CHAPTER 9 Conflict and Negotiation Chapter Overview This chapter approaches the topic of intergroup conflict from six perspectives: • The primary causes of intergroup conflict • Its consequences • Strategies for managing intergroup conflict through resolution • Methods of managing intergroup conflict through negotiation • Managing conflict through team building • Methods of stimulating functional conflict The chapter begins by making an important differentiation between functional conflict (which benefits organizational performance) and dysfunctional conflict (which impedes organizational effectiveness). The effects of conflict on organizational performance are examined. Concerning the causes of intergroup conflict, four primary reasons are discussed: • Group interdependence (the three primary types - pooled, sequential, and reciprocal - are defined) • Differences in goals of the opposing groups (due to limited resources and reward structures) • Differences in group perceptions (four primary determinants of group perceptions are discussed - different goals, different time horizons, status incongruency, and inaccurate perceptions) • The increased demand for specialists, which creates conflict between an organization's line and staff members The discussion of conflict's consequences focuses on the changes that occur within and between groups. Ten managerial strategies for resolving intergroup conflict are described, with discussion focusing on each strategy's strengths and shortcomings: problem solving, superordinate goals, expanding resources, avoidance, smoothing, compromise, authoritative command, altering the human variable, altering structural variables, and identifying a common enemy. Managing intergroup conflict through negotiation is addressed by initially defining the process of group negotiations. Renegotiation tactics are described (understanding the other side and knowing all the options) and several of the most often used negotiation tactics are defined (e.g., good guy/bad guy team, joint problem solving, and splitting the difference). The impact of personalities on the negotiation process is described, the role of trust as a determinant of successful negotiations is emphasized, and alternatives to direct negotiations are identified. Team building as a conflict resolution method is discussed next. The process is described, along with elements critical to its success. The chapter concludes with a discussion of four common ways to spur functional conflict between groups (communication, introducing an outsider into the group, altering the organization's structure, and stimulating competition between the groups). Learning Objectives By the end of the chapter, students should be able to: 1. Define functional conflict and dysfunctional conflict. 2. Understand how to manage conflict through negotiation. 3. Describe the effect of intergroup conflict on organizational performance. 4. Discuss why intergroup conflict occurs. 5. Compare the consequences of intergroup conflict within groups and between groups. 6. Identify how group conflict can be resolved through team-building. Lecture Outline PowerPoint Slide Material from Text to Support Slide / Additional Comments Conflict is inevitable in organizations. However, because it can be both a positive and a negative force, management should not strive to eliminate all conflict, only that which has disruptive effects on the organization’s efforts to achieve its goals. Some type or degree of conflict may prove beneficial if it is used as an instrument for change or innovation. Thus, the critical issue appears to be not conflict itself but rather how it’s managed. Using this approach, we can define conflict in terms of the effect it has on the organization. In this respect, we discuss both functional and dysfunctional conflict. A functional conflict is a confrontation between groups that enhances and benefits the organization’s performance. When conflict focuses on tasks, constructive debate can improve decision making and work outcomes. For example, two departments in a hospital may conflict over the most efficient method of delivering health care to low-income rural families. The two departments agree on the goal but not on the means to achieve it. Whatever the outcome, low-income rural families will probably end up with better medical care once the conflict is settled. Without such conflict in organizations, there would be little commitment to change; most groups would probably become stagnant. Thus, functional conflict can be thought of as a type of creative tension. A dysfunctional conflict is any confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the organization or hinders the achievement of organizational goals. Management must seek to eliminate dysfunctional conflicts because such conflict can negatively influence performance by shifting group members’ attention away from important tasks. Conflict may have either a positive or a negative effect on organizational performance, depending on the nature of the conflict and how it is managed. For every organization, an optimal level of conflict exists that can be considered highly functional; it helps generate positive performance. On one hand, when the conflict level is too low, performance can suffer. Innovation and change are difficult, and the organization may have difficulty in adapting to change in its environment. If this low conflict level continues, the organization’s very survival can be threatened. On the other hand, if the conflict level becomes too high, the resulting chaos can also threaten its survival. The proposed relationship between level of intergroup conflict and organizational performance is presented in Figure 9.1 and explained for three hypothetical situations. Some organizational researchers contend that dysfunctional conflict should be eliminated and functional conflict encouraged. But this isn’t what actually happens in most organizations. In practice, most managers attempt to eliminate all types of conflict, whether dysfunctional or functional. But why? Some reasons are that 1. Anticonflict values have historically been reinforced in the home, school, and church. Traditionally, conflict between children or between children and parents has been discouraged. In school systems, too, conflict was discouraged; teachers had all the answers, and both teachers and children were rewarded for orderly classrooms. Finally, most religious doctrines stress peace, tranquility, and acceptance without questioning. 