Ob report title
- 1. 1 Conflict & Negotiation (Group 7) ABHISHEK SARKAR (18MB0009) ALOK RAJ(18MB0016) SATYAJIT MARIK(18MB0020) AMLAN MUKHERJEE(18MB0039) PREETISH RAJ(18MB0041)
- 2. 2 DEFINITIONS Conflict can be defined (Thomas K.A.)1 as the “process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected something that the first party cares about1.” • Generally speaking, Conflict, implies a clash of interest. Or an active disagreement between people with opposing opinions or principle CONFLICT MODE THEORY Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode theory assesses an individual’s behaviour in conflict situations— that is, situations in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible. In conflict situations, we can describe a person’s behaviour along two basic dimensions: Assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns, and Cooperativeness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. CONFLICTS IN ORGANIZATIONS Task oriented conflict Relates to the group goals or objectives to be achieved by the group Behavioural conflict behavioural conflict relates to individual’s value system, approach, attitude, ego state, skill and norms being followed by him Process conflict Process conflict is related to how a task is being accomplished in the organization.
- 3. 3 FUNCTIONAL AND DYSFUNCTIONAL CONFLICT Conflict that supports the individual and group goals, which leads to higher performance is called functional conflict The conflicts that hinders individual or group performance is called dysfunctional conflict. TYPES OF CONFLICTS Intra-personal Conflict: Intrapersonal conflict occurs within an individual. The experience takes place in the person's mind. Hence, it is a type of conflict that is psychological involving the individual's thoughts, values, principles and emotions Inter-personal Conflict Interpersonal conflict occurs when a person or group of people frustrates or interferes with another person's efforts at achieving a goal. Intra-Group Conflict Intra-group conflict relates to values, status and roles played by an individual in the group and the group norms. Individual may want to remain in the group for social needs but may disagree with the methods and procedures followed by the group. Value conflict: Value conflicts are caused by perceived or actual incompatible belief systems. In situations when an individual may have to compromise on value system and beliefs. Inter-Organizational Conflict When there is high level of competition between two firms. Or Mergers, takeovers and acquisitions may also result in Inter-organizational conflict Inter-Group Conflict Conflicts between different groups, sections and departments in an organization are called inter- group conflict. Horizontal Conflict
- 4. 4 Horizontal Conflict is caused due to incompatibility of goals, sharing limited resources and difference in time orientation. It leads to tension, misunderstanding and frustration on the part of both the parties. Horizontal conflict relates to employees or group at the same level. Vertical Conflict Vertical conflict refers to conflicts that might take place between different levels of hierarchy. Conflicts between subordinates and superior occur due to incompatibility. Line and Staff Conflict Line authority creates product and services and contributes directly towards the revenue generation. While staff authority assists line authority and acts in advisory capacity. Staff and line authority have a different predispositions and goals. Role Conflict A person in an organization has to perform various roles. Conflict arises when roles assigned to him have different expectation TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF CONFLICT BEHAVIOUR Competing is assertive and uncooperative, a power-oriented mode.
- 5. 5 When competing, an individual pursues his or her own concerns at the other person’s expense, using whatever power seems appropriate to win his or her position. Competing might mean standing up for rights, defending a position that is believed correct, or simply trying to win. Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative. When collaborating, an individual attempt to work with the other person to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both. It involves digging into an issue to identify the underlying concerns of the two individuals and to find an alternative that meets both sets of concerns. Collaborating between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights, resolving some condition that would otherwise have them competing for resources, or confronting and trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem. Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. When compromising, an individual has the objective of finding an applicable & , mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. Compromising falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating, giving up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding but doesn’t explore it in as much depth as collaborating. Compromising might mean • splitting the difference, • exchanging concessions, or • seeking a quick middle-ground position. Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. When avoiding, an individual does not immediately pursue his or her own concerns or those of the other person. He or she does not address the conflict.
- 6. 6 Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative—the opposite of competing. When accommodating, an individual neglects his or her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; There is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when you would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view. CONFLICT PROCESS Conflict process – A process that has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes.
