Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Conflict
|
process that begins when one party perceives that a another party is about to negatively something that the first party cares about
|
|
Traditional conflict view
|
the belief that conflict should be avoided because it indicates malfunction within the group
results from poor communication, lack of openness and trust, and failure to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of employees |
|
Interactionist view
|
believes that conflict is not only good for a group but necessary for a group to perform effectively
underlies the assumption that harmonious, peaceful, cooperative groups will become static, apathetic, and unresponsive to needs for change and innovation whereas groups with functional conflict can self critic, are viable, and are creative |
|
managed conflict view
|
the view that instead of encouraging functional conflict and discouraging dysfunctional conflict that it is much more important to resolve conflict productively
|
|
Task conflict
|
an example of functional conflict that can enhance performance
has to do with goals and content of the work most productive because it allows people to evaluate all alternatives, become more creative, and more open, innovative not effective if the group is already open and discussing all their ideas (bad in a nominal group) task conflict is not good for a group that performs routine tasks |
|
Relationship conflict
|
not productive
has to do with interpersonal relationships |
|
Process conflict
|
good in small doses
has to do how the work gets done bad process conflict arises when their is an ambiguity of roles or responsibility |
|
Resolution focused view of conflict
|
traditional: shortsighted, ignores that conflict is inevitable
interrationalist: not complete: ignores that any type of conflict can lead to a loss of trust or hurt feelings or loss of respect or cohesion managed conflict: best combination of both because it realizes that conflict is inevitable and we should rather focus our efforts into dealing with it productively so there are no long term effects |
|
Conflict process
|
1. potential opposition or incompatibility
2. cognition and personalization 3. Intentions 4. behavior 5. outcomes |
|
Stage 1: potential opposition or incompatibility
|
this arises from three conditions: communication, structure, and personal variables
|
|
Communication
|
1. semantic differences (jargon, interpretation of meaning, translation, age, word connotation)
2. misunderstandings result from too little or too much information provided 3. noise |
|
Structure
|
size, degree of specialization, jurisdiction clarity, member-goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and dependency
big size, highly specialized, incompatible to goals, turnover rate, conflicting rewards, over dependency, ambiguity of responsibility = conflict |
|
Personal variables
|
personality (disagreeable, neurotic, and self-monitoring = conflict)
emotion (come to work angry facilitate anger and tension) values |
|
Stage 2 Cognition and personalization
|
if one of the conditions in stage one affects something that a party cares about causes
perceived conflict (not personalized) or felt conflict (individuals get emotionally involved: anxiety, tension, frustration, hostility) emotion plays a huge role here because we can oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpretations on the other parties behavior if we have negative emotion whereas positive emotion lets us see the conflict as more broad and reminds us to value our relationships and develop more innovative solutions |
|
Stage 3: Intentions
|
Intentions intervene between people's perceptions and emotions and overt behavior
important because a lot of conflicts escalate because people interpret other people intentions incorrectly also tricky because behavior does not always match intentions 2 dimensions: cooperative (put the other parties concerns ahead of your won) aggressive (put your own concerns first) 4 types of intentions: 1. competing 2. accommodating 3. collaborating 4. avoiding 5. compromising |
|
Competing
|
satisfy your interests regardless of the impact on the other parties
completely aggressive |
|
Collaborating
|
solve the problem together by clarifying differences rather than accommodating various view points
win win solution |
|
Avoiding
|
You are aware that there is a conflict but chose to ignore it or suppress it by avoiding the person
|
|
Accommodating
|
Appeasing opponent by putting his interests way above yours and sacrificing to maintain the relationship
|
|
Compromising
|
both party experiences win and loss
no clear winner or loser willingness to ration object and accept solution that provides incomplete satisfaction for everyone |
|
Stage 4: Behavior
|
this stage is a dynamic process of the last stage (intentions)
conflict becomes visible through actions, statements, and reactions to implement their own intentions exists on a continuum high on continuum = strikes, riots, war (dysfunctional) low on continuum = subtle, controlled, indirect tension (functional) |
|
Functional conflicts
|
increase performance
increase quality of decision (evaluate all opinions and options) increase trust increase respect increases interest and curiosity increases creativity and innovation |
|
Dysfunctional conflict
|
uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent
dissolves common tides lowers performance hampers communication lowers cohesiveness subordinates group goals reduce trust and satisfaction lowers info sharing |
|
Managing conflict
|
reward dissenters
punish conflict avoiders open discussions = mutually accepted solution emphasize shared goals emphasize shared interest in resolving conflict |
|
Negotiation
|
the process by which two or more parties decide how they are going to allocate resources
important because impact the tangible and intangible (relationship between the negotiators and the way negotiator perceives self) |
|
Integrative
|
always comes first
share interests, positions, info but not BATNA expand the pie win win solution facilitates long term relationships |
|
Distributive Bargaining
|
fixed pie perception
opposing interests |
|
Bargaining diagram
|
target point: want to achieve
resistance point: lowest possible outcome acceptable (BATNA) distance between two resistance points = settlement range distance between target and resistance point = aspiration range |
|
Negotiation process
|
see slides and readings
|
|
Individual differences in negotiation process
|
1.personality (extrovert and compliant = bad distributive good integrative)
2. moods/emotions (anger = bad when lower position good when higher, should be happy and nice when integrative creates better relationships) 3. gender (women stereotype bad negotiators b/c care more about interpersonal relationships self fulfilling prophesy) |