Refer to Pages 254–283.

10.1: Describe the causes of conflict in organizations and devise solutions for them.

Refer to Page 255.

Substantive conflict. This occurs because people have different opinions on important issues in the organization that affect them. Such conflict can result in better decisions because both sides have to defend their position. Affective conflict. This is conflict that engenders strong emotions such as anger or disgust. This may be due to personality differences or arguments. This form of conflict may be highly disruptive to both parties and may even create stress for other members of the work group. Process conflict. At times, people disagree on what course of action to pursue or the best way to operate even after a decision has been made. Have a neutral third party or expert arbitrate the dispute. Train everyone to recognize the personality types along with their inherent strengths and weaknesses so that they understand one another. Adopt the belief that even negative behaviors may have a positive intention. A leader must set and communicate the values for the organization. A leader must set, communicate, and enforce the goals and values for the organization. Try perspective taking. Upper-level management must set and communicate the values hierarchy for the organization. A leader must set and communicate the values for the organization and emphasize that everyone’s contribution matters. Ask this question—“What else could this mean?”—before assuming a negative intent of the other person. Use active listening and questioning techniques to set and clarify expectations on a regular basis.

10.2: Compare and contrast the five conflict resolution styles.

Refer to Page 263.

Integrating—Both parties confront the issue directly and discuss alternative courses of action. The strength of this approach is that it should provide a mutually benefits (win-win) solution and results in the conflict being resolved for the long term. The major drawback to this approach is that it is time consuming. Obliging—In this approach, a person’s concern for themselves is low but their concern for others is high. It might be the best approach if the person is not sure they are right about a preferred course of action or it is politically best because the matter is so important to the other party. If used as a strategy, the person should consider requesting a reciprocated exchange in the future because they gave in the first time. It is not the best for complex problems and may result in a short-term solution. Dominating—In this approach, the individual is high with respect to his or her own concerns but low with respect to the concerns of others. People adopting this approach take a win-lose approach to problem solving, and their focus is on winning their position at the expense of others. The person using this approach may use their formal position to force others to comply (i.e., “Do it because I am the boss”). It may be appropriate, however, for small decisions, or when the person knows the decision will be unpopular and discussion will knowingly bring others on board. It may also be used when there is time pressure to make a decision, such as in a crisis situation. Avoiding—In the avoiding style, a person is low on their own concerns and the concerns of others. This approach reflects an inability to deal with conflict, and the person withdraws from the conflict situation. This style might be appropriate for trivial decisions or when the possibility of unproductive conflict is so high that it is better to avoid discussion rather than risk performance. The weakness of this approach is that by pretending conflict does not exist it rarely goes away and it may be a temporary fix and the conflict will return in the future. Compromising—This approach reflects a moderate level of concern for the self and for others. It is a give-and-take approach to conflict in which concessions are made in exchange for getting some aspects of the desired outcome. It is appropriate when parties have strongly opposing views and there is little hope of an integrative solution. It may also be the only possible approach when both parties have equivalent influence in the organization

10.3: Explain how team conflict affects team performance.

Refer to Page 265.

Conflict within teams produces stress and arguments that distract the team from working on the task and thus harms performance. All types of conflict (task, relationship, and process) are detrimental to member satisfaction. However, moderate levels of task conflict actually improve team performance because this stimulates information exchange among team members. Task conflict and differences of opinion may improve decision quality by forcing members to see other viewpoints and think creatively. Effective teamwork results in higher performance when conflict exists.

10.4: Explain how third-party interventions can reduce conflict.

Refer to Page 268.

Facilitation is when a leader intervenes to resolve a conflict. Alternative dispute resolution are methods to resolve conflict that both parties agree to without involving litigation. Ombudsperson: a person who hears grievances on an informal basis and attempts to resolve them. Peer review: a panel of a grievant’s peers that hears the concern and attempts to resolve it. Conciliation: calling in a neutral third party to attempt to resolve the conflict

10.5: Provide an example of how managing conflict differs across cultures.

Refer to Page 269.

[Examples will vary] Addressing conflict when working with a person from another culture requires knowledge of cultural differences. Research has shown that conflict resolution styles may differ by culture. The key takeaway from the research on cross-cultural conflict resolution is that the leader needs to consider the impact that national culture values may have on a person’s perception of conflict and how to resolve it. One study examined conflict resolution styles of MBA students from highly ranked programs in the United States, China, the Philippines, and India. The study found that Chinese students are more likely to report an avoiding style, whereas the U.S. students were more likely to report a competing style. Guidelines for resolving cross-cultural conflict: (1) Be a good listener. (2) Be sensitive to the needs of others. (3) (tied with the #2 skill) Be cooperative rather than overly competitive. (4) Advocate inclusive (participative) leadership. (5) Compromise rather than dominate. (6) Build rapport through conversations. (7) Be compassionate and understanding. (8) Avoid conflict by emphasizing harmony. (9) Nurture others (develop and mentor).

10.6: Describe the negotiation process, and explain the difference between integrative and distributive bargaining.

Refer to Page 270.

The following steps are involved in the negotiation process. Preparation: doing one’s homework to have all the facts and possible options researched prior to negotiation. Building the relationship: an exchange of personal greetings prior to the actual bargaining process. Next, the process of gathering and using information follows. Bidding: offers and counteroffers are extended until a mutually agreeable solution is attained. Implementation: the execution of a contract. There are two general types of negotiation—distributive and integrative. Generally, distributive bargaining is hardball, whereas integrative bargaining takes a softer approach to the deal. The distinction to remember about distributive bargaining is that the negotiator approaches the process as a “zero-sum” game. In other words, one person gains at the expense of the other. Integrative bargaining differs from distributive bargaining in one significant way: The parties do not see the process as a zero-sum game, and they believe that an agreement can be reached that satisfies all concerns.

10.7: Illustrate how perspective taking enhances negotiation by providing an example.

Refer to Page 272.

Perspective taking is defined as the ability to see things from another person’s perspective that holds a view that conflicts with your own. There are two reasons why perspective taking helps resolve conflict. First, when people engage in active perspective taking, they are more likely to empathize with the other person. Second, the expression of perspective taking relates to positive attributions about another person’s behavior, such as recognizing the effects of external circumstances on what they do.