2. Managers are often evaluated on and rewarded for the lack of conflict in their areas of responsibility. Anticonflict values, in fact, become part of the culture of the organization. Harmony and satisfaction are viewed positively, while conflicts and dissatisfaction are viewed negatively. Under such conditions, managers seek to avoid conflicts—functional or dysfunctional—that could disturb the status quo. As teams become more and more popular in the workplace, the productivity both of the overall group and individual group members is receiving considerable attention from managers and researchers alike. Although not universally accepted, one factor that may influence the overall functioning of teams is conflict between team members. Some have argued that intragroup conflict can lead to improvements in overall group performance, decision quality, strategic planning, financial performance, and organizational growth. In contrast, other researchers have found that certain types of intragroup conflict have an overall negative effect on teams in that it contributes to lower levels of productivity and satisfaction in groups. Taken as a whole, our assumption is that some types of intragroup conflict are beneficial at certain times throughout the life cycle of a group or team. Researchers have identified three types of conflict that can influence group functioning. The first, task conflict, refers to members having differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to what the group’s task is. The second type of intragroup conflict is known as relationship conflict. This concept has been defined as being aware of interpersonal incompatibilities between group members that can lead to feelings of dislike, tension, irritation and frustration. The third and more recent type of intragroup conflict to be researched, process conflict, is defined as an awareness of controversies regarding how tasks will be accomplished. Process conflict deals with the delegation of tasks and responsibilities to different team members. Work interdependence occurs when two or more organizational groups depend on one another to complete their tasks. Conflict potential in such situations is high. Three distinct types of interdependence among groups have been identified. 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 organization is. Sequential interdependence requires one group to complete its task before another group can complete its task. Tasks are performed in a sequential fashion. Reciprocal interdependence requires each group’s output to serve as input to other groups in the organization. As the subunits of organization become specialized, they often develop dissimilar goals. Because of the different goals, conflict can result when these two groups interact. When limited resources must be allocated, mutual dependencies increase, and any differences in group goals become more apparent. Groups seek to lower pressure on themselves by gaining control over critical resource supplies, thus reducing the uncertainty of gaining these supplies. What often occurs in limited-resource situations is a win–lose competition that can easily result in dysfunctional conflict if groups refuse to collaborate. Intergroup conflict is more likely to occur when the reward system is related to individual group performance rather than to overall organizational performance. Differences in goals can be accompanied by differing perceptions of reality; disagreements over what constitutes reality can lead to conflict. Many factors cause groups in organizations to form differing perceptions of reality. Major factors include different goals, different time horizons, status incongruency, and inaccurate perceptions. Conflicts between staff specialists and line generalists are probably the most common intergroup conflict. Line and staff persons simply view one another and their roles in the organization from different perspectives. With the growing necessity for technical expertise in all areas of organizations, staff roles might be expected to expand, and line and staff conflicts might be expected to increase. The increased sophistication, specialization, and complexity in most organizations make line–staff conflicts a major concern in managing organizational behavior. Table 9.1 summarizes some causes of conflict. Researchers have spent more than four decades researching and analyzing how dysfunctional intergroup conflict affects those who experience it. They have found that groups placed in a conflict situation tend to react with fairly predictable changes within groups and between groups as a result of dysfunctional intergroup conflict. Many changes are likely to occur within groups involved in intergroup conflict. Unfortunately, these changes generally result in either continuance or escalation of the conflict. During conflicts, certain changes occur between the groups involved. Managers spend more than 20 percent of their time in conflict management. Because managers must live with intergroup conflict, they need to confront the problem of managing it. Failure to do