CH-14 Conflict and Negotiation – Organizational Behavior : Chapter Notes

Chapter 14 Conflict and Negotiation LEARNING OBJECTIVES) After studying this chapter, students should be able to: Describe the three types of conflict and the three loci of conflict. Outline the conflict process. Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining. Apply the five steps of the negotiation process. Show how individual differences influence negotiations. Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiations. INSTRUCTOR’S RESOURCES Instructors may wish to use the following resources when presenting this chapter. Text Exercises Myth or Science?: “Teams Negotiate Better than Individuals in Collectivistic Cultures” Career Objectives: How Can I Get a Better Job? An Ethical Choice: Using Empathy to Negotiate More Ethically Personal Inventory Assessment: Strategies for Handling Conflict Point/Counterpoint: Pro Sports Strikes Are Caused by Greedy Owners Questions for Review Experiential Exercise: A Negotiation Role-Play Ethical Dilemma: The Lowball Applicant Text Cases Case Incident 1: Disorderly Conduct Case Incident 2: Is More Cash Worth the Clash? Instructor’s Choice This section presents an exercise that is NOT found in the student's textbook. Instructor's Choice reinforces the text's emphasis through various activities. Some Instructor's Choice activities are centered on debates, group exercises, Internet research, and student experiences. Some can be used in class in their entirety, while others require some additional work on the student's part. The course instructor may choose to use these at anytime throughout the class—some may be more effective as icebreakers, while some may be used to pull together various concepts covered in the chapter. Web Exercises At the end of each chapter of this Instructor’s Manual, you will find suggested exercises and ideas for researching OB topics on the Internet. The exercises “Exploring OB Topics on the Web” are set up so that you can simply photocopy the pages, distribute them to your class, and make assignments accordingly. You may want to assign the exercises as an out-of-class activity or as lab activities with your class. Summary and Implications for Managers While many people assume conflict lowers group and organizational performance, this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. Levels of conflict can be either too high or too low to be constructive. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released, and initiates the seeds of change without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities. Specific implications for managers are below: Choose an authoritarian management style in emergencies, when unpopular actions need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, discipline), and when the issue is vital to the organization’s welfare. Be certain to communicate your logic when possible, to make certain employees remain engaged and productive. Seek integrative solutions when your objective is to learn, when you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives, when you need to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus, and when you need to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship. You can build trust by accommodating others when you find you’re wrong, when you need to demonstrate reasonableness, when other positions need to be heard, when issues are more important to others than to yourself, when you want to satisfy others and maintain cooperation, when you can build social credits for later issues, to minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing, and when employees should learn from their own mistakes. Consider compromising when goals are important but not worth potential disruption, when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals, and when you need temporary settlements to complex issues. Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but it often reduces the satisfaction of one or more negotiators because it is confrontational and focused on the short term. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties and build lasting relationships. This chapter begins with a discussion of Spotify. As the music industry example demonstrates, forms of conflict and negotiation are often complex—and controversial—interpersonal processes. While we generally see conflict as a negative topic and negotiation as a positive one, what we deem positive or negative often depends on our perspective. Conflict can turn personal. It can create chaotic conditions that make it nearly impossible for employees to work as a team. However, conflict also has a well-known positive side. We’ll explain the difference between negative and positive conflicts in this chapter and provide a guide to help you understand how conflicts develop. We’ll also present the specifics about the topic closely related to conflict: negotiation. BRIEF CHAPTER OUTLINE A Definition of Conflict There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict, but common to most is the idea that conflict is a perception. If no one is aware of a conflict, then it is generally agreed no conflict exists. Also needed to begin the conflict process are opposition or incompatibility and interaction. We define conflict as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about. There is no consensus over the role of conflict in groups and organizations. In the past, researchers tended to argue about whether conflict was uniformly good or bad. Such simplistic views eventually gave way to approaches recognizing that not all conflicts are the same and that different types of conflict have different effects. Contemporary perspectives differentiate types of conflict based on their effects. (Exhibit 14-1) Functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves its performance. Conflicts that hinder group performance are dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict. Types of Conflict Types of Conflict Researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: task, relationship, or process. Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work. Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships. Process conflict is about how the work gets done. Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional. Why? It appears that the friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks. Of the three types, relationship conflicts also appear to be the most psychologically exhausting to individuals. While scholars agree that relationship conflict is dysfunctional, there is considerably less agreement as to whether task and process conflicts are functional. Early research suggested that task conflict within groups was associated with higher group performance, but a recent review of 116 studies found that task conflict was essentially unrelated to group performance. However, there were factors that could create a relationship between conflict and performance. One such factor was whether the conflict included top management or occurred lower in the organization. Task conflict among top management teams was positively associated with their performance, whereas conflict lower in the organization was negatively associated with group performance. This review also found that it mattered whether other types of conflict were occurring at the same time. If task and relationship conflict occurred together, task conflict was more likely negative, whereas if task conflict occurred by itself, it more likely was positive. Finally, some scholars have argued that the strength of conflict is important—if task conflict is very low, people aren’t really engaged or addressing the important issues. If task conflict is too high, however, infighting will quickly degenerate into personality conflict. According to this view, moderate levels of task conflict are optimal. Supporting this argument, one study in China found that moderate levels of task conflict in the early development stage increased creativity in groups, but high levels decreased team performance. Finally, the personalities of the teams appear to matter. A recent study demonstrated that teams made up of individuals who are, on average, high in openness and emotional stability are better able to turn task conflict into increased group performance. The reason may be that open and emotionally stable teams can put task conflict in perspective and focus on how the variance in ideas can help solve the problem, rather than letting it degenerate into relationship conflicts. What about process conflict? Researchers found that process conflicts revolve around delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around shirking, and conflicts over roles can leave some group members feeling marginalized. Thus, process conflicts often become highly personalized and quickly devolve into relationship conflicts. It’s also true, of course, that arguing about how to do something takes time away from actually doing it. We’re all been part of groups in which the arguments and debates about roles and responsibilities seem to go nowhere. Loci of Conflict Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or where the conflict occurs. Here, too, there are three basic types. Dyadic conflict is conflict between two people. Intragroup conflict occurs within a group or