- 7. 7 Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility Stage II: Cognition and Personalization Perceived conflict - Awareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. Felt conflict - Emotional involvement in a conflict that creates anxiety, tenseness, frustration, or hostility. Stage III: Intentions Competing - A desire to satisfy one’s interests, regardless of the impact on the other party to the conflict. Example - You compete when you place a bet that only one person can win. Avoiding - A person may recognize a conflict exists and want to withdraw from or suppress it. Examples of avoiding include trying to ignore a conflict and avoiding others with whom you disagree. Accommodating -The willingness of one party in a conflict to place the opponent’s interests above his or her own. Example- Supporting someone else’s opinion despite your reservations about it. Collaborating - When parties in conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns of all parties, there is cooperation and a search for a mutually beneficial outcome. Compromising - In compromising, there is no clear winner or loser. Rather, there is a willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a solution that provides incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns.
- 8. 8 STAGE IV: BEHAVIOR When most people think of conflict situations, they tend to focus on Stage IV, because this is where conflicts become visible. The behaviour stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties, usually as overt attempts to implement their own intentions. As a result of miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviours sometimes deviate from these original intentions.
- 9. 9 Stage V: Outcomes Functional Outcomes - It is hard to visualize a situation in which open or violent aggression could be functional. But it’s possible to see how low or moderate levels of conflict could improve the effectiveness of a group. 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. And, of course, a substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional conflicts can reduce group effectiveness.
- 10. 10 • NEGOTIATION • A process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them. • We can define negotiation as a process that occurs when two or more parties decide how to allocate scarce resources. Although we commonly think of the outcomes of negotiation in one-shot economic terms, like negotiating over the price of a car, 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 There are two general approaches to negotiation— distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining. • DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING • Negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources; a win–lose situation. Its identifying feature is that it operates under zero-sum conditions—that is, any gain I make is at your expense and vice versa. • So 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 distributive. • Probably the most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is labour– management negotiations over wages. Typically, labour’s representatives come to the bargaining table determined to get as much money as possible from management. Because every cent labour negotiates increases management’s costs, each party bargains aggressively and treats the other as an opponent who must be defeated. • INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING • Negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win–win solution. 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. • In terms of intra-organizational behaviour, all things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining because the former builds long-term relationships. Integrative bargaining bonds negotiators and allows them to leave the bargaining table feeling they have achieved a victory. Distributive bargaining, however, leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosities and deepen divisions when people have to work together
- 11. 11 on an ongoing basis. Research shows that over repeated bargaining episodes, a “losing” party who feels positive about the negotiation outcome is much more likely to bargain cooperatively in subsequent negotiations. This points to an important advantage of integrative negotiations: even when you “win,” you want your opponent to feel good about the negotiation.
- 12. 12 NEGOTIATION PROCESS It views negotiation as made up of five steps: (1) preparation and planning (2) definition of ground rules (3) clarification and justification (4) bargaining and problem solving (5) closure and implementation. PREPARATION AND PLANNING IT COMPRISES OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS • Collection of information about the nature of conflict requiring negotiation, its history, and causes to understand the conflict in right perspective. • Understanding of the perception of the other party about the conflict and its likely effect on both the parties. • Determination of target point as well as resistance point for outcome of negotiation. GROUND RULES • Who will do the negotiating?
- 13. 13 • Where will it take place? • What time constraints, if any, will apply? • To what issues will negotiation be limited? • Will you follow a specific procedure if an impasse is reached? During this phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands. CLARIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION • When you have exchanged initial positions, both you and the other party will explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify your original demands. • it’s an opportunity for educating and informing each other on the issues, • why they are important • how you arrived at your initial demands. • 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. • This is where both parties will undoubtedly need to make concessions. CLOSURE AND IMPLEMENTATION • The final step in the negotiation process is formalizing the agreement you have worked out and developing any procedures necessary for implementing and monitoring it. For major negotiations • from labor–management negotiations to bargaining over lease terms to buying a piece of real estate to negotiating a job offer for a senior management position—this requires hammering out the specifics in a formal contract.
- 14. 14 For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake. References: Organizational behavior: Stephen P. Robbins, (14th Edition), ISBN-10: 0132163845.