USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
I have a discussion that will need to be completed today. It will need to be 100 words minimum for the initial post. Two responses need to be done as well and will be added after the initial part is completed. The chapter has been added to refer to. This discussion will touch on the article in the attached link. The link is below:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2025/04/08/conflict-resilience-turning-challenges-into-opportunities-for-growth/
14
Conflict
and
Negotiation
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
14.1 Describe the three types of conflict and the three loci of conflict.
14.2 Outline the conflict process.
14.3 Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining.
14.4 Apply the five steps of the negotiation process.
14.5 Show how individual differences influence negotiations.
14.6 Describe the social factors that influence negotiations.
14.7 Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiations.
A Definition of Conflict
Tesla, an American automotive and energy company, along with their founder and CEO, Elon Musk, have experienced conflict on several fronts. From issues with Musk’s candid Twitter posts, lawsuits, and feuds with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as musicians Azealia Banks and Claire Boucher (a.k.a. Grimes), Tesla, along with the board of directors and employees, have witnessed their fair share of interorganizational conflict.1
What is interesting, however, is where Tesla has not experienced conflict: within the board of directors.2 Many have accused the board of being “asleep at the wheel,” not willing to cause conflict where some might be needed. This might be due to loyalty to Musk, lack of time and resources (most board members are part-time), and because all the corporate information they receive that affects their decision making is filtered through Musk. This has even led some to suggest using artificial intelligence in corporate board decision making, which is not limited by lack of time and resources and is perhaps more impartial.3 The case of Tesla illustrates that conflict can arise in a number of different organizational arenas, and that even the absence of conflict altogether can be a signal that perhaps important issues are not being discussed or that controversial ideas are not being challenged.
There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict,4 but common to most is the idea that conflict is a perception of differences or opposition. We define conflict broadly as a process that begins when one party perceives another party has negatively affected or is about to negatively affect something the first party cares about. People experience a wide range of conflicts in organizations over an incompatibility of goals, differences in interpretations of facts, disagreements over behavioral expectations, and the like.
Conflict
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.
Contemporary perspectives classify conflict based on its effects.5
Functional conflict
supports the goals of the group, improves its performance, and, as such, is a constructive form of conflict. For example, a debate among members of a corporate board (see opening example) about the most efficient way to improve production can be functional if unique points of view are discussed and compared openly. Conflict that hinders group performance is destructive or dysfunctional conflict. A highly personal struggle for control that distracts from the task at hand in a team is dysfunctional. Exhibit 14-1 provides an overview depicting the effect of levels of conflict.
Exhibit 14-1 Conflict and Unit Performance
Figure 14-1 Full Alternative Text
Functional conflict
Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance.
Dysfunctional conflict
Conflict that hinders group performance.
Types of Conflict
One means of understanding conflict is to identify the type of disagreement, or what the conflict is about. Is it a disagreement about goals? Is it about people who just rub one another the wrong way? Or is it about the best way to get things done? Although each conflict is unique, researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: relationship, task, or process.6
Relationship conflict
focuses on interpersonal relationships.
Task conflict
relates to the content and goals of the work.
Process conflict
is about how the work gets done.
Relationship conflict
Conflict based on interpersonal relationships.
Task conflict
Conflict over content and goals of the work.
Process conflict
Conflict over how work gets done.
Relationship Conflict
Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional.7 Why? The friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflict increases interpersonal clashes and decreases mutual understanding. Of the three types, relationship conflict also appears to be the most psychologically exhausting to individuals. It tends to derail team processes by reducing the extent to which people are open toward working with one another to work collaboratively toward solutions, while increasing the extent to which they avoid and compete with one another.8 As a result, relationship conflict strongly depletes trust, cohesion (see the chapter on understanding work teams), satisfaction, job attitudes, and positive affect (see the chapter on emotions and moods) and can even lead to a reduction in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) paired with an increase in deviant behavior.9 However, relationship conflict itself is only weakly related to how well the team performs—so it appears its most nefarious affects are in how it affects people psychologically, and how it reduces OCBs and increases deviance.10
Task Conflict
While scholars agree that relationship conflict is dysfunctional, there is considerably less agreement about whether task conflict is functional. Early research suggested that task conflict within groups correlated to higher group performance, but a review of ninety-five studies found that task conflict was essentially unrelated to group performance (although it did appear to be correlated to lower group performance in nonmanagement positions, and higher group performance in decision-making teams).11 Despite these findings, research suggests that task conflict slightly reduces the extent to which people collaborate, and moderately increases the degree to which they compete with one another.12 This, in turn, has a strong negative effect on their trust and job attitudes and, like relationship conflict, leads to a reduction in OCBs paired with an increase in deviant behavior.13
Process Conflict
Process conflicts are often about delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around the perception that some members are 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 is also true, of course, that arguing about how to do something takes time away from doing it. Although relatively less research has been conducted on process conflict, research suggests that it has a strong negative effect on team member trust and attitudes, as well as a weak effect on team performance (like that of relationship conflict).14
Complicating Conflict
It also appears to matter whether other types of conflict occur at the same time. If task and relationship conflict occur together, relationship conflict is more likely to have a negative effect, whereas if task conflict occurs by itself, it is more likely to have a positive effect.15 How often does this occur in practice? Research from one entrepreneurial venture suggests that although the two are initially co-occurring, over time, they tend to stabilize after some time.16 This suggests that one might expect relationship and task conflict to co-occur at the beginning of the relationship. In support, research in the Netherlands indicates that even the mere perception of relationship conflict during task conflict is enough to cause people to hold onto their initial preferences regarding the task conflict.17
Other scholars have argued that the perception of conflict is important. If task conflict is perceived as being very low, people are not really engaged or addressing the important issues; if task conflict is too high, infighting will quickly degenerate into relationship conflict. Moderate levels of task conflict may thus be optimal.18 Furthermore, who perceives conflict also matters. Incompatibilities between work styles or dominating personalities with little space for compromise can lead to “too many cooks in the kitchen,” resulting in relationship conflict and even abusive supervision.19 Research suggests that conflict is more likely to have a positive effect on performance when a few members perceive strong task disagreement, whereas most others on the team perceive weak task disagreement. This is because those in the minority are much more likely to present their disagreements in a careful, cooperative, open manner.20
Loci of Conflict
Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or the framework within which 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.21
Dyadic conflict
Conflict that occurs between two people.