team. Intergroup conflict is conflict between groups or teams. Nearly all the literature on task, relationship, and process conflict considers intragroup conflict (within the group). That makes sense given that groups and teams often exist only to perform a particular task. However, it doesn’t necessarily tell us about the other loci of conflict. Another intriguing question about loci is whether conflicts interact or buffer one another. Intense intergroup conflict can be quite stressful to group members and might well affect the way they interact. Thus, understanding functional and dysfunctional conflict requires not only that we identify the type of conflict; we also need to know where it occurs. It’s possible that while the concepts of task, relationship, and process conflict are useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conflict, they are less useful in explaining the effects of intergroup conflict. The Conflict Process Introduction The conflict process has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes. (Exhibit 14-2) Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility Communication Communication as a source of conflict represents those opposing forces that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the communication channels. Differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedents to conflict. The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place. Communication is functional up to a point, after which it is possible to over communicate, increasing the potential for conflict. Structure The term structure includes variables such as size, degree of specialization, jurisdictional clarity, member-goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of dependence. Size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. Personal variables—include personality, emotions, and values. People high in the personality traits of disagreeableness, neuroticism, or self-monitoring are prone to tangle with other people more often, and to react poorly when conflicts occur. Emotions can also cause conflict even when they are not directed at others. Stage II: Cognition and Personalization Antecedent conditions lead to conflict only when the parties are affected by and aware of it. However, because a disagreement is a perceived conflict does not mean it is personalized. Conflict is personalized when it is felt and when individuals become emotionally involved. This stage is where conflict issues tend to be defined and this definition delineates the possible settlements. Second, emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. Negative emotions produce oversimplification of issues, reductions in trust, and negative interpretations of the other party’s behavior. Positive feelings increase the tendency to see potential relationships among the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the situation, and to develop more innovative solutions. Stage III: Intentions Intentions are decisions to act in a given way. Why are intentions separated out as a distinct stage? Merely one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other escalates a lot of conflicts. One author’s effort to identify the primary conflict-handling intentions is represented in Exhibit 14-3. Five conflict-handling intentions can be identified: competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodating, and compromising. Stage IV: Behavior Stage IV is where conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions. (Exhibit 14-4) At the lower part of the continuum, conflicts are characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive. If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what options exist if conflict is too low and needs to be increased? This brings us to techniques of conflict management. Exhibit 14-5 lists the major resolution and stimulation techniques that allow managers to control conflict levels. We have already described several as conflict-handling intentions. Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into comparable behaviors. Stage V: Outcomes Outcomes may be functional—improving group performance, or dysfunctional in hindering it. (Exhibit 14-1) Functional outcomes Conflict is constructive when it: Improves the quality of decisions. Stimulates creativity and innovation. Encourages interest and curiosity. Provides the medium through which problems can be aired and tensions released. Fosters an environment of self-evaluation and change. Dysfunctional outcomes The destructive consequences of conflict on the performance of a group or an organization are generally well known. A substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional conflicts can reduce group effectiveness. Managing functional conflict If managers recognize that in some situations conflict can be beneficial, what can they do to manage conflict effectively in their organizations? Groups that resolve conflicts successfully discuss differences of opinion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises. Differences across countries in conflict resolution strategies may be based on collectivistic tendencies and motives. Negotiation Introduction Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon the exchange rate for them. We use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably. Although we commonly think of the outcomes of negotiation in one-shot economic terms, every negotiation in organizations also affects the relationship between the negotiators and the way the negotiators feel about themselves. Depending on how much the parties are going to interact with one another, sometimes maintaining the social relationship and behaving ethically will be just as important as achieving an immediate outcome of bargaining. Note that we use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably. Bargaining Strategies Two general approaches to negotiation: (Exhibit 14-6) Distributive bargaining Integrative bargaining Distributive bargaining The essence of distributive bargaining is negotiating over who gets what share of a fixed pie. By fixed pie, we mean a set amount of goods or services to be divvied up. When the pie is fixed, or the parties believe it is, they tend to bargain distributively. The most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is in labor-management negotiations over wages. The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14-7. Parties A and B represent two negotiators. Each has a target point that defines what he or she would like to achieve. Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest outcome that is acceptable. The area between these two points makes up each one’s aspiration range. As long as there is some overlap between A and B’s aspiration ranges, there exists a settlement range where each one’s aspirations can be met. When engaged in distributive bargaining, one of the best things you can do is make the first offer, and make it an aggressive one. Integrative bargaining In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining operates under the assumption that one or more of the possible settlements can create a win-win solution. Both parties must be engaged for it to work. In terms of intra-organizational behavior, all things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. Why do we not see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answer lies in the conditions necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed. Negotiations that occur when both parties are focused on learning and understanding the other side tend to also yield higher joint outcomes than those in which parties are more interested in their individual bottom-line outcomes. Compromise might be your worst enemy in negotiating a win-win agreement. The reason is that compromising reduces the pressure to bargain integratively. After all, if you or your opponent caves in easily, it doesn’t require anyone to be creative to reach a settlement. Thus, people end up settling for less than they could have obtained if they had been forced to consider the other party’s interests, trade off issues, and be creative. The Negotiation Process (Exhibit 14-8) Preparation and planning Do your homework. What is the nature of the conflict? What is the history leading up to this negotiation? Who is involved, and what are their perceptions of the conflict? What do you want from the negotiation? What are your goals? You also want assess what you think are the other party’s goals. When you can anticipate your opponent’s position, you are better equipped to counter his or her arguments with the facts and figures that support your position. Relationships will change as a result of a negotiation, so that’s another outcome to take into consideration. Once you have gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy. Determine your and the other side’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement. Any offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than an impasse. Definition of ground rules Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints, if any, will apply? To what issues will negotiation be limited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached? During this phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands. Clarification and justification When initial positions have been exchanged, explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify your original demands. This need not be confrontational. You might want to provide the other party with any documentation that helps support your position. Bargaining and problem solving The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give-and-take in trying to hash out an agreement. Concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties. Closure and implementation The final step—formalizing the agreement that has been worked out and developing any procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring. Major negotiations will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract. For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake. Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness Personality traits in negotiation Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating tactics if you know something about his/her personality? The evidence says “sort of.” The evidence suggests that overall agreeableness is weakly related to negotiation outcomes. Why is this the case? It appears that the degree to which agreeableness, and personality more generally, affects negotiation outcomes depends on the situation. The importance of being extraverted in negotiations, for example, will very much depend on how the other party reacts to someone who is assertive and enthusiastic. A recent study suggested that the type of negotiations matter as well. In this study, agreeable individuals reacted more positively and felt less stress (measured by their cortisol levels) in integrative negotiations than in distributive ones. Low levels of stress, in turn, made for more effective negotiation outcomes. Research also suggests intelligence predicts negotiation effectiveness, but, as with personality, the effects aren’t especially strong. Moods/emotions in negotiation Moods and emotions influence negotiation, but the way they do depends on the type of negotiation. Another factor is how genuine your anger is—“faked” anger, or anger produced from surface acting (see Chapter 4), is not effective, but showing anger that is genuine (deep acting) is. Another relevant emotion is disappointment. Generally, a negotiator who perceives disappointment from his or her counterpart concedes more. Anxiety also appears to have an impact on negotiation. One study found that anxious negotiators expect lower outcomes from negotiations, respond to offers more quickly, and exit the bargaining process more quickly, which leads them to obtain worse outcomes. All these findings regarding emotions have related to distributive bargains. In integrative negotiations, in contrast, positive moods and emotions appear to lead to more integrative agreements (higher levels of joint gain). Culture in negotiations Do people from different cultures negotiate differently? The simple answer is the obvious one: yes, they do. First, it appears that people generally negotiate more effectively within cultures than between them. For example, a Colombian is apt to do better negotiating with a Colombian than with a Sri Lankan. Second, it appears that in cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially important that the negotiators be high in openness. Finally, because emotions are culturally sensitive, negotiators need to be especially aware of the emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiation. Gender differences in negotiations Men and women negotiate differently and these differences affect outcomes. A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative, pleasant, and relationship-oriented in negotiations than men. There is some merit to this. Men tend to place a higher value on status, power, and recognition, whereas women tend to place a higher value on compassion and altruism. Moreover, women do tend to value relationship outcomes more than men, and men tend to value economic outcomes more than women. These differences affect both negotiation behavior and negotiation outcomes. Compared to men, women tend to behave in a less assertive, less self-interested, and more accommodating manner. However, the disparity goes even further than that. Because of the way women approach negotiation, other negotiators seek to exploit female negotiators by, for example, making lower salary offers. So what can be done to change this troublesome state of affairs? First, organizational culture plays a role here. If an organization, even unwittingly, encourages a predominantly competitive model for negotiators, this will tend to increase gender-stereotypic behaviors (men negotiating competitively, women negotiating cooperatively), and it will also increase backlash when women go against stereotype. Second, at an individual level, women cannot directly control male stereotypes of women. Fortunately, such stereotypes are fading. However, women can control their own negotiating behavior. Negotiating in a Social Context Introduction To really understand negotiations in practice, we must then consider the social factors of reputation and relationships. Reputation Your reputation is the way other people think and talk about you. When it comes to negotiation, having a reputation for being trustworthy matters. In short, trust in a negotiation process opens the door to many forms of integrative negotiation strategies that benefit both parties. The most effective way to build trust is to behave in an honest way across repeated interactions. Then, others feel more comfortable making open-ended offers with many different outcomes. This helps to achieve win-win outcomes, since both parties can work to achieve what is most important to themselves while still benefitting the other party. What type of characteristic helps a person develop a trustworthy reputation? A combination of competence and integrity. Negotiators higher in self-confidence and cognitive ability are seen as more competent by negotiation partners. They are also considered better able to accurately describe a situation and their own resources, and more credible when they make suggestions for creative solutions to impasses. Individuals who have a reputation for integrity can also be more effective in negotiations. They are seen as more likely to keep their promises and present information accurately, so others are more willing to accept their promises as part of a bargain. Finally, individuals who have higher reputations are better liked and have more friends and allies—in other words, they have more social resources, which may give them more understood power in negotiations. Third-Party Negotiations When individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve their differences through direct negotiations, they may turn to a third party. A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives, and the like. An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link among parties. Summary and Implications for Managers While many people assume conflict lowers group and organizational performance, this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. Levels of conflict can be either too high or too low to be constructive. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released, and initiates the seeds of change without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities. Specific implications for managers are below: Choose an authoritarian management style in emergencies, when unpopular actions need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, discipline), and when the issue is vital to the organization’s welfare. Be certain to communicate your logic when possible to make certain employees remain engaged and productive. Seek integrative solutions when your objective is to learn, when you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives, when you need to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus, and when you need to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship. You can build trust by accommodating others when you find you’re wrong, when you need to demonstrate reasonableness, when other positions need to be heard, when issues are more important to others than to yourself, when you want to satisfy others and maintain cooperation, when you can build social credits for later issues, to minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing, and when employees should learn from their own mistakes. Consider compromising when goals are important but not worth potential disruption, when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals, and when you need temporary settlements to complex issues. Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but it often reduces the satisfaction of one or more negotiators because it is confrontational and focused on the short term. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties and build lasting relationships. EXPANDED CHAPTER OUTLINE A Definition of Conflict There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict, but common to most is the idea that conflict is a perception. If no one is aware of a conflict, then it is generally agreed no conflict exists. Also needed to begin the conflict process are opposition or incompatibility and interaction. We define conflict as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about. This describes that point when an interaction “crosses over” to become an inter-party conflict. It encompasses the wide range of conflicts that people experience in organizations. There is no consensus over the role of conflict in groups and organizations. In the past, researchers tended to argue about whether conflict was uniformly good or bad. Such simplistic views eventually gave way to approaches recognizing that not all conflicts are the same and that different types of conflict have different effects. Contemporary perspectives differentiate types of conflict based on their effects. (Exhibit 14-1) Functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves its performance. Conflicts that hinder group performance are dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict. Types of Conflict Types of Conflict Researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: task, relationship, or process. Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work. Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships. Process conflict is about how the work gets done. Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional. Why? It appears that the friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks. Of the three types, relationship conflicts also appear to be the most psychologically exhausting to individuals. While scholars agree that relationship conflict is dysfunctional, there is considerably less agreement as to whether task and process conflicts are functional. Early research suggested that task conflict within groups was associated with higher group performance, but a recent review of 116 studies found that task conflict was essentially unrelated to group performance. However, there were factors that could create a relationship between conflict and performance. One such factor was whether the conflict included top management or occurred lower in the organization. Task conflict among top management teams was positively associated with their performance, whereas conflict lower in the organization was negatively associated with group performance. This review also found that it mattered whether other types of conflict were occurring at the same time. If task and relationship conflict occurred together, task conflict was more likely negative, whereas if task conflict occurred by itself, it more likely was positive. Finally, some scholars have argued that the strength of conflict is important—if task conflict is very low, people aren’t really engaged or addressing the important issues. If task conflict is too high, however, infighting will quickly degenerate into personality conflict. According to this view, moderate levels of task conflict are optimal. Supporting this argument, one study in China found that moderate levels of task conflict in the early development stage increased creativity in groups, but high levels decreased team performance. Finally, the personalities of the teams appear to matter. A recent study demonstrated that teams made up of individuals who are, on average, high in openness and emotional stability are better able to turn task conflict into increased group performance. The reason may be that open and emotionally stable teams can put task conflict in perspective and focus on how the variance in ideas can help solve the problem, rather than letting it degenerate into relationship conflicts. What about process conflict? Researchers found that process conflicts revolve around delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around shirking, and conflicts over roles can leave some group members feeling marginalized. Thus, process conflicts often become highly personalized and quickly devolve into relationship conflicts. It’s also true, of course, that arguing about how to do something takes time away from actually doing it. We’re all been part of groups in which the arguments and debates about roles and responsibilities seem to go nowhere. Loci of Conflict Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or where the conflict occurs. Here, too, there are three basic types: Dyadic conflict is conflict between two people. Intragroup conflict occurs within a group or team. Intergroup conflict is conflict between groups or teams. Nearly all the literature on task, relationship, and process conflict considers intragroup conflict (within the group). That makes sense given that groups and teams often exist only to perform a particular task. However, it doesn’t necessarily tell us about the other loci of conflict. Another intriguing question about loci is whether conflicts interact or buffer one another. Intense intergroup conflict can be quite stressful to group members and might well affect the way they interact. Thus, understanding functional and dysfunctional conflict requires not only that we identify the type of conflict; we also need to know where it occurs. It’s possible that while the concepts of task, relationship, and process conflict are useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conflict, they are less useful in explaining the effects of intergroup conflict. The Conflict Process Introduction The conflict process has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes. (Exhibit 14-2) Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility Communication Communication as a source of conflict represents those opposing forces that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the communication channels. Differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedents to conflict. The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place. Communication is functional up to a point, after which it is possible to over communicate, increasing the potential for conflict. Structure The term structure includes variables such as size, degree of specialization, jurisdictional clarity, member-goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of dependence. Size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. The larger the group and more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict. The potential for conflict is greatest where group members are younger and turnover is high. Personal variables—include personality, emotions, and values. People high in the personality traits of disagreeableness, neuroticism, or self-monitoring are prone to tangle with other people more often, and to react poorly when conflicts occur. Emotions can also cause conflict even when they are not directed at others. Stage II: Cognition and Personalization Antecedent conditions lead to conflict only when the parties are affected by and aware of it. However, because a disagreement is a perceived conflict does not mean it is personalized. Conflict is personalized when it is felt and when individuals become emotionally involved. This stage is where conflict issues tend to be defined and this definition delineates the possible settlements. Second, emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. Negative emotions produce oversimplification of issues, reductions in trust, and negative interpretations of the other party’s behavior. Positive feelings increase the tendency to see potential relationships among the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the situation, and to develop more innovative solutions. Stage III: Intentions Intentions are decisions to act in a given way. Why are intentions separated out as a distinct stage? Merely one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other escalates a lot of conflicts. One author’s effort to identify the primary conflict-handling intentions, represented in Exhibit 14-2, is along two dimensions: Cooperativeness—the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s concerns. Assertiveness—the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns. Five conflict-handling intentions can be identified: competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodating, and compromising. Competing When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests, regardless of the impact on the other parties to the conflict. Collaborating When the parties to conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns of all parties. The intention is to solve the problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating. Avoiding A person may recognize that a conflict exists and want to withdraw from or suppress it. Accommodating When one party seeks to appease an opponent, that party is willing to be self-sacrificing. Compromising When each party to the conflict seeks to give up something, sharing occurs, resulting in a compromised outcome. There is no clear winner or loser, and the solution provides incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns. Stage IV: Behavior Stage IV is where conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions. (Exhibit 14-4) Stage IV is a dynamic process of interaction; conflicts exist somewhere along a continuum. At the lower part of the continuum, conflicts are characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive. If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what options exist if conflict is too low and needs to be increased? This brings us to techniques of conflict management. Exhibit 14-5 lists the major resolution and stimulation techniques that allow managers to control conflict levels. We have already described several as conflict-handling intentions. Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into comparable behaviors. Stage V: Outcomes Outcomes may be functional—improving group performance, or dysfunctional in hindering it. (Exhibit 14-1) Functional outcomes How might conflict act as a force to increase group performance? Conflict is constructive when it: Improves the quality of decisions. Stimulates creativity and innovation. Encourages interest and curiosity. Provides the medium through which problems can be aired and tensions released. Fosters an environment of self-evaluation and change. Dysfunctional outcomes The destructive consequences of conflict on the performance of a group or an organization are generally well known. Uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. A substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional conflicts can reduce group effectiveness. Among the more undesirable consequences are hampered communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting among members. All forms of conflict—even the functional varieties—appear to reduce group member satisfaction and reduce trust. When active discussions turn into open conflicts between members, information sharing between members has been shown to decrease significantly. At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and threaten the group’s survival. Managing functional conflict If managers recognize that in some situations conflict can be beneficial, what can they do to manage conflict effectively in their organizations? One of the keys to minimizing counterproductive conflicts is recognizing when there really is a disagreement. Many apparent conflicts are due to people using different language to discuss the same general course of action. For example, someone in marketing might focus on "distribution problems, ” while someone from operations will talk about “supply chain management” to describe essentially the same issue. Successful conflict management recognizes these different approaches and attempts to resolve them by encouraging open, frank discussion focused on interests rather than issues (we’ll have more to say about this when we contrast distributive and integrative bargaining styles). Another approach is to have opposing groups pick parts of the solution that are most important to them and then focus on how each side can get its top needs satisfied. Neither side may get exactly what it wants, but both sides will get the most important parts of its agenda. Groups that resolve conflicts successfully discuss differences of opinion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises. The most disruptive conflicts are those that are never addressed directly. An open discussion makes it much easier to develop a shared perception of the problems at hand; it also allows groups to work toward a mutually acceptable solution. Managers need to emphasize shared interests in resolving conflicts, so groups that disagree with one another don’t become too entrenched in their points of view and start to take the conflicts personally. Groups with cooperative conflict styles and a strong underlying identification to the overall group goals are more effective than groups with a more competitive style. Differences across countries in conflict resolution strategies may be based on collectivistic tendencies and motives. Collectivist cultures see people as deeply embedded in social situations, whereas individualist cultures see them as autonomous. As a result, collectivists are more likely to seek to preserve relationships and promote the good of the group as a whole. They will avoid direct expression of conflicts, preferring indirect methods for resolving differences of opinion. Collectivists may also be more interested in demonstrations of concern and working through third parties to resolve disputes, whereas individualists will be more likely to confront differences of opinion directly and openly. Some research does support this theory. Compared to collectivist Japanese negotiators, their more individualist U.S. counterparts are more likely to see offers from their counterparts as unfair and to reject them. Another study revealed that whereas U.S. managers were more likely to use competing tactics in the face of conflicts, compromising and avoiding are the most preferred methods of conflict management in China. Interview data, however, suggests top management teams in Chinese high-technology firms prefer collaboration even more than compromising and avoiding. Negotiation Introduction Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon the exchange rate for them. We use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably. Although we commonly think of the outcomes of negotiation in one-shot economic terms, every negotiation in organizations also affects the relationship between the negotiators and the way the negotiators feel about themselves. Depending on how much the parties are going to interact with one another, sometimes maintaining the social relationship and behaving ethically will be just as important as achieving an immediate outcome of bargaining. Note that we use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably. Bargaining Strategies Two general approaches to negotiation: (Exhibit 14-6) Distributive bargaining Integrative bargaining Distributive bargaining An example of distributive bargaining is buying a car. You go out to see the car. It is great and you want it. The owner tells you the asking price. You do not want to pay that much. The two of you then negotiate over the price. Its most identifying feature is that it operates under zero-sum conditions. The essence of distributive bargaining is negotiating over who gets what share of a fixed pie. By fixed pie, we mean a set amount of goods or services to be divvied up. When the pie is fixed, or the parties believe it is, they tend to bargain distributively. The most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is in labor-management negotiations over wages. The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14-7. Parties A and B represent two negotiators. Each has a target point that defines what he or she would like to achieve. Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest outcome that is acceptable. The area between these two points makes up each one’s aspiration range. As long as there is some overlap between A and B’s aspiration ranges, there exists a settlement range where each one’s aspirations can be met. When engaged in distributive bargaining, one of the best things you can do is make the first offer, and make it an aggressive one. Making the first offer shows power; individuals in power are much more likely to make initial offers, speak first at meetings, and thereby gain the advantage. Another reason, the anchoring bias, was mentioned in Chapter 6. People tend to fixate on initial information. A savvy negotiator sets an anchor with the initial offer, and scores of negotiation studies show that such anchors greatly favor the person who sets it. Integrative bargaining In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining operates under the assumption that one or more of the possible settlements can create a win-win solution. Both parties must be engaged for it to work. In terms of intra-organizational behavior, all things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. Because integrative bargaining builds long-term relationships and facilitates working together in the future, it bonds negotiators and allows each to leave the bargaining table feeling victorious. Distributive bargaining, on the other hand, leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosities and deepens divisions. Why do we not see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answer lies in the conditions necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed. Parties who are open with information and candid about their concerns. Sensitivity by both parties to the other’s needs. The ability to trust one another. A willingness by both parties to maintain flexibility. Negotiations that occur when both parties are focused on learning and understanding the other side tend to also yield higher joint outcomes than those in which parties are more interested in their individual bottom-line outcomes. Compromise might be your worst enemy in negotiating a win-win agreement. The reason is that compromising reduces the pressure to bargain integratively. After all, if you or your opponent caves in easily, it doesn’t require anyone to be creative to reach a settlement. Thus, people end up settling for less than they could have obtained if they had been forced to consider the other party’s interests, trade off issues, and be creative. The Negotiation Process (Exhibit 14-8) Preparation and Planning Do your homework. What is the nature of the conflict? What is the history leading up to this negotiation? Who is involved, and what are their perceptions of the conflict? What do you want from the negotiation? What are your goals? You also want to assess what you think are the other party’s goals. When you can anticipate your opponent’s position, you are better equipped to counter his or her arguments with the facts and figures that support your position. Relationships will change as a result of a negotiation, so that’s another outcome to take into