract Conflicts are a common occurrence in organisations. This paper evaluates the views and process of conflict. It further evaluates negotiation as a conflict resolution strategy, evaluating the process, how individual differences influence it and the role of third parties. Introduction In the modern business environment, conflict remains widely rampant. It could lead to desirable or undesirable outcome. Negotiation is a strategy that has been adopted to resolve conflicts (Miller, 2012). Therefore, organisations should seek to foster positive outcome from conflicts and negotiations by adopting the appropriate strategies. Conflict Researchers have widely studied the topic of conflict to give a clear understanding of what it is and its implication on business, thus the many definitions. Robbins and Judge (2013) define it as a process triggered by the perception by one party that the other party could negatively affect what the former cares about. Basically, conflict refers to that context where interaction becomes an interparty conflict. These could range from the subtle disagreements to violent and overt acts. It would be important to appreciate from the definition that conflict bases on interplay of perception, incompatibility and interaction. Transitions in conflict thought The idea of conflict has transitioned over three phases – the traditional, interactionist and resolution-focused views. The early approach to conflict, referred to as the traditional view of conflict by Robbins and Judge (2013), postulated all conflicts to be bad and had to be avoided. It was negatively reinforced by negative terms like destruction, irrationality and violence. This was a result of poor communication, insensitivity of the management to employee needs and lack of trust and openness among people. It provided a simple approach in consideration of behaviour of those creating conflict. Thus, improving organisational performance just required to fix the causes of conflict and undertake corrective measures for the malfunctions. However, this approach has been rendered obsolete with studies revealing the inevitability of some conflicts. The interactionist view of conflict thus sought to support conflict. According to Robbins and Judge (2013), this was informed by the argument that harmony, peace, tranquillity and cooperation make a group prone to being unresponsive, apathetic and static. Thus, some form of conflict would help a group become creative, self-critical and viable. Specifically, functional conflict enables a group achieve its goals and improve performance, thus constructive. On the other hand, dysfunctional conflict is considered to be destructive. This view categorises conflicts into task, relationship and process as relate to the goals and content of work, interpersonal relationships and how the work is executed respectively. Relationship conflict has been largely considered as dysfunctional. Whereas there are times when conflict could be beneficial, it is mostly unproductive, time-consuming and hurtful and always lingers as regards the workplace setting. Robbins and Judge (2013) observe that the task conflict postulated to be constructive often leads to the destructive relationship conflict. They propagate close-mindedness, stress and adversity. As such, the new approach proposes the preparation of people to handle conflict, facilitate open discussion and develop resolution strategies instead. In handling cross-cultural conflicts, this view advocates for addressing identity-based and emotional concerns first and using common interest to foster bonds between the involved parties. Conflict process Conflict should be appreciated as a dynamic process which does not appear suddenly. Instead, it takes time, developing through various stages (Spaho, 2013). Whereas there could be many approaches, this paper adopts the 5-stage conflict process documented by Robbins and Judge (2013). Appearance of incompatibility or potential opposition makes up the first step. With this regard, Robbins and Judge (2013) document three conditions for conflict. The first is communication. Opposition resulting from misunderstandings, semantic difficulties and noise hinders communication. Additionally, insufficient information and jargon bar communication, leading to a conflict. An excess or limitation of communication to some extent also triggers conflict. Secondly, structure of a group, including its size, specialisation in tasks, jurisdictional clarity, reward systems, leadership styles and dependence among members, also cause conflict. Lastly, personality variables that could trigger conflict include emotions, values and personality. Whereas these conditions need not necessarily cause conflict, one of them should be present for conflict to be triggered. In the second stage, the potential for incompatibility or opposition becomes actualised. Referring to this stage as cognition and personalisation, Robbins and Judge (2013) argue that it is at the felt conflict level that individuals get involved emotionally such that it causes tension, anxiety, hostility or frustration. This is a critical stage as it marks the point where conflict issues get defined and parties decide on the reason for the conflict. Emotions also come into play with negative emotions enhancing the oversimplification of issues, lose of trust and negative interpretation of behaviour of other parties while positive emotions foster positive relationships. At the intentions stage, people would make a choice on how to act based on the behaviour of the other party. According to Robbins and Judge (2013), conflicts would escalate because of attributing wrong intentions to another party. With the difference between behaviour and intentions, it would be inappropriate to reflect on one’s intention using behaviour. Conflict-handling intentions could be explained using two dimensions of cooperativeness and assertiveness, referring to the attempt to satisfy another party’s concerns and attempts to satisfy own concerns respectively. This leads to five intentions used to handle conflicts: competing and collaborating involving assertive and cooperative nature; avoiding which involves unassertiveness and uncooperativeness; accommodating which entails unassertiveness and cooperativeness; and compromising which balances both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Intentions change in the course of a conflict when parties see each other’s points of view and emotionally respond to each other’s behaviours. Conflicts become visible at the fourth stage, behaviour. This stage encompasses actions, statements and reactions exuded by the conflicting parties as open attempts for implementation of their intentions. Miscalculations and unskilled enactments could cause such overt behaviours to deviate from original intentions. This stage could be considered as a dynamic interaction process along a continuum from the indirect, highly controlled and subtle tensions to highly destructive forms of conflicts (Miller, 2012). Thus, there has to be a way to handle such conflicts as Hebrews 12:14 (New International Version) commands making peace with everyone. For this reason, Robbins and Judge (2013) give various forms of conflict management techniques. With these regard, conflict resolution techniques would include problem solving, superordinate goals, authoritative command, avoidance, smoothing, expansion of resources, alteration of structural variables, alteration of human variables and compromise. Communication, organisational restructuring, appointments of a devil’s advocate and bringing in outsiders are