Intergroup conflict
Conflict between different groups or teams.
Intragroup conflict
Conflict that occurs within a group or team.
Nearly all the research on relationship, task, and process conflicts considers intragroup conflict (within the group). However, it does not necessarily tell us all we need to know about the context and outcomes of conflict. For example, research has found that for intragroup task conflict to positively influence performance within the team, it is important that the team has a supportive climate in which mistakes are not penalized and every team member “[has] the other’s back.”22 But is this concept applicable to the effects of intergroup conflict? Think about, say, NFL football. For a team to adapt and improve, perhaps a certain amount of intragroup conflict (but not too much) is good for team performance, especially when the team members support one another. But would we care whether members from one team conflicted with members from another team? Probably not. Still, it must be managed. Intense intergroup conflict can be quite stressful to group members and might well affect the way they interact.
It may surprise you that a group member’s network position (see the chapter on power and politics) is important during intergroup conflicts. One study that focused on intergroup conflict found an interplay between an individual’s position within a group and the way that individual managed conflict between groups. Group members who were relatively peripheral in their own group were better at resolving conflicts between their group and another one. But this happened only when those peripheral members were still accountable to their groups.23 Thus, being at the core of your work group does not necessarily make you the best person to manage conflict with other groups.
Altogether, understanding functional and dysfunctional conflict requires not only that we identify the type of conflict; we also need to know where it occurs. It is possible that while the concepts of relationship, task, and process conflicts are useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conflict, they are less useful in explaining the effects of intergroup conflict.
The Conflict Process
The conflict process has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes (see Exhibit 14-2).24
Exhibit 14-2 The Conflict Process
Figure 14-2 Full Alternative Text
Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility
The first stage of conflict is the appearance of conditions—causes or sources—that create opportunities for it to arise.25 These conditions need not lead directly to conflict, but one of them is necessary if it is to surface. Apart from the obvious, which would be behaviors directly intended to provoke conflict,26 we group the conditions into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables.
Communication
Communication can be a source of conflict in group interactions and dyadic exchanges.27 There are opposing forces that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the communication channel (see the chapter on communication). These factors, along with jargon and insufficient information, can be barriers to communication and potential antecedent conditions to conflict. Even the way communication is framed can have an effect; for example, research suggests that framing task conflict as a debate increases receptivity to others’ opinions.28 The potential for conflict has also been found to increase with too little or too much communication. Communication is functional up to a point, after which it is possible to overcommunicate, increasing the potential for conflict.
Structure
The term structure in this context includes variables such as size of group, degree of specialization in tasks assigned to group members, role clarity, member–goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and degree of dependence between groups or group members. The larger the group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of intragroup conflict. Tenure and conflict are inversely related, meaning that the longer a person stays with an organization, the less likely intragroup conflict becomes.29 Therefore, the potential for intragroup conflict is greatest when group members are newer to the organization and when turnover is high. However, as far as intergroup conflict is concerned, it can self-perpetuate, actually imbuing meaning and identity to the groups experiencing conflict.30 Anyone familiar with the Big Ten one-hundred-plus-year rivalry between The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan can attest to this.31
Personal Variables
Our last category of potential sources of conflict is personal variables, which include personality, emotions, and values. People high in the personality traits of disagreeableness, neuroticism, or self-monitoring (see the chapter on personality and values) are prone to spar with other people more often—and to react poorly when conflicts occur.32 Emotions can cause conflict even when they are not directed at others. For example, an employee who shows up to work irate from the hectic morning commute may carry that anger into the workday, which can result in a tension-filled meeting.33 Incompatibilities in emotions can also lead to conflict—for example, if your supervisor is more optimistic than you about your work, you are more likely (than if you had similar optimistic-pessimistic outlooks) to experience more conflict, become less engaged, and perform poorly.34 Furthermore, differences in preferences and values can generate increased levels of conflict. For example, a study in Korea found that when group members did not agree about their desired achievement levels, there was more task conflict; when group members did not agree about their desired interpersonal closeness levels, there was more relationship conflict; and when group members did not have similar desires for power, there was more conflict over status.35 Furthermore, people differ with regard to their beliefs about conflict, and which strategies of managing conflict are the best or worst, and these beliefs shape the types of conflict they perceive as well as how they react.36
Stage II: Cognition and Personalization
If the conditions cited in Stage I negatively affect something one party cares about, then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage.