consideration. If you could “win” a negotiation but push the other side into resentment or animosity, it might be wiser to pursue a more compromising style. If preserving the relationship will make you seem weak and easily exploited, you may want to consider a more aggressive style. As an example of how the tone of a relationship set in negotiations matters, consider that people who feel good about the process of a job offer negotiation are more satisfied with their jobs and less likely to turn over a year later regardless of their actual outcomes from these negotiations. Once you have gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy. Determine your and the other side’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement. Any offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than an impasse. Definition of ground rules Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints, if any, will apply? To what issues will negotiation be limited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached? During this phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands. Clarification and justification When initial positions have been exchanged, explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify your original demands. This need not be confrontational. You might want to provide the other party with any documentation that helps support your position. Bargaining and problem solving The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give-and-take in trying to hash out an agreement. Concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties. Closure and implementation The final step—formalizing the agreement that has been worked out and developing any procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring. Major negotiations will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract. For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake. Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness Personality traits in negotiation Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating tactics if you know something about his/her personality? The evidence says “sort of.” The evidence suggests that overall agreeableness is weakly related to negotiation outcomes. Why is this the case? It appears that the degree to which agreeableness, and personality more generally, affects negotiation outcomes depends on the situation. The importance of being extraverted in negotiations, for example, will very much depend on how the other party reacts to someone who is assertive and enthusiastic. A recent study suggested that the type of negotiations matter as well. In this study, agreeable individuals reacted more positively and felt less stress (measured by their cortisol levels) in integrative negotiations than in distributive ones. Low levels of stress, in turn, made for more effective negotiation outcomes. Research also suggests intelligence predicts negotiation effectiveness, but, as with personality, the effects aren’t especially strong. In a sense, these weak links are good news because they mean you’re not severely disadvantaged, even if you’re an agreeable extrovert, when it comes time to negotiate. We all can learn to be better negotiators. Moods/emotions in negotiation Moods and emotions influence negotiation, but the way they do depends on the type of negotiation. It appears that negotiators in a position of power or equal status who show anger negotiate better outcomes because their anger induces concessions from their opponents. Another factor is how genuine your anger is—“faked” anger, or anger produced from surface acting (see Chapter 4), is not effective, but showing anger that is genuine (deep acting) is. It also appears that having a history of showing anger, rather than sowing the seeds of revenge, actually induces more concessions because the other party perceives the negotiator as “tough.” Finally, culture seems to matter. For instance, one study found that when East Asian participants showed anger, it induced more concessions than when the negotiator expressing anger was from the United States or Europe, perhaps because of the stereotype of East Asians as refusing to show anger. Another relevant emotion is disappointment. Generally, a negotiator who perceives disappointment from his or her counterpart concedes more. In one study, Dutch students were given 100 chips to bargain over. Negotiators who expressed disappointment were offered 14 more chips than those who didn’t. In a second study, showing disappointment yielded an average concession of12 chips. Unlike a show of anger, the relative power of the negotiators made no difference in either study. Another study found that anxious negotiators expect lower outcomes from negotiations, respond to offers more quickly, and exit the bargaining process more quickly, which leads them to obtain worse outcomes. Anxiety also appears to have an impact on negotiation. For example, one study found that individuals who experienced more anxiety about a negotiation used more deceptions in dealing with others. Culture in negotiations Do people from different cultures negotiate differently? The simple answer is the obvious one: yes, they do. First, it appears that people generally negotiate more effectively within cultures than between them. For example, a Colombian is apt to do better negotiating with a Colombian than with a Sri Lankan. Second, it appears that in cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially important that the negotiators be high in openness. Finally, because emotions are culturally sensitive, negotiators need to be especially aware of the emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiation. Gender differences in negotiations Men and women negotiate differently and those differences affect outcomes. A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative, pleasant, and relationship-oriented in negotiations than men. There is some merit to this. Men tend to place a higher value on status, power, and recognition, whereas women tend to place a higher value on compassion and altruism. Moreover, women do tend to value relationship outcomes more than men, and men tend to value economic outcomes more than women. These differences affect both negotiation behavior and negotiation outcomes. Compared to men, women tend to behave in a less assertive, less self-interested, and more accommodating manner. However, the disparity goes even further than that. Because of the way women approach negotiation, other negotiators seek to exploit female negotiators by, for example, making lower salary offers. So what can be done to change this troublesome state of affairs? First, organizational culture plays a role here. If an organization, even unwittingly, encourages a predominantly competitive model for negotiators, this will tend to increase gender-stereotypic behaviors (men negotiating competitively, women negotiating cooperatively), and it will also increase backlash when women go against stereotype. Second, at an individual level, women cannot directly control male stereotypes of women. Fortunately, such stereotypes are fading. However, women can control their own negotiating behavior. Negotiating in a Social Context Introduction To really understand negotiations in practice, we must then consider the social factors of reputation and relationships. Reputation Your reputation is the way other people think and talk about you. When it comes to negotiation, having a reputation for being trustworthy matters. In short, trust in a negotiation process opens the door to many forms of integrative negotiation strategies that benefit both parties. The most effective way to build trust is to behave in an honest way across repeated interactions. Then, others feel more comfortable making open-ended offers with many different outcomes. This helps to achieve win-win outcomes, since both parties can work to achieve what is most important to themselves while still benefitting the other party. What type of characteristic helps a person develop a trustworthy reputation? A combination of competence and integrity. Negotiators higher in self-confidence and cognitive ability are seen as more competent by negotiation partners. They are also considered better able to accurately describe a situation and their own resources, and more credible when they make suggestions for creative solutions to impasses. Individuals who have a reputation for integrity can also be more effective in negotiations. They are seen as more likely to keep their promises and present information accurately, so others are more willing to accept their promises as part of a bargain. Finally, individuals who have higher reputations are better liked and have more friends and allies—in other words, they have more social resources, which may give them more understood power in negotiations. Third-Party Negotiations When individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve their differences through direct negotiations, they may turn to a third party. A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives, and the like. They are widely used in labor-management negotiations and in civil court disputes. The key to success—the conflicting parties must be motivated to bargain and resolve their conflict, intensity cannot be too high, and the mediator must be perceived as neutral and non-coercive. An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. It can be voluntary (requested) or compulsory (forced on the parties by law or contract). The big plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a settlement. A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link among parties. This role was made famous by Robert Duval in the first Godfather film. Comparing its effectiveness to mediation has proven difficult. Conciliators engage in fact finding, interpreting messages, and persuading disputants to develop agreements. Summary and Implications for Managers While many people assume conflict lowers group and organizational performance, this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. Levels of conflict can be either too high or too low to be constructive. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released, and initiates the seeds of change without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities. Specific implications for managers are below: Choose an authoritarian management style in emergencies, when unpopular actions need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, discipline), and when the issue is vital to the organization’s welfare. Be certain to communicate your logic when possible to make certain employees remain engaged and productive. Seek integrative solutions when your objective is to learn, when you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives, when you need to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus, and when you need to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship. You can build trust by accommodating others when you find you’re wrong, when you need to demonstrate reasonableness, when other positions need to be heard, when issues are more important to others than to yourself, when you want to satisfy others and maintain cooperation, when you can build social credits for later issues, to minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing, and when employees should learn from their own mistakes. Consider compromising when goals are important but not worth potential disruption, when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals, and when you need temporary settlements to complex issues. Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but it often reduces the satisfaction of one or more negotiators because it is confrontational and focused on the short-term. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties and build lasting relationships. Make sure you set aggressive negotiating goals and try to find creative ways to achieve the Objectives of both parties, especially when you value the long-term relationship with the other party. That doesn’t mean sacrificing your self-interest; rather, it means trying to find creative solutions that give both parties what they really want. Myth or Science? “Teams Negotiate Better than Individuals in Collectivistic Cultures” According to a recent study, this statement appears to be false. In general, the literature has suggested that teams negotiate more effectively than individuals negotiating alone. Some evidence indicates that team negotiations create more ambitious goals, and that teams communicate more with each other than individual negotiators do. Common sense suggests that if this is indeed the case, it is especially true in collectivistic cultures, where individuals are more likely to think of collective goals and be more comfortable working in teams. A recent study of the negotiation of teams in the United States and in Taiwan, however, suggests that this common sense is wrong. The researchers conducted two studies comparing two-person teams with individual negotiators. They defined negotiating effectiveness as the degree to which the negotiation produced an optimal outcome for both sides. U.S. teams did better than solo individuals in both studies. In Taiwan, solo individuals did better than teams. Why did this happen? The researchers determined that in Taiwan, norms respecting harmony already exist, and negotiating in teams only amplifies that tendency. This poses a problem because when norms for cooperation are exceptionally high, teams “satisfice” to avoid conflict. In contrast, because the United States is individualistic, solo teams may only amplify their tendencies to focus solely on their own interests, which makes reaching integrative solutions harder. Overall, these findings suggest that negotiating individually works best in collectivistic cultures, and negotiating in teams works best in individualistic cultures. Sources: Based on M. J. Gelfand, J. Brett, B. C. Gunia, L. Imai, T. Huang, et al., “Toward a Culture-by-Context Perspective on Negotiation: Negotiating Teams in the United States and Taiwan, ” Journal of Applied Psychology 98 (2013), pp. 504–-513; and A. Graf, S. T. Koeszegi, and E.-M. Pesendorfer, “Electronic Negotiations in Intercultural Interfirm Relationships, ” Journal of Managerial Psychology 25 (2010), pp. 495–-512. Class Exercise Ask students to read the paper at http: //www.kwintessential.co.uk/cultural-services/articles/cross-cultural-negotiation.html. Divide the class into task teams of three to five students each. Have each task team select a country in which to create a joint venture with a local company. Each team should create a plan for the upcoming negotiations for the joint venture. The plan should include how the team perceives the negotiation issues. The paper should be addressed to meet its joint venture objective. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http: //www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Career Objectives How can I get a better job? I feel like my career is at a standstill, and I want to talk to my boss about getting a more developmental assignment. How can I negotiate effectively for a better job position? — Wei Dear Wei: You’re certainly starting out on the right foot. A lot of people focus on salary as a way to achieve success and negotiate for the best short-run offer. There’s obviously an advantage to this strategy in the short run, but sustained career growth has better payoffs in the long run. Developing skills can help put you on track for multiple salary increases. A strong skill set from developmental assignments will also give you a better position for future negotiations because you will have more career options. Long-term career negotiations based on developmental assignments are also often easier to bring up with a supervisor. That’s because salary negotiations are often a zero-sum situation, but career development negotiations can bring positive outcomes to both sides. When negotiating for a developmental assignment, make sure you emphasize a few points with your supervisor: When it comes to salary negotiations, either you get the money or the company keeps the money. Given that, your interests and the interests of your managers are directly opposed. On the other hand, negotiating for developmental assignments usually means finding ways to improve not just your skills but also your contribution to the company's bottom line. You can, in complete honesty, frame the discussion around these mutual benefits. Let your supervisor know that you are interested in getting better at your job and that you are motivated to improve through a developmental assignment. Asking your supervisor for opportunities to grow is a clear sign that you are an employee worth investing in. Be open to creative solutions. It's possible that there are some idiosyncratic solutions (also called “I-deals) for enhancing both your interests and those of your supervisor. One of the best things about an integrative bargaining situation like this is that you and your negotiation partner can find novel solutions that neither would have imagined separately. Think strategically about your career, and you’ll likely find you can negotiate not just for a better paycheck tomorrow but for a paycheck that keeps increasing in the years to come. Sources: Y. Rofcanin, T. Kiefer, and K. Strauss, “How I-Deals Build Resources to Facilitate Reciprocation: Mediating Role of Positive Affective States, ”Academy of Management Proceedings, August 2014, DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2014.16096abstract; C. Liao, S. J. Wayne, and D. M. Rousseau, “Idiosyncratic Deals in Contemporary Organizations: A Qualitative and Meta-Analytical Review, ”Journal of Organizational Behavior, October 16, 2014, DOI: 10.1002/job.1959; and V. Brenninkmeijer and M. Hekkert-Koning, “To Craft or Not to Craft,” Career Development International 20 (2015): 147–62. An Ethical Choice Using Empathy to Negotiate More Ethically You may have noticed that much of our advice for negotiating effectively depends on understanding the perspective and goals of the person with whom you are negotiating. Preparing checklists of your negotiation partner’s interests, likely tactics, and BATNA have all been shown to improve negotiation outcomes. Can these steps make you a more ethical negotiator as well? Studies suggest that it might. Researchers asked respondents to indicate how much they tended to think about other people’s feelings and emotions and to describe the types of tactics they engaged in during a negotiation exercise. More empathetic individuals consistently engaged