so can lead to disastrous results. Conflict can rip an organization apart by creating walls between co-workers, leading to poor performance and even resignations. Managers must realize that because causes of conflict differ, the means of resolving conflict will also differ, depending on circumstances. Choice of an appropriate conflict resolution method depends on many factors, including reasons why the conflict occurred and the specific relationship between the manager and the conflicting groups. The most commonly used methods for managing intergroup conflict each have strengths and weaknesses and are effective or ineffective in different situations. What this chapter has said thus far about intergroup conflict is summarized in Figure 9.2. The figure illustrates the relationship between causes and types of intergroup conflict, the consequences of intergroup conflict, and techniques for resolution. A widely used yet often less recognized method of managing intergroup conflict is the process of negotiation. Despite its importance, the process is often misunderstood and poorly executed. If done effectively, the negotiation process can be called a collaborative pursuit of joint gains and a collaborative effort to create value where none previously existed. If done poorly, the process can be described as a street fight. Negotiation entails having two sides with differing or conflicting interests come together to forge an agreement. Usually, each side will bring to the process a series of proposals that then are discussed and acted on. Everyone is familiar with the importance of bargaining to settle union disputes, formulate trade pacts, handle hostage situations, and reach arms agreements. Research in the area of international negotiations has focused primarily on making cross-cultural comparisons of negotiations in different cultural contexts and on the influence that cultures exert on negotiation practices. One explanation for the linkage between culture and negotiation has to do with the role of cultural values. Defined as desirable goals that serve as guiding principles that are shared by members of a culture, cultural values encourage individuals from a particular culture to employ those negotiation strategies that will achieve results that are compatible with the cultural environment. Group negotiations take place whenever one group’s work depends on the cooperation and actions of another group over which the first group’s manager has no control. For most Americans, negotiation differs from compromise in that the only really successful negotiations are those in which all the affected parties walk away feeling like they’ve won. Several tasks and tactics can be undertaken by managers prior to and -during the negotiation process to increase the probability of achieving mutually beneficial results. Prior to sitting down and negotiating with managers and/or representatives of other groups, managers must thoroughly understand the other side’s needs and positions regarding the issues to be resolved. To gain this information, the manager must ask questions. Although positions are usually up-front, underlying interests or problems often aren’t. A manager’s goal should be to come to the negotiations with a full appreciation of the values, beliefs, and wants that drive the other side’s actions. By freely exchanging information with the other group and performing as much outside or third-party research as possible, the manager can come prepared for the process. The element of surprise, which can prove to be of value in many business tactics, only serves to delay and hinder the negotiation process. A countless number of specific negotiation tactics can be employed by managers involved in the process. Several of the most often used ones will be discussed. 1. Good-guy/bad-guy team. Anyone who has read a detective story or seen a TV police show is familiar with this tactic. The bad-guy member of the negotiating group advocates positions so much out of line that whatever the good guy says sounds reasonable. 2. The nibble. This tactic involves getting an additional concession or perk after an agreement has been reached. 3. Joint problem solving. A manager should never assume that the more one side wins, the more the other loses. Feasible alternatives not yet considered may exist. 4. Power of competition. Tough negotiators use competition to make opponents think they don’t need them. The most effective defense against this tactic is for a manager to remain objective. Don’t commit quickly to unfavorable terms because of the fear of quick action on the other group’s part. 5. Splitting the difference. This can be a useful technique when two groups come to an impasse. Managers should be careful, however, when the other group offers to split the difference too early. It may mean the other group has already gotten more than it thinks it deserves. 6. Low-balling. Ridiculously low offers and/or concessions are often used to lower the other group’s expectations. A manager shouldn’t let this type of offer lower her expectations or goals; nor should the manager walk out assuming the other group’s position is inflexible. The communications process should continue. The process of negotiating is a very people-oriented experience. In addition to understanding the goals, needs, and wants of the other side, the successful negotiator tries to understand the relevant personality traits of the other individual(s) negotiating. Negotiators come to the bargaining session from quite varied backgrounds; their experiences, like their perspectives, differ. Their propensities to take risk vary, and their personalities and attitudes are diverse. All this affects behavioral actions. Managers must stop and look beneath the roles the other party to a negotiation is playing and ask what really motivates the individual(s). Knowing these traits allows the manager to “read” and understand the opposing side, a valuable tool in negotiations. Four of the most common types of personalities a manager will face at the negotiation table are 1. The power seeker—task and results oriented, seeking challenges and opportunities, and potentially confrontational. A good decision maker. 