As we noted in our definition of conflict, one or more of the parties must be aware that antecedent conditions exist. However, just because a disagreement is a perceived conflict does not mean it is personalized. It is at the felt conflict level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that they experience anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility. By making sense of the preceding events, employees perceive conflict (e.g., label it as an offense) and then recognize that the other party violated norms or did something wrong.37 Following these processes of naming and blaming, employees naturally feel the negative emotions surrounding conflict.
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, tension, frustration, or hostility.
Stage II is important because it is where conflict issues tend to be defined, where the parties decide what the conflict is about.38 For example, the employee who was irate from the traffic jam may cause others around the office to perceive that something is up—but this conflict is not “felt” until a sour interaction with this employee (e.g., “it’s not fair the boss took the long commute out on me with extra work!”). Emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions.39 Negative emotions lead us to oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpretations on the other party’s behavior.40 When you perceive conflict, sometimes you may turn to a confidant within your group to vent or talk about what you are feeling. Paradoxically, if this person is responsive and reaffirming, your confidant may validate your perspective, which might undermine the resolution of conflict as a result.41 In contrast, positive feelings increase our tendency to see potential relationships among elements of a problem, take a broader view of the situation, and develop innovative solutions.42 Negative emotions are natural and perhaps inevitable—before conflict escalates, taking time to reflect and reappraise how you are feeling may help you approach the conflict more constructively (but don’t ruminate!).43 Ultimately, a state of mindfulness (see the chapter on organizational change and stress management) might be a good emotional state to aspire toward, given that it facilitates constructive conflict management.44
Stage III:
Intentions
Intentions intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions and their overt behavior. They are decisions to act in a particular way.45 Although we may decide to act in a certain way, our intentions do not always line up with what we actually do. Furthermore, intentions are not always fixed. During a conflict, intentions might change if a party is able to see the other’s point of view or respond emotionally to the other’s behavior.
Intentions
Decisions to act in a particular way.
Using two dimensions—assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy their own concerns) and cooperativeness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s concerns)—we can identify five conflict-handling intentions: competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (mid-range on both assertiveness and cooperativeness).46
Competing
When one person seeks to satisfy their own interests regardless of the impact on the other parties in the conflict, that person is competing.47 We are more apt to compete when resources are scarce, when we have competition-prone personalities, when we are close to satisfying our own interests (e.g., the “finish line is near”), or when the culture or climate supports competition.48
Competing
A desire to satisfy one’s interests, regardless of the impact on the other party to the conflict.
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. In collaborating, parties intend to solve a problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating various points of view.49 If you attempt to find a win–win solution that allows both parties’ goals to be completely achieved, that is collaborating. Collaboration is more likely if the party is seen as competent, rational, and open to collaborating.50
Collaborating
A situation in which the parties to a conflict each desires to satisfy fully the concerns of all parties.
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 keeping away from others with whom you disagree.
Avoiding
The desire to withdraw from or suppress a conflict.
Accommodating
A party who seeks to appease a negotiation partner may be willing to place the negotiation partner’s interests above their own, sacrificing to maintain the relationship. We refer to this intention as accommodating. Supporting someone else’s opinion despite your reservations about it, for example, is accommodating.
Accommodating
The willingness of one party in a conflict to place the negotiation partner’s interests above his or her own.
Compromising
In compromising, there is no winner or loser. Rather, there is a willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a solution with incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns. The distinguishing characteristic of compromising, therefore, is that each party intends to give up something.
Compromising
A situation in which each party to a conflict is willing to give up something.
A review that examined the effects of the sets of behaviors across multiple studies found that collaborating was associated with superior group performance and team attitudes, whereas avoiding and competing strategies were associated with significantly worse group performance.51 This further demonstrates that it is not just the existence of conflict or even the type of conflict that creates problems, but rather the ways people respond to conflict and manage the process once conflicts arise.
Stage IV: Behavior
Stage IV is a dynamic process of interaction. For example, you make a demand on me, I respond by arguing with you, you shout at me, I yell at you back, and so on. Exhibit 14-3 provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. All conflicts exist somewhere along this continuum. At the lower end are conflicts characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension, such as a student challenging a point the instructor has made. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this upper range. Conflicts that reach the upper range of the continuum are almost always dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower range of the continuum.
Exhibit 14-3 Dynamic Escalation of Conflict
Sources: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974): 93–97; and F. Glasi, “The Process of Conflict Escalation and the Roles of Third Parties,” in G. B. J. Bomers and R. Peterson (eds.), Conflict Management and Industrial Relations (Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1982): 119–40.
Figure 14-3 Full Alternative Text
Stage V: Outcomes
The action–reaction interplay between conflicting parties creates consequences. As our model demonstrates (see Exhibit 14-1), these outcomes may be functional if the conflict improves the group’s performance, or dysfunctional if it hinders performance. Realistically, however, many researchers suggest that although workplace conflict can be beneficial, this usually happens under special circumstances, and most of the time the dysfunctional outcomes outweigh the functional outcomes in severity.52 This suggests that managers will likely spend most of their time reducing dysfunctional conflict, rather than stimulating functional conflict.