in fewer unethical negotiation behaviors like making false promises and manipulating information and emotions. When considering how to improve your ethical negotiation behavior, follow these guidelines: Try to understand your negotiation partner’s perspective, not just by understanding cognitively what the other person wants, but by empathizing with the emotional reaction he or she will have to the possible outcomes. Be aware of your own emotions, because many moral reactions are fundamentally emotional. One study found that engaging in unethical negotiation strategies increased feelings of guilt, so by extension, feeling guilty in a negotiation may mean you are engaging in behavior you’ll regret later. Beware of empathizing so much that you work against your own interests. Just because you try to understand the motives and emotional reactions of the other side does not mean you have to assume the other person is going to be honest and fair in return. So be on guard. Sources: Based on T. R. Cohen, “Moral Emotions and Unethical Bargaining: The Differential Effects of Empathy and Perspective Taking in Deterring Deceitful Negotiation, ” Journal of Business Ethics 94, no. 4 (2010), pp. 569–579; and R. Volkema, D. Fleck, and A. Hofmeister, “Predicting Competitive-Unethical Negotiating Behavior and Its Consequences, ” Negotiation Journal 26, no. 3 (2010), pp. 263–286. Class Exercise Divide the class into teams of two. Each team is to role play a negotiation on the rental of a venue for a fraternity party concert (one student’s role) and the rental ballroom owner (the other student’s role). The ballroom is privately-owned and has, in the past, charged renters by the person attending or a flat rate. In addition, in the past, the rental owner required refreshments and beverages to be purchased through his organization. And the owner requires security throughout the evening in the parking lot and inside to ensure no conflicts occur. The two should try to use empathy as a basis for the negotiations. See the guide at http: //www.negotiationinstitute.com/column/empathy-critical-skill-use-negotiations. Have the class observe the negotiations of four of the teams. Rate the teams on improvement of the use of empathy from the first group to the last. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http: //www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Personal Inventory Assessments Strategies for Handling Conflict We all handle conflict, but few of us may have actual strategies in place. Take this PIA to further explore ways to handle conflict. Point/Counterpoint Pro Sports Strikes Are Caused by Greedy Owners Point I’m as sick as anyone of the constant strikes, lockouts, and back-and-forth negotiations between sports teams and the players’ unions. Of the major pro sports leagues, Major League Baseball (MLB) is the only one not to have had a strike since 1995 – and it had eight in its history. You’ve got to wonder why this keeps happening. Here’s why: owners’ greed knows no limit. In nearly every recent strike or lockout, the main issue was money and how to divide it. When the National Hockey League (NHL) locked out the players during the 2012-2013 season, the owners were the instigators. They wanted to reduce the players’ share of hockey revenues. They wanted to eliminate salary arbitration. They wanted to introduce term limits to contracts. They wanted to change free-agency rules and eliminate signing bonuses. On a philosophical level, some of these proposals are interesting because they reveal that owners want to restrict competition when it suits them and increase it when it benefits them. While the owners were whining about the unfairness of long-term contracts, the Minnesota Wild’s owner Craig Leipold, a noted negotiations hawk, signed Zach Parise and Ryan Suter to identical 13-year, $98 million contracts. Contracts like these suggest that owners want the players’ union to save them from themselves. Perhaps some of this would make sense if the owners were losing money hand over fist, but that is hardly the case. The NHL has three teams worth over $1 billion each, and few are worth less than $200 million. The owners aren’t hurting either. Most are millionaires many times over. Los Angeles Kings owner Philip Anschutz is reported to have a net worth of $12 billion. Forbes reports the average NFL team is now worth over more than $1.43 billion and the Dallas Cowboys are worth $3.2 billion; even low revenue and poorly run teams make money. Take the Jacksonville Jaguars. Wayne Weaver paid $208 million for the team in 1993. It has never made it to the Super Bowl and is almost always an also-ran in its division. Did the team’s ineffectiveness really cost Weaver? He sold the club for $770 million in 2012. In essence, what we have are rich owners trying to negotiate rules that keep them from competing with one another for players. It’s a bald-faced and hypocritical attempt to use their own kind of union to negotiate favorable agreements, all the while criticizing the players’ unions. Counterpoint Major league owners are an easy target. But they have the most to lose from work stoppages. It’s the players and their unions who push the envelope. It’s true that most major league players are well rewarded for their exceptional talents and the risks they take. It’s also true that owners who are able to invest in teams are wealthy—investors usually are. But the fault for disputes lies with spoiled players—and the union leaders who burnish their credentials and garner the limelight by fanning the flames of discontent. On this latter point, give all the credit in the world to the union negotiators (paid millions themselves), who do nothing if not hawk publicity and use hardball negotiating tactics. Take the NHL players’ union boss Donald Fehr. For a recent “negotiation” set to begin at 10 A.M., he arrived at 11: 15. At exactly 12: 00, he announced he had a lunch meeting uptown and left. As for the players, pro athletes are entitled almost by definition. For example, one recently retired NFL player and union representative, Chester Pitts, was commenting about how he had to settle for an $85, 000 Mercedes instead of a $250, 000 car. Well, we all have to make sacrifices. One rookie, Jets’ quarterback Geno Smith, fired his agent after signing “only” a four-year contract for roughly $4.99 million. Smith called the contract “hard to stomach.” I see a future in the player’s union for this guy. Do we really need labor unions for workers whose average salaries are $2 million (NFL), $2.58 million (NHL), $3.82 million (MLB), and $4.9 million? NHL clubs spent 76 percent of their gross revenues on players’ salaries and collectively lost $273 million the year before the most recent lockout. It’s not much better in the NBA, where many teams lose money. Take the Dallas Mavericks, who have rarely made money since 2002, despite playing in the fourth-most populous metro area and winning the NBA title in 2011. It’s easy to argue that major league sports have an unusual number of labor disputes, but that’s not necessarily accurate. Did you hear about the 2015 largest strike of oil refinery workers in decades or the ongoing worldwide strikes by low-paid workers in the fast-food industry? Somehow these strikes don’t always make the news or our collective consciousness as much as sports strikes. Sports strikes interest us, but we shouldn’t fall into the trap of blaming these on the owners. Sources: #104 Philip Anschutz, Forbes real time net worth, http: //www.forbes.com/profile/philip-anschutz/, downloaded June 9, 2015; T. Cary, “The 3 NHL Teams That Are Worth a Billion Dollars, ” Sports Cheat Sheet, June 6, 2015; K. Badenhausen, “Average MLB Player Salary Nearly Double NFL’s, but Still Trails NBA’s, ” Forbes, January 23, 2015, http: //www.forbes.com/ sites/kurtbadenhausen/2015/01/23/average-mlb-salary-nearly-double-nfls-but-trails-nba-players/; J. Feinstein, “In the NHL Lockout, the Owners Have It All Wrong, ” Washington Post, December 25, 2012, downloaded May 29, 2013, from http: // articles.washingtonpost.com/; R. Cimini, “Geno Smith’s Maturity Questioned, ” ESPN, May 3, 2013, downloaded May 3, 2013, from http: //espn.go.com/; K. Campbell, “Thanks to Donald Fehr, NHL Negotiating against Itself … and Losing, ” The Hockey News, December 29, 2012, downloaded May 29, 2013, from http: //sports.yahoo.com/; B. Murphy, “20 Years of Peace and Prosperity Have Followed MLB’s Last Strike, ” Twin Cities, July 5, 2014, http: //www.twincities.com/sports/ci_26095630/ peace-that-lasts-since-1994-season-ending-strike; and E. Seba, “Oil Refinery Strike Widens to Largest U.S. Plant, ” Huffington Post, February 21, 2015, http: //www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/21/us-refinery-strike-wide_n_6727736.html. Class Exercise Divide the class into paired teams of three to five students each. Have one group in a pair take the Point side and the other the Counterpoint side. Have the groups prepare a debate (see http: //olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/instr/strats/debates/QandA.pdf for guidance). Ask pairs to present debates before the class. The class should vote on which side prevails in the debate. Instructor Manual for Organizational Behavior Timothy A. Judge Stephen P. Robbins 9781292146300, 9780133507645, 9780136124016