2. The persuader—outgoing, socially oriented, ambitious, and tough under a cloak of amiability, likability, and affability. A dangerous opponent at the negotiating table. 3. The reliable performer—solid, dependable, comfortable in supportive surroundings, and resistant to sudden change. Dependent on past precedents for confidence in decision making. 4. The limited performer—lacking in self-confidence, in need of a sheltered environment, no decisive, and introverted. Likely to crack under pressure. This chapter has defined functional conflict as a confrontation between groups that enhances and benefits the organization’s effectiveness. In the negotiation process, there will be a greater likelihood of a beneficial outcome for the organization if a high degree of trust exists between the conflicting groups. Negotiators tend to regard making statements about their group’s needs, wants, and priorities as risky and therefore are only willing to make them if there’s mutual trust (i.e., they believe that the other side is also cooperatively motivated). A high level of trust between the two conflicting parties will lead to greater openness and sharing of information. Managers tend to expect a little chicanery when they’re negotiating. Even relatively cooperative bargainers often inject straw issues or exaggerate minor problems’ importance to gain concessions on what really matters. In nearly all bargaining encounters, a negotiator’s key skill is the ability to communicate that she’s firm on positions when, in fact, the negotiator is flexible—in short, bluffing about one’s intentions. But bluffing doesn’t constitute lying or fraud—managers should be well aware of the difference. In addition, a good negotiator will never place the other party in a position from which he can’t move without losing face. Occasionally, groups are unable to resolve their differences through direct negotiations. Likely candidates are groups that conflict often or are led by managers of equal rank. Groups can reach a point where they feel stuck in disagreement. Rather than letting the conflict evolve into a long, nasty battle, the two sides should seek outside help. A third party, often a CEO or other top executive, can be called in to mediate the dispute. Use of a mediator allows an impartial person to work with the two sides to reach an agreement that benefits both sides and the organization as a whole. Bringing in a mediator early enough in the process allows conflicts to be resolved before group hostilities set in, which could lead to dysfunctional results. An option to mediation is arbitration, in which groups are bound by the arbitrator’s decision. Some companies set up formal committees of high-ranking executives whose sole purpose is to resolve disputes between groups. These committees have the authority to render a clear-cut decision in favor of one group, to provide for a mutually agreeable resolution, or to ask the involved parties to collect more information before a decision is reached. A benefit of this approach is that disagreeing parties don’t have to compromise themselves in order to settle an issue. Once a decision is reached, both groups are able to return to a cooperative status. In a previous chapter we focused a great deal of attention on teams as groups. We discussed the rationale for teams and various types of teams such as cross-functional teams and self-managed teams. Obviously one of the rationales for developing teams is to enable the work of the organization to be accomplished more effectively. We saw the many claimed benefits associated with teams such as improved productivity, streamlining, flexibility, quality, increased employee commitment, and improved customer satisfaction. The causes of intergroup conflict discussed in this chapter indicate that the potential for this type of conflict is present in every type of organization. The purpose of team building is to enable work groups to more effectively get their work done, improving their performance. It involves people who work together meeting as a group in order to examine such issues as these: • Is there an understanding of and commitment to common goals? • Are we utilizing all of the skills and abilities of group members? • Is there trust and communication among group members? • Are we continually improving our performance as a group? Table 9.2 presents some conditions under which team building may be successful. Team building is not a short-term strategy to reduce intergroup conflict. It requires a long-term commitment because it is an ongoing process that is really never completed. Ordinarily, the process begins with a series of diagnostic meetings. These meetings, which may last an entire day, allow all of the members of the groups to share their perceptions of problems and causes of conflict with all other members. If the groups are large, subgroups can be formed to discuss the issues and report their ideas to the larger group. Clearly, the purpose of these sessions is to obtain the views of all members and to make these views public. Thus, the ultimate purpose of the diagnostic phase is to openly confront issues and problems that previously were talked about in relative secrecy. Identifying problems and causes of conflict and reaching consensus as to their priority are important initial steps in the process of team building. Then a plan of action must be agreed on. The