Functional Outcomes
Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of decisions, stimulates creativity and innovation, encourages interest and curiosity among group members, provides the medium for problems to be aired and tensions released, and fosters self-evaluation and change. Indeed, research on organizations in Taiwan suggests that, over time, the right amount of task conflict (not relational conflict) can cause teams to improve their relations, the quality of social interaction, and meaningful communication.53 Mild conflicts also may generate energizing emotions, so members of groups become more active and engaged in their work.54 However, groups that are extremely polarized do not manage their underlying disagreements effectively and tend to accept suboptimal solutions, or they avoid making decisions altogether rather than work out the conflict.55 As mentioned earlier in this chapter, conflict severity plays a large role.
Conflict is an antidote for groupthink (see the chapter on foundations of group behavior). Conflict does not allow the group to passively rubber-stamp decisions that may be based on weak assumptions, inadequate consideration of relevant alternatives, or other weaknesses. Conflict challenges the status quo and furthers the creation of new ideas, promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group will respond to 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 research documents how dysfunctional conflicts can reduce group effectiveness.56 Among the undesirable consequences are poor 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 trust.57 At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and threaten the group’s survival.
Managing Conflict
If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what options exist if conflict is too low to be functional and needs to be increased? In these situations, people can use resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict, a process known as conflict management.58 In anticipating and managing conflict, organizations can target three specific domains: strategy (e.g., designing conflict management activities with an understanding of their effect on the organization system, garnering managerial support for and application of conflict management strategies), function (e.g., encouraging the systemic adoption of conflict management practices, understanding employees’ needs, job design to reduce conflict), and worker (e.g., improving employee perceptions of conflict, fostering ties and cohesion between people, adaptively addressing conflict as it emerges).59 For example, if the conflict is expected to be perpetual and ongoing, a strategic conflict management strategy might not target resolving the conflict completely but rather how people can adaptively address the conflict over time.60
Conflict management
The use of resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict.
Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into comparable behaviors. However, conditions are not always ideal, and the findings from research on conflict management have been inconsistent.61 First, strategies appropriate for resolving one form of conflict may backfire and cause more conflict in another area.62 For example, adopting a shared identity and improving relationship quality may unintentionally backfire by causing blurred distinctions between people’s roles, stimulating task conflict. Second, strategies appropriate for managing one form of conflict may spill over into another domain.63 For example, clearly outlining differences in what people do in the presence of task conflict can spill over to stimulate relational conflict. This is where strategic conflict management (as mentioned earlier) may come into play.
One of the keys to minimizing counterproductive conflicts is recognizing when there really is a disagreement. Perhaps the most successful conflict management recognizes different views and attempts to resolve them by encouraging open, frank discussions focused on views rather than issues, listening and understanding opposing views, and then integrating them constructively.64 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 each side will achieve the most important parts of its agenda.65 Third, groups that resolve conflicts successfully discuss differences of opinion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises.66 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. Fourth, managers need to emphasize shared interests in resolving conflicts, so groups that disagree with one another do not 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 with the overall group goals are more effective than groups with a competitive style.67
Cultural Influences
Differences across countries in conflict resolution strategies may be based on collectivist versus individualist (see the chapter on personality and values) tendencies and motives. One study suggests that top management teams in Chinese high-technology firms prefer collaboration even more than compromising and avoiding. 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.
Cross-cultural negotiations can lead to trust issues.68 One study of Indian and U.S. negotiators found that respondents reported having less trust in their cross-culture negotiation counterparts. The lower level of trust was associated with less discovery of common interests between parties, which occurred because cross-culture negotiators were less willing to disclose and solicit information. Another study found that both U.S. and Chinese negotiators tended to have an ingroup bias, which led them to favor negotiating partners from their own cultures. For Chinese negotiators, this was particularly true when accountability requirements were high.
Having considered conflict—its nature, causes, and consequences—we now turn to negotiation, which often resolves conflict.
Negotiation
Negotiation permeates the interactions of almost everyone in groups and organizations. There is the obvious: Labor bargains with management. There is the not-so-obvious: Managers negotiate with employees, peers, and bosses; salespeople negotiate with customers; purchasing agents negotiate with suppliers. Then there is the subtle: An employee agrees to cover for a colleague for a few minutes in exchange for a future favor. Clearly, negotiation skills are important in today’s workplace.
We can define negotiation as a process that occurs when two or more parties decide how to allocate scarce resources.69 Although we commonly think of the outcomes of negotiation in one-shot transactional terms, like negotiating over one’s salary before accepting a job offer, every negotiation in organizations also affects the relationship between negotiators and the way negotiators feel about themselves.70 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.)
Negotiation
A process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them.
Bargaining Strategies
There are two general approaches to negotiation—distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining.71 As Exhibit 14-4 shows, they differ in their goals and motivation, focus, interests, information sharing, and duration of relationship. Let us define each and illustrate the differences.
