Exam IV Study GuideProfessor RodgersConflict & Negotiation: K&F Chapter 11:Definitions (key terms):Alternative dispute resolution- intent is that it uses faster, more user-friendly methods of dispute resolution, instead of traditional, adversarial approaches (such as unilateral decision making or litigation)Conflict- a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another partyDevil’s advocacy- Involves assigning someone to the role of the criticDialectic method- Calls for managers to foster a structured debate of opposing view points prior to making a decisionDysfunctional conflict- threaten an organization’s interestFunctional conflict- commonly referred to in management circles as constructive or cooperative conflict and is characterized by consultative interactions, a focus on the issues, mutual respect, and useful give and takeNegotiation- give-and-take decision making process involving interdependent parties with different preferencesPersonality conflict- Interpersonal opposition based on personal dislike and/or disagreementProgrammed conflict- Conflict that raises different opinions regardless of the personal feelings of the managersFunctional vs. Dysfunctional ConflictFunctional Conflict- commonly referred to in management circles as constructive or cooperative conflict and is characterized by consultative interactions, a focus on the issues, mutual respect, and useful give and takePeople feel comfortable disagreeing and presenting opposing viewsPositive outcomes frequently resultDysfunctional conflict- threaten an organization’s interestEx. If shutting down shop and need to get rid of people whose customers are gone; dysfunctional in that letting go of some of the most loyal and best people because there customers leftWhy people avoid conflictFear various combinations of harm*, rejection*, loss of relationship*, anger*, being seen as selfish*, saying the wrong thing*, failing, hurting someone else, getting what you want, and intimacy“Getting what you want”- feeling undeserving and/or fear the consequences of success so they tend to sabotage themselvesSufficient to become consciously aware of our fears and practice overcoming themDesired outcomes of conflictDean Tjosvolds cooperative conflict model 3 Desired Outcomes:AgreementEquitable and fair agreementsStronger relationshipsGood relationships enable conflicting parties to build bridges of goodwill and trust for future useLearningFunctional conflict can promote greater self-awareness and creative problem solvingSuccessful conflict handling is learned primarily by doing*Major Forms of ConflictPersonality conflictsInterpersonal opposition based on personal dislike and/or disagreementWorkplace incivility is a form of counterproductive work behavior- harm target person in ways that violate mutual respectIncivility like racial or ethnic slurClear that incivility needs to be avoided or broken earlyEarly action can prevent single irritating behavior from precipitating into a personality conflictOrganizational culture that places a high value on respect for coworkersDiversity training and penaltiesPersonality conflict is almost always bad for performanceNegative straight line (less steep)Intergroup conflictConflict among work groups, teams and departments is common threat to org’s competitivenessCohesiveness can be a good and bad things- right amount- smooth-running team- too much- breed groupthinkIncreased group cohesiveness challenges:Members of in-groups view themselves as a collection of unique individuals, while they stereotype members of other groups as being “all alike”In group members see themselves positively and as morally correct, while they view members of other groups as negatively and as immoralIn-groups view outsiders as a threatIn-group members exaggerate the differences between their group and other groups. This typically involves a distorted perception of realityManagers cannot eliminate it, but should not ignore itContact hypothesis- more members of different groups interaction, less intergroup conflict they will experiencePrejudice reduced contactIf either negative interactions occur because third party gossiping, or negative linkages occur, managers should considerWork to eliminate specific negative interactionsConduct team building to reduce intragroup conflict and prepare for cross-functional teamworkEncourage and facilitate friendships via social eventsFoster positive attitudesAvoid or neutralize negative gossipPractice the above- be a role modelTask conflict (see slides)Differences relating to the content and goals of the workModerate task conflict is beneficial for performanceParabolic shape of task conflict(x) compared to performance (y) n-shapedBuild Trust before can go a long wayAbilene’s Paradox- to be a good group member you don’t speak up*Managing ConflictProgramming functional conflict (devil’s advocacy & dialectic method)Conflict that raises different opinions regardless of the personal feelings of the managersChallenge is to get contributors to either defend or criticize ideas based on relevant facts rather than on the basis of personal preference or political interestsDevil’s Advocacy (Roman Catholic Church)Involves assigning someone to the role of the criticRecommended for preventing groupthinkGood training for developing analytical and communication skillsDialectic Method (Greek)Calls for managers to foster a structured debate of opposing view points prior to making a decisionMajor drawback: “winning the debate” may overshadow the issue at hand, requires more skills training than devil’s advocateBoth methods relative effectiveness tie- better than consensus decision makingDevil’s advocate produced more potential solutions and made better recommendationsAlternative styles for handling dysfunctional conflictIntegrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising are five conflict-handling stylesEveryone has a preference but different styles may be more effective depending on the situationIntegrating (Problem Solving)High concern for both self and othersInterest parties confront the issue and cooperatively identify the problem, identify and weigh alternatives and select a solutionMost appropriate for complex issues plagued by misunderstanding; or when you want to learn about the other party, or when you have timeInappropriate for resolving conflicts rooted in opposing value systemsStrength:
View Full Document
Unlocking...