action plan should require each group member or members to undertake a specific action to alleviate one or more of the problems. Teams require resources and authority if they are to gain the flexibility and commitment from members. If team building is to succeed, the following elements are critical to its success: • Management commitment. Team building cannot be “this year’s thrust.” Team building will fail without a committed management group with a long-term focus. • Trust. Mutual trust between management and employees is a prerequisite for success in team building. Managers must trust that, given sufficient time, employees will support the changes necessary to effectively implement team building. Employees must trust that management really wants to know their opinion. • Sharing information. Obviously, if teams are to support the goals of the organization, they will require information about overall results, including financial information. A willingness to share information is critical to successful team building. • Training. Most teams cannot manifest on their own. They usually require training because individuals are being asked to put aside personal concerns and contribute to a group effort. • Union partnership. If the organization is unionized, the union must be an active participant and partner in the team-building effort. Throughout this chapter, we have stressed that some conflict is beneficial. This point was made again in Figure 9.2, which includes functional consequences of intergroup conflict. The figure indicates that, out of conflict, change can develop from an awareness of problems and from a creative search for alternative solutions. We’ve already examined a situation where conflict is dysfunctional because it’s too high and requires resolution. But it’s also possible that intergroup conflict may be too low and require stimulation to generate action. Review objectives. Lecture Tips Lecture Ideas 1. Have students participate. Is conflict a natural phenomenon? Should it ever be stimulated, or should we attempt to resolve it at all times? 2. Impress upon students the distinction between functional and dysfunctional conflict by asking them to share with the class a personal group experience where the group was involved in functional or dysfunctional conflict and the factors in the situation which led them to diagnose the conflict as such. 3. To enhance student understanding of the different types of interdependence (especially reciprocal), have students share with the class a past group experience where the group was reciprocally interdependent with another group. Was the situation conflict ridden (the potential for conflict is quite high)? How did the group deal with this intense form of interdependency (e.g., were norms developed in this regard)? 4. Students typically have some insightful experiences to relate concerning the changes in and between two groups in conflict. Ask them to recount such a group experience and discuss the changes in the context of the changes described in the chapter. Did other changes occur in the respective group(s) beyond those cited in the chapter? How was the conflict resolved? Concerning the conflict resolution, were any of the resolution strategies discussed in the chapter used? Project and Class Speaker Ideas 1. If a member of the business school faculty has experience as a negotiator (check the industrial relations/personnel department), or if someone in the local area has worked as a labor negotiator, invite the individual to speak to your class on the techniques, process, and challenges involved in conducting a successful negotiation. (A company negotiator from a local unionized company could make an ideal speaker.) 2. One way for students to obtain a full understanding of the causes, nature, dynamics, and consequences of intergroup conflict is to have students prepare (perhaps as a homework assignment) a written profile of an intergroup conflict experience which they personally experienced as a group member. The written reports should focus on each of the aforementioned areas and also address the changes that occurred within and between the conflicting groups and, in particular, the means by which the conflict was resolved. 3. If you'd like students to further consider the effects of such functional conflict tactics as introducing an outsider into the group, there are plenty of articles in the management literature about new outsider CEOs who came into a company and “shook it up.” Have students identify and read such an article and discuss in class the potential benefits and costs of such a strategy. Discussion Questions 1. Should the process of negotiation, such as the one described in this chapter be implemented to resolve student-faculty conflicts? Why? Answer: Given the particulars of each university/college, many students may point out that this type of process already exists at their own institution to deal with student-faculty disputes, although they may not be overly familiar with the specifics of the program. Several benefits may result: faculty may be more careful to implement course policies consistently and both students and faculty may end up better understanding each other's point of view. However, since trust is such an important element of successful negotiation, both parties may feel more satisfied with the outcome if an impartial third party assists in resolving the dispute. Thus, mediation or arbitration may be more appropriate than direct negotiation. 