Exhibit 14-4 Distributive Versus
Integrative Bargaining
Figure 14-4 Full Alternative Text
Distributive Bargaining
Your team was not aware of a change in policy until it was already happening.72 This policy meant that your team would receive 20 percent fewer resources next fiscal year. There is nothing you can do to stop the policy from being implemented, so you negotiate with the executive team regarding these provisions. Both parties believe that any gain is made at the others’ expense, and when you try to negotiate halving this reduction in resources, the executives counter with an offer of 15 percent. The negotiating strategy you are engaging in is called distributive bargaining. Its identifying feature is that it operates under zero-sum conditions—that is, any gain I make is at your expense, and vice versa (see the chapter on power and politics). The essence of distributive bargaining is negotiating 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.
Distributive bargaining
Negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources; a win–lose situation.
Fixed pie
The belief that there is only a set amount of goods or services to be divvied up between the parties.
The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14-5. 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 acceptable outcome—the point beyond which the party would break off negotiations rather than accept a less favorable settlement. The area between these two points makes up each party’s aspiration range. If there is some overlap between A’s and B’s aspiration ranges, there exists a settlement range in which each one’s aspirations can be met.
Exhibit 14-5 Staking Out the Bargaining Zone
Bargaining Characteristic
Distributive Bargaining
Integrative Bargaining
Goal
Get as much of the pie as possible
Expand the pie so that both parties are satisfied
Motivation
Win–lose
Win–win
Focus
Positions (“I can’t go beyond this point on this issue.”)
Interests
(“Can you explain why this issue is so important to you?”)
Interests
Opposed
Congruent
Information sharing
Low (Sharing information will only allow other party to take advantage)
High (Sharing information will allow each party to find ways to satisfy interests of each party)
Duration of relationship
Short term
Long term
When you are engaged in distributive bargaining, you may want to consider making the first offer. Making the first offer can put you at an advantage because of the anchoring bias, mentioned in the chapter on perception and individual decision making. People tend to fixate on initial information. Once that anchoring point has been set, they fail to adequately adjust it based on subsequent 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 them.73 However, if you have a negotiation partner who is motivated to maximize their own return, a disadvantage of making the first offer is that you are conveying information about your priorities that the individual can use against you.74 Furthermore, framing matters: if you frame the first proposal as a request (i.e., I request your B for my A) instead of an offer (i.e., I offer my A for your B), it can be detrimental to your negotiation success by highlighting a “loss” rather than a “gain” for the negotiation partner.75
In distributive bargaining, should you engage in hardline strategies, in which you minimize your own concessions and make extreme offers, or should you engage in softline strategies, where you elicit concessions from the other party through your own concessions? One review suggests that it depends on the outcome you want: If it is important to preserve the relationship, softline strategies might be better.76 If you want a higher economic return, than hardline strategies may be better. When is each strategy most effective? The hardline approach tends to be most effective if you are physically interacting with the other negotiator, when the other party is male, when both are motivated to maximize individual outcomes, and when they know what they can and cannot bargain (although, people’s perception of the bargaining zone itself is often distorted77).78 The softline approach is more effective only when you are able to adequately give concessions to the other party. Furthermore, some research suggests that phantom anchors (e.g., “I was going to ask for $10,000, but since you are making that concession, I will ask for $8,000 instead) can be an effective softline strategy that communicates your concession (even if the concession is overstated).79 Another soft tactic that builds upon the first offer effect mentioned earlier is the use of multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs). MESOs involve presenting multiple, equivalent first offers to the negotiating partner to choose from. This may lead the negotiation partner to perceive the offeror as flexible and sincerely trying to reach an agreement as well as increase the likelihood of the negotiation partner finding an option they like right away.80
Integrative Bargaining
During her first pregnancy, one woman who worked for the federal government knew that she wanted to be able to be with her child but did not think she could do so while working full time.81 She did her research on the policies and procedures for part-time work to see how she might be able to make it happen. She then went to her supervisor and discussed possibilities for an alternative work arrangement and was successfully able to negotiate time with her child a couple of times each week. This employee’s attitude shows the promise of integrative bargaining. In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining assumes that one or more of the possible settlements can create a win–win solution rather than an all-or-nothing, win–lose situation. Of course, both parties must be engaged for integrative bargaining to work.
Integrative bargaining
Negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win–win solution.
Choosing Bargaining Methods
In terms of intraorganizational behavior, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining because the former builds long-term relationships.82 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 animosity and deepen divisions when people must work together on an ongoing basis. Research shows that over repeated bargaining episodes, a losing party who feels positively about the negotiation outcome is much more likely to bargain cooperatively in subsequent negotiations.
Why, then, do not we see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answer lies in the conditions necessary for it to succeed. Evidence from a study of nearly 200,000 people found that the financially vulnerable are more likely to construe the negotiation in zero-sum terms, curtailing their ability to come to integrative solutions.83 Furthermore, negotiating parties who are open with information and candid about concerns, are sensitive to the other’s needs and trust, and maintain flexibility tend to foster integrative bargaining. Although more traditional organizations may not foster these conditions, organizations with psychologically safe, open environments with positive cultures and climates and negotiating partners with integrative mindsets may perhaps do so.