all techniques of conflict stimulation. Finally is the outcome stage. The outcome could either be functional or dysfunctional depending on whether the group’s performance is improved or hindered respectively. As noted by Robbins and Judge (2013), functional outcomes result from constructive conflict which leads to improvement of quality of decisions, stimulation of innovation and creativity, encouragement of curiosity and interest among group members and propagation of a change and self-evaluation environment. Cultural diversity and heterogeneity at workplaces fosters functional outcome. On the other hand, dysfunctional outcomes are the destructive consequences of conflict. These would be indicated by discontent which dissolves common ties and destroys the group. Functional conflicts need to be managed as they have proven to be beneficial to organisations. It calls for the recognition of disagreements to minimise counterproductive conflicts. Successful conflict resolution entails an open discussion of difference of opinions and preparedness to handle conflicts when they arise. To resolve conflicts, negotiation plays a crucial role. Negotiation Negotiation exists in almost all organisations and groups. Robbins and Judge (2013) define it as a process that takes place when parties decide on scarce resource allocation. This term has been used interchangeably with the term bargaining, thus the two bargaining strategies – distributive and integrative. Zero-sum condition identifies this form of bargaining such that any gains made by one of these parties with opposing interests would be at the expense of the other, the goal being to get as much share as possible. It normally occurs within a short duration and information sharing is low. On the other hand, integrative bargaining seeks to expand the resource being shared to satisfy both parties. With a focus on interests which are congruent, information sharing is high and the duration of relationship is long. The latter is desirable for organisations and supported biblically in Mark 12:31 when Jesus commands equal love for neighbours with oneself. The focus should be on broad and overall goals as opposed to immediate outcomes with regards to a specific decision. The negotiation process Just as conflict, negotiation also has five steps. The first, as documented by Robbins and Judge (2013), is preparation and planning. Before commencement of negotiation, it would be important to assess the goals of the other party. This anticipation provides the facts and figures needs to support the chosen position. It would be important to appreciate that relationships would change therefore the need to push for a compromise as opposed to fostering resentment. Gathering information should lead to the development of a strategy by determining what Robbins and Judge refer to as “best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA” for both parties (2013, 464). One should have clarity their BATNA and that of the other party as the lowest acceptable values for either side respectively. This would then lead to the definition of ground rules. This would include the procedures for negotiation, the negotiators, venue, limitations and exchange of demands or proposals. Thirdly would be clarification and justification which involves the explanation, amplification, clarification and justification of the original demands. It should not be confrontational but rather educative and informative. Positions should be supported with relevant documentation. The fourth step is bargaining and problem solving where the involved parties make concessions. At the final stage of closure and implementation, the agreement would be formalised and implementation and monitoring procedures developed (Robbins & Judge, 2013). However, it should be appreciated that most negotiations end up with a handshake as oppose to formal closure. Impact of individual differences in effectiveness of negotiations Various factors come into play to determine the effectiveness of a negotiator. Personality traits determine the effectiveness of negotiations though to a minimal extent. Agreeable or extraverted negotiators do not succeed in distributive bargaining but could be useful in integrative negotiations. Instead, introverts would be more successful in this context (Robbins & Judge, 2013). People interested in positive relationships and their own outcomes are poor negotiators (Sweetman, 2009). It has also been said that intelligence boosts negotiation effectiveness, though to a weak extent just as is the case with personality. Depending on the type of negotiation, mood or emotions could also affect negotiations. In distributive negotiation, those in the position of power who exude anger are perceived to be better negotiators as their anger elicits concessions (Robbins & Judge, 2013). On the other hand, anger among people lower in power could result in negative outcomes. Furthermore, subsequent meetings with angry negotiators would have them perceived as being tough, causing their partners to surrender more concessions. Anxiety leads to poor outcomes as it causes the negotiator to respond quickly to offers and exit bargaining process quickly. However, in integrative negotiations, positive emotions and moods propagate integrative agreements. This is because positive mood correlates to creativity. With regards to culture, Robbins and Judge (2013) argue that high-power distance countries having high positions of power tend to exercise more restraint. The realisation of lack of common interests between negotiators leads to lower trust levels thus superior outcomes. Therefore, with the cultural difference in negotiations, some tactics have been said to result in superior outcomes. Finally, gender differences could influence the effectiveness of negotiations. There generally exists a stereotype arguing on women as being more pleasant and cooperative in negotiations than men. However, Robbins and Judge (2013) argue that it would only be until women and men conform to such stereotypes that it gets reinforced. Negotiating nice leaves the other party at an advantage. Third-party negotiations At times, people opt out of direct negotiations when unable to resolve their differences in favour of third party. According to Robbins and Judge (2013), a mediator refers to a neutral party tasked with the facilitation of a negotiated solution through reasoning and persuasion and giving alternatives. On the contrary, an arbitrator is a third party who could dictate an agreement. A third party could also be a conciliator trusted to provide informal communication link between the negotiating parties. Recommendation and Conclusion Whereas it has been widely assumed that conflicts lower organisational performance, conflict could indeed be destructive or constructive. As such, business managers need to use competition, collaboration, avoidance, accommodation and compromise to benefit from conflicts and negotiations. They should choose negotiators with personality traits likely to cause the realisation of the desired outcome in a negotiation. In case of a stalemate, then trusted and impartial third parties could offer the needed solution. References Miller, K. (2012). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organisational behaviour (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Spaho, K. (2013). Organizational communication and conflict management. Management, 18 (1), 103 – 118. Sweetman, D. (2009). Business, conflict resolution and peacebuilding: Contributions from the private sector to address violent conflict. New York, NY: Routledge. Read More