2. Think about a time when your department at work or one of your groups at school (for a group project) experienced a conflict with another department or group. How did your group respond? Answer: This question is intended to enhance student understanding of the intragroup and intergroup changes discussed in the chapter by recounting an intergroup conflict experience and relating the chapter's changes to those actually experienced. Students most readily recognize the eventual breakdown in communication between the groups and increasing use of negative stereotyping. In a group project at school, my team faced a conflict with another group over overlapping responsibilities. We responded by organizing a meeting to clarify each group's tasks, set boundaries, and establish a collaborative plan to avoid duplication and ensure both groups' goals were met effectively. 3. Some individuals believe that compromise isn’t a good conflict resolution technique because there is no distinct winner and the decision reached is probably not ideal for either group. What are your beliefs about compromise as a conflict resolution technique? Answer: Some students will agree with this point. However, expect others to note that although there is no distinct winner or loser, compromise can promote a sense of give and take and the satisfaction among each group that their group obtained something and thus some satisfaction from the compromise. Further, some research indicates that having a distinct winner and loser can promote subsequent conflict due to the resentment and frustration which losing promotes within the loser group toward the winning group and toward the decision-making that resolved the conflict. Compromise can be effective as a conflict resolution technique when both parties are willing to find a middle ground. While it may not yield an ideal solution for either side, it can facilitate cooperation, maintain relationships, and achieve a practical resolution. It is often useful when quick resolution is needed, and both parties are open to adjusting their demands. 4. Describe how the three types of work interdependence could each lead to conflict between two groups within a specific student organization you're familiar with. Answer: This question should facilitate understanding of the different types of interdependence and how each can contribute to conflict. Some students may use fraternities/sororities as their example of a student organization. In most cases, it's likely that fraternities and sororities operate under conditions of pooled interdependence; however, for special events such as Greek week or Greek Olympics, conditions would approximate sequential or reciprocal interdependence (i.e., specific activities would include pre-event planning and execution). In a student organization: 1. Pooled Interdependence: If two groups rely on shared resources, like funding or space, conflicts may arise over resource allocation or prioritization of projects. 2. Sequential Interdependence: If one group’s output is essential for another group’s tasks, delays or quality issues from the first group can lead to frustration and conflict with the second group. 3. Reciprocal Interdependence: If groups need to continuously exchange information or support, miscommunication or uneven contributions can cause disputes and hinder collaboration. 5. How can team building help develop trust between members of different departments or groups at an organization? Answer: The specific aims of team building include setting goals and priorities, analyzing how the group does its work, examining the group’s norms and processes for communicating and decision making, and assessing the interpersonal relationships within the group. As each of these aims is undertaken, the group is placed in the position of having to recognize explicitly the contributions, positive and negative, of each group member. This understanding of trust will help teams communicate and negotiate with each other within organizations. 6. Is competition for grades among students functional or dysfunctional? Why? Answer: Competition for grades is functional as it spurs increased performance among students and rarely creates problems in the classroom. Competition for grades can be functional by motivating students to excel, but it can be dysfunctional if it creates excessive stress and discourages collaboration. Its effects depend on how it's managed and perceived. 7. Some individuals believe that conflict is necessary for change to take place. Comment. Answer: Conflict is indeed necessary because before change can occur, there must be a realization that the status quo is insufficient and disagreement (and thus conflict) over this point almost always occurs. Disagreement about the content of change also tends to boost the quality of change and change implementation because such conflict often boosts individual involvement in decision-making and the quality of ideas and alternatives. Individuals and groups who are inexperienced in handling conflict are poorly equipped to deal with change. 8. Why do you think many managers avoid confrontation with their employees? Is this a functional and effective way to behave as a manager? Explain. Answer: Managers may avoid confrontation with their employees because it can be a negative, uncomfortable situation. Many managers find that avoidance can work as a short-term solution. Avoiding a conflict neither effectively resolves it nor eliminates it. Avoidance is not functional in that eventually, the conflict has to be faced. But in some circumstances, avoidance may be the best temporary alternative. 9. After completing the self-assessment in the OB in the Real World feature at the start of this chapter, were you surprised at the results of your preferred conflict-handling style? Do you agree with the findings? Explain. Answer: This question is designed to get students thinking about how they will potentially handle organizational conflict. For any organization to perform effectively, interdependent individuals and groups must establish working relationships across organization boundaries, between individuals, and among groups. The critical issue is not conflict itself, but how it is handled. Yes, I was somewhat surprised by the results of my preferred conflict-handling style, as it differed from my self-perception. However, I agree with the findings because they align with how I approach conflicts in real-world situations—prioritizing cooperation and seeking mutually beneficial solutions, which reflects the results accurately. 