The Negotiation Process
Exhibit 14-6 provides a simplified model of the negotiation process. It views negotiation as comprised of five steps: (1) preparation and planning, (2) definition of ground rules, (3) clarification and justification, (4) bargaining and problem solving, and (5) closure and implementation.84
Exhibit 14-6 The Negotiation Process
Preparation and Planning
This may be the most important part of the process. Before you start negotiating, 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? Then consider your goals, in writing, with a range of outcomes from “most helpful” to “minimally acceptable.” If you are a supply manager at Dell, for instance, and your goal is to get a significant cost reduction from your keyboard supplier, make sure this goal stays paramount in discussions and does not get overshadowed by other issues. Next, assess what you think are the other party’s goals. What intangible or hidden interests may be important to them? On what might they be willing to settle? Think carefully about what the other side might be willing to give up. People who underestimate their negotiating partner’s willingness to give on key issues before the negotiation even starts end up with lower outcomes.85
Once you have gathered your information, develop a strategy. You should determine your and the other side’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or
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. Conversely, you should not expect success in your negotiation effort unless you are able to make the other side an offer it finds more attractive than its BATNA.
BATNA
The best alternative to a negotiated agreement; the least the individual should accept.
In nearly all cases, the party with superior alternatives will do better in a negotiation, so experts advise negotiators to solidify their BATNA prior to any interaction.86 Therefore, be equipped to counter arguments with facts and figures that support your position. There is an interesting exception to this general rule—negotiators with absolutely no alternative to a negotiated agreement sometimes “go for broke” since they do not even consider what would happen if the negotiation falls through.87 Even though this is a safeguard against an inferior agreement, it is not a way to reach the optimal agreement—some suggest that although it is good to have this information ahead of time, you should focus on your mutual dependence (not alternatives) and positively frame the way you think about the negotiation (e.g., a learning experience with hidden potential, not a “frightening minefield”).88 Furthermore, just as phantom anchors are possible, so are phantom BATNAs. Setting a BATNA before a negotiation does not guarantee that the BATNA is probable or even possible. Those who hold a phantom BATNA may find themselves in the undesirable position of having to accept or reject a final offer from a negotiation partner, where their chosen BATNA was not possible to begin with.89
Definition of Ground Rules
Once you have done your planning and developed a strategy, you are ready to define with the other party the ground rules and procedures of the negotiation itself. 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 you follow a specific procedure if an impasse is reached? During this phase, the parties will exchange their initial proposals or demands.
Clarification and Justification
When you have exchanged initial positions, you and the other party will explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify your original demands. This step need not be confrontational. Rather, it is an opportunity for educating each other on the issues, why they are important, and how you arrived at your initial demands. Provide the other party with any documentation that supports your position. It might be useful to think back to what you learned in the previous chapter (the chapter on power and politics) on influence, as framing can be important here. For example, some research suggests that the other party will be less likely to make concessions if you frame your position (and subsequent offers) as a request rather than an offer on your part (see earlier discussion of requests in first offers).90
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 need to make concessions.
Relationships
change as a result of negotiation, so take that 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.91 As an example, of how the tone of a relationship in negotiations matters, 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.92
Closure and Implementation
The final step in the negotiation process is formalizing your agreement and developing procedures necessary for implementing and monitoring it.93 For major negotiations—from labor–management negotiations to bargaining over lease terms—this requires hammering out the specifics in a formal contract. For other cases, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake.
Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness
Are some people better negotiators than others? The answer is complex. Although recent research suggests that the situation or relationship tends to account more for negotiation outcomes, individual differences explain to a great degree how people perceive these outcomes.94 In other words, if you tend to be low on emotional stability, you will probably view an unsuccessful negotiation as much more catastrophic than it actually was. Research suggests that extraverted, open, and honest negotiators tend to have better experiences than others.95
Four factors influence how effectively individuals negotiate: personality, mood/emotions, culture, and gender.
Personality Traits in Negotiations
Can you predict a negotiation partner’s negotiating tactics if you know something about their personality? Because personality and negotiation outcomes are related but only weakly, the answer is, at best, “sort of.”96 Recent research on marketing managers, lawyers, and construction supervisors suggests that when it comes to negotiation effectiveness, people who are ambitious and likeable tend to fare the best.97 But most research has focused on the Big Five trait of agreeableness, for obvious reasons—agreeable individuals are cooperative, compliant, kind, and conflict averse. We might think such characteristics make agreeable individuals easy prey in negotiations, especially distributive ones. This prediction may come true, if the agreeable negotiator is bargaining with a partner who is low on honesty or humility. Furthermore, if the agreeable person seeks to preserve relationships at all costs and avoids straining them, than the person may be more likely to fare worse in a distributive negotiation.98 Overall, agreeableness is weakly related to negotiation outcomes.99
Interestingly, what seems to be more important is whether the negotiators have similar personalities (even if these traits are perceived by most people as negative!); when they do, they tend to reach agreement faster, perceive less conflict, display more positive emotions, and have better impressions of the other negotiation partner.100 Furthermore, when both parties seek to preserve relationships at all costs (as an element of agreeableness), they tend to fare much better in integrative negotiation.101
Self-efficacy (see the chapter on motivation concepts) is one individual-difference variable that consistently seems to relate to negotiation outcomes.102 This is an intuitive finding—it is not too surprising to hear that those who believe they will be more successful in negotiation situations tend to perform more effectively. It may be that individuals who are more confident stake out stronger claims, are less likely to back down from their positions, and exhibit confidence that intimidates others. Although the exact mechanism is not yet clear, it does seem that negotiators may benefit from trying to get a boost in confidence before going to the bargaining table. However, do not be too confident: If you have a supervisor who will be judging your performance and you are expected to do well, it would be prudent to try to prevent negative outcomes (because you have more to lose).103
Finally, some research suggests that emotional intelligence and emotion recognition ability is linked to gains in negotiation performance as well as to perceptions of being more cooperative and likeable.104 In the next section, we describe how specific emotions and moods affect negotiations.