10. What is meant when it’s said that a manager must be able to diagnose intergroup conflict situations? How can a manager obtain these diagnostic skills? Answer: A manager should be able to: (1) distinguish between a case of functional and dysfunctional conflict in an intergroup conflict situation, (2) identify the sources of the conflict, and (3) select and implement an effective conflict resolution strategy when the conflict is dysfunctional. The manager can obtain these skills via group experience and conflict resolution training. Case For Analysis: A Successful Partnership at Ford-Mazda Case Summary This case profiles Ford's joint venture with Mazda. The case emphasizes that managing such an alliance requires hard work in order to avoid dysfunctional conflict and discusses several principles that seem to make the partnership between Ford and Mazda a successful one. Answers to Case Questions 1. Why might there be high potential for conflict in relationships such as the one enjoyed by Ford-Mazda? Answer: The potential for conflict may be high for several reasons. First, for some tasks, there appears to be a high level of interdependence required between groups at Mazda and Ford (i.e., product development - Ford does much of the styling, but Mazda makes some engineering modifications). Second, it is likely that the sum of Mazda and Ford's goals are different. Not only do Ford and Mazda constitute different companies but they also bring different cultures into the process, which is likely to heighten conflict. Another reason for conflict can stem from differing perceptions that top management and employees have at each company. For example, Mazda may have a different perspective on long term planning than executives at Ford. 2. What means of managing group conflict, as discussed in Chapter 9, are utilized in the Ford-Mazda partnership? Answer: The principles for successfully managing a strategic alliance that are outlined in the case represent many of the conflict management strategies discussed in Chapter 9: the frequent meetings concept is an example of problem solving, keeping top management involved might be seen as a type of authoritative command, and some of the principles outlined in the case (i.e., using a matchmaker, allowing no "sacrifice deals") represent the use of effective compromise and/or negotiation principles. 3. Why do you think the Ford-Mazda partnership has been so successful, while many others (including those listed at the beginning of the case) haven't been? Answer: The case suggests that Ford-Mazda has become a successful partnership, in part, because each company has particular strengths that they bring to the partnership and both companies seem to benefit equally from the relationship. The case further points out that Ford-Mazda has become successful because they have worked hard at building a cooperative relationship and have built into this relationship several strategies designed to minimize and resolve dysfunctional conflict. Experiential Exercise: The Old Stack Problem Objectives 1. To closely examine the dynamics of intergroup competition. 2. To illustrate a group's effectiveness in solving a problem. The Exercise in Class Students will find this exercise useful in recognizing that intragroup and intergroup conflicts are not mutually exclusive events. Many of the characteristics of intragroup dynamics, covered in Chapter 8, will appear in this exercise. In addition, the performance of this exercise leads to an interesting discussion of many of the topics covered in Chapter 9. Issues related to differences in goals (caused by limited resources) or differences in perceptions (caused by different goals, time horizons, or perspectives) can be analyzed. The evolution of changes within groups (including increased cohesiveness, autocratic leadership, focus on activities, and emphasis on loyalty) can be traced. Changes between groups (relating to perceptions, stereotyping, and communication) can be discussed. Students should be encouraged to think of situations in the business world where similar conflicts could exist. To stimulate conversation, the instructor may ask students to consider whether the idea of using judges chosen from the involved groups is superior to the method of choosing impartial judges. In addition, students may consider alternative means (without the use of judges) of resolving the conflict. Ten Term Paper Topics 1. (Selected example): Profile of a Contract Negotiation 2. Sources of Intergroup Conflict: An Overview and Evaluation 3. The Art of Compromise in Intergroup Conflict Resolution 4. (Selected example): Profile of a Case of Intergroup Conflict 5. The Dynamics of Intragroup Change in Intergroup Conflict 6. (Selected example): A Profile of Reciprocal Interdependence 7. The New Outsider CEO: The Impact of “New Blood” on the Organization 8. An Overview of Classic Research Studies on the Dynamics and Costs of Dysfunctional Group Conflict 9. How Managers Stimulate Conflict in Organizations 10. The Potential Benefits and Costs of Conflict Stimulation vs. Conflict Resolution in Organizations Instructor Manual for Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes James L. Gibson, John M. Ivancevich, James H. Donnally, Robert Konopaske 9780078112669, 9781259097232, 9780071086417, 9780071315272
Download
Close
Close