Moods/Emotions in Negotiations
Do moods and emotions influence negotiation? They do, but the way they work depends on the emotion as well as the context.
A negotiator who shows anger can induce concessions, for instance, because the other negotiator believes no further concessions from the angry party are possible. One factor that governs this outcome, however, is power—you should show anger in negotiations only if you have at least as much power as your counterpart. If you have less, showing anger actually seems to provoke “hardball” reactions from the other side.105 “Faked” anger, or anger produced from surface acting, is not effective, but showing anger that is genuine (deep acting) is (see the chapter on emotions and moods).106 However, maybe you should not hold it in either: Suppressing anger hurts performance because it is distracting to the negotiator, but only when the anger is integral to the negotiation.107 Having a history of showing anger induces more concessions because the other party perceives the negotiator as “tough.”108 Research suggests if you use anger to “win” a negotiation, even though the tactic might be effective, you might lose in the long run as the other party is less likely to follow through with the deal and less likely to work with you again.109 Regardless of strictly positive or negative effects, your anger could lead the negotiating partner to try to seek more information about your preferences and priorities, leading to higher joint gains for both parties.110 The effects of anger in negotiations varies across cultures. 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.111
Several other emotions also have effects on negotiation performance. For instance, anxiety may impact negotiation. One study found that individuals who experienced more anxiety about a negotiation used more deceptions in dealing with others.112 Another study found that anxious negotiators expect lower outcomes, respond to offers more quickly, and exit the bargaining process more quickly, leading them to obtain worse outcomes.113 Relatedly, the expression of sadness can elicit more concessions, but only when the other negotiator perceives the expresser as lower in power and anticipates future interactions with this person, and when the relationship is collaborative.114 This illustrates why it is important in both types of negotiation for parties to display sympathy for their counterparts, when needed, as this appeals to perceptions of rationality and fairness.115
Even emotional unpredictability affects outcomes: Researchers have found that negotiators who express positive and negative emotions in an unpredictable way extract more concessions because this behavior makes the other party feel less in control.116 As one negotiator put it, “Out of the blue, you may have to react to something you have been working on in one way, and then something entirely new is introduced, and you have to veer off and refocus.”117 However, emotional ambivalence tends to be related to more integrative agreements and concession making, as the ambivalent person is perceived as submissive.118
Culture and Race in Negotiations
Do people from different cultures negotiate differently? The simple answer is the obvious one: Yes, they do. In general, people 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.
It appears that for successful cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially important that the negotiators be high in openness. This suggests a good strategy is to choose cross-cultural negotiators who are high on openness, and it helps to avoid factors, such as time pressure, that tend to inhibit learning about the other party.119 Second, because emotions are culturally sensitive, negotiators need to be especially aware of the emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiation. For example, individuals from East Asian cultures may feel that using anger to get their way in a negotiation is not a legitimate tactic, so they refuse to cooperate when their negotiation partners become upset.120
Some research on negotiations in the United States and Egypt suggest that the same language that leads to integrative agreements in Western cultures can backfire in others.121 For example, in the U.S., language that emphasizes cognitive, rational, and logical gains and losses tends to promote integrative bargaining. However, in other cultures, such as Egypt, this language can backfire and what is preferable would be language that emphasizes honor, moral integrity, and protecting one’s image and strength. Furthermore, some idiosyncratic rituals that differ across cultures can improve the success of integrative bargaining; for example, in Western cultures, a handshake promotes integrative deal-making because it acts as a signal of cooperative intent.122
Although not much research has examined the role of race in negotiations, a recent study has found that black job seekers in America are (1) expected to negotiate less than white job seekers, (2) penalized in negotiations when they do try to negotiate, and (3) penalized more heavily when the negotiator is more racially biased.123
Gender in Negotiations
With regard to gender in negotiations, one stereotype is that women are more cooperative and pleasant in negotiations than men and, as a result, obtain worse outcomes. However, decades of research tends to suggest that the influence of gender in negotiations is highly context dependent.124 For example, women may be more effective negotiators in collectivist cultures with high harmony and low assertiveness norms.125
The influence of gender on both negotiation behavior and negotiation outcomes has been examined (although more research is needed on the influence of gender identity and sexual orientation). Compared to men, women tend to behave in a slightly less assertive, less self-interested, and more cooperative manner.126 However, these differences are reduced when there are restrictions on communication. The research also suggests that women can actually be more competitive than men when the other negotiator engages in a “tit-for-tat” strategy.127 However, when it comes to initiating negotiations, women are less likely to initiate than men, especially when the situation is ambiguous and when gender-role reinforcing information is present in the situational context.128 A study of MBA students at Carnegie-Mellon University found that the male students took the step of negotiating their first salary offer 57 percent of the time, compared to 4 percent for the female students. The net result? A four thousand dollar difference in starting salaries.129 Although earlier research concluded that there was a slight benefit for men in negotiation outcomes,130 an updated meta-analysis has found no significant difference between men and women. Although men achieved better outcomes, on average, these differences were reduced when controlling for negotiation experience, knowledge of the zone of bargaining, when negotiating on behalf of others, and when gendered role norms were not activated in the context.131
Negotiating in a Social Context
We have mostly been discussing negotiations that occur among parties that meet only once, and in isolation from other individuals. However, in organizations, many negotiations are open-ended and public. When you are trying to figure out who in a work group should do a tedious task, negotiating with your boss to get a chance to travel internationally, or asking for more money for a project; there is a social component to the negotiation. You are probably negotiating with someone you already know and will work with again, and the negotiation and its outcome are likely to be topics people will talk about. To really understand negotiations in practice, then, we must 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.132 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 benefiting the other party.
Sometimes we either trust or distrust people based on word of mouth about a person’s characteristics. What characteristics help a person develop a trustworthy reputation? Individuals who have a reputation for integrity can also be more effective in negotiations.133 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. This opens many options for the negotiator that would not be available to someone who is not seen as trustworthy. 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.
Relationships
There is more to repeated negotiations than just reputation. The social, interpersonal component of relationships with repeated negotiations means that individuals go beyond valuing what is simply good for themselves and instead start to think about what is best for the other party and the relationship as a whole.134 Repeated negotiations built on a foundation of trust also broaden the range of options, since a favor or concession today can be offered in return for some repayment further down the road.135 Repeated negotiations also facilitate integrative problem solving. This occurs partly because people begin to see their negotiation partners in a more personal way over time and come to share emotional bonds.136 Repeated negotiations also make integrative approaches more workable because a sense of trust and reliability has been built up.137
Third-Party Negotiations
To this point, we have discussed bargaining in terms of direct negotiations. Occasionally, however, individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve their differences through direct negotiations. In such cases, they may turn to a third party to help them find a solution. There are three basic third-party roles: mediator, arbitrator, and conciliator.
A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives, and the like.
Mediator
s are widely used in labor–management negotiations and in civil court disputes. Their overall effectiveness is impressive. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported a settlement rate through mediation of 72.1 percent.138 But the situation is the key to whether mediation will succeed: The conflicting parties must be motivated to bargain and resolve their conflict. In addition, conflict intensity cannot be too high; mediation is most effective under moderate levels of conflict. Finally, perceptions of the mediator are important; to be effective, the mediator must be perceived as neutral and noncoercive.
Mediator
A neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning, persuasion, and suggestions for alternatives.
An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. Arbitration can be voluntary (requested by the parties) 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. Whether there is a downside depends on how heavy-handed the arbitrator appears. If one party is left feeling overwhelmingly defeated, that party is certain to be dissatisfied and the conflict may resurface later.
Arbitrator
A third party to a negotiation who has the authority to dictate an agreement.
A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the negotiation partner. Agreeable individuals with a concern for others tend to adopt the role of conciliator, and they tend to be respected and admired by their peers as a result.139 This role was made famous by Robert Duval in the first Godfather film. As Don Corleone’s adopted son and a lawyer by training, Duval acted as an intermediary between the Corleones and the other Mafioso families. Comparing conciliation to mediation in terms of effectiveness has proven difficult because the two overlap a great deal. In practice, conciliators typically act as more than mere communication conduits. They also engage in fact finding, interpret messages, and persuade disputants to develop agreements.
Conciliator
A trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the negotiation partner.
Summary
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 the coordination of activities.
Implications for Managers
Always try to be aware of potential conflict between people, within teams, and between groups. Recognize that relational and process conflict tends to be nefarious, while some task conflict may be beneficial in certain circumstances. You should try to maximize functional conflict and minimize the negative effects of dysfunctional conflict.
Try to identify ahead of time conditions that can cause conflict. Engage in conflict handling behaviors that are constructive, like the collaborating approach, but realize that conflict management strategies are often tricky as they can cause unintended conflict in other areas. One of the most effective conflict management strategies, however, is open, interest-based discussion.
When it comes to negotiation, we often believe that distributive bargaining is the only option; try to determine whether there are opportunities for integrative bargaining, as this approach is better for maintaining relationships over time. Also select hardline or softline strategies, depending upon what your goals are and what the situation calls for.
When you expect negotiations, be sure to follow the steps of preparing, setting ground rules, clarifying and justifying your arguments, bargaining, and implementing. Consider developing a “best alternative to a negotiated agreement,” or BATNA, before negotiating (but make sure it is realistic).
When selecting individuals for negotiating roles or assignments, remember that negotiators do well when they are similar to the person they are negotiating with; as well as reputable, confident, ambitious, and likeable. Also, emotionally intelligent negotiators who can recognize, understand, and express emotions to their advantage tend to do well in negotiations. The negotiator should also be aware of the culture within which they are negotiating.
