Source: Michael Kappeler/AP/Shutterstock
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.
14-5
Show how individual differences
influence negotiations.
14-2
14-3
Outline the conflict process.
14-6
Describe the social factors that
influence negotiations.
14-7
14-4
Apply the five steps of the negotiation process.
Assess the roles and functions of
third-party negotiations.
Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining.
476
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 476
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation
477
CHAPTER 14
Employability Skills Matrix (ESM)
Myth or
Science?
Critical Thinking &
Creativity
✓
Communication
✓
✓
✓
Collaboration
Self-Management
Social Responsibility
An Ethical
Choice
Point/
Counterpoint
Toward a
Better World
Experiential
Exercise
Ethical
Dilemma
Case
Incident
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Leadership
Career Management
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
THE MERKEL MODEL
A
s Germany’s first woman to hold the nation’s highest elective office,
Chancellor Angela Merkel has seen her fair share of conflict. When she
stepped down in 2021, Merkel became Germany’s second-longest-serving
leader of the modern era. Merkel was trained as a quantum chemist and lived
in Soviet-controlled East Germany, working at a state-run research center. It
was not until the historic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 that Merkel decided
to leave behind her scientific work and pursue a lifelong interest in politics.
Merkel’s training as a scientist has led her to rely on rationality and
systematic analysis of situations before making decisions, even in tense
situations. Merkel has become the closest negotiating partner of Vladimir
Putin, president of Russia, but has also not hesitated to impose sanctions
on Russia. In 2007, during negotiations with leaders at Putin’s residence, he
allowed his dog to approach Merkel, despite knowing that Merkel had a fear
of dogs after having been attacked. Putin appeared instead to be amused
by the incident. Merkel remained calm, though, and used the moment as an
opportunity to learn more about Putin’s character. She understood it to be an
attempt to make Russia appear powerful when, in fact, the country was in a
vulnerable position with an unstable economy and political system.
Merkel’s steady leadership has led to the popularization of the expression
“merkeln,” which describes waiting for a strategic opportunity or carefully
waiting to make a strategic move. Although not known for being a risktaker, Merkel has developed a reputation as a skilled negotiator. While she
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 477
21/12/22 7:05 AM
478
PART 3 The Group
has often been in the role of the outsider, particularly as a woman in a
male-dominated political culture, Merkel has used this to her advantage
by thoroughly assessing her negotiation counterparts and determining
their weaknesses to advance the interests of Germany. A longtime political
associate of Merkel explained that she only speaks about 20 percent of
the time and listens 80 percent of the time when engaged in negotiation.
For example, in her role as minister of the environment, she was able to
successfully negotiate the Berlin climate deal by consulting Indian diplomat
Kamal Nath for advice. Merkel was then able to find common ground with
the countries involved in the deal while reaching an agreement that also
benefited German engineering firms specializing in green energy.
Merkel demonstrated that learning as much as possible about one’s
negotiation partner and taking an integrative bargaining approach can indeed
be an essential part of a successful negotiation. Her deliberate and patient
approach has allowed her to maintain relationships even with leaders with
whom she disagrees. Her negotiation style has enabled her to continue
advancing the German people’s interests during difficult times, including an
economic crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.1
A Definition of Conflict
the three types
­14-1 Describe
of conflict and the three
loci of conflict.
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.
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 478
Tesla, an American automotive and energy company, along with its founder
and CEO, Elon Musk, has experienced conflict on several fronts. From issues
with Musk’s candid Twitter posts, lawsuits, and feuds with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to disagreements among Musk and musicians
Azealia Banks and Claire Boucher (a.k.a. Grimes), Tesla, along with the board
of directors and employees, has witnessed its fair share of conflict.2
What is interesting, however, is where Tesla has not experienced conflict: within the board of directors.3 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 and 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 (AI) in
corporate board decision making, which is not limited by lack of time and
resources and is perhaps more impartial.4 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 for the word conflict,5 but common to most is the idea that conflict is a perception of differences of opposition.
We define conflict broadly as a process that begins when one party perceives
that 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. There is no
consensus over the role of conflict in groups and organizations.
21/12/22 7:05 AM
479
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
(Dys)functional Conflict
In the past, researchers tended to argue about whether conflict was uniformly
good or bad. Such simplistic views eventually gave way to approaches recognizing that not all conflicts are the same and that different types of conflict
have different effects.6 Contemporary perspectives classify conflict based on its
effects as functional or dysfunctional.7
Functional Conflict Functional conflict supports the goals of the group, improves
its performance, and is thus a constructive form of conflict. For example, a debate
among members of a corporate board about the most efficient way to improve
production can be functional if unique points of view are discussed and compared openly. This form of conflict can be an antidote for groupthink (see the
chapter on groups). It 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, 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 Conflict Conflict that hinders group performance is destructive
or dysfunctional conflict.8 A highly personal struggle for control in a team that
distracts from the task at hand is dysfunctional. Exhibit 14-1 provides an overview
depicting the effect of levels of conflict. This form of conflict has clear detrimental effects on interpersonal dynamics, fosters negative emotions (e.g., anger, frustration, annoyance), and seeks to divide rather than unite toward a common goal.
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 do not get along well with one another? Or is it about the best way to get
things done? Although each conflict is unique, researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: task, relationship, or process.9 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 Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least
in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional.10 Why? The friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase interpersonal
clashes and decrease mutual understanding. They tend to derail team processes
by reducing the extent to which people are open to working with one another
collaboratively toward solutions while increasing the extent to which they avoid
and compete with one another.11 As a result, relationship conflict strongly
depletes trust, cohesion (see the chapter on work teams), satisfaction, job attitudes, and positive affect (see the chapter on emotions and mood) and can even
lead to a reduction in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) paired with
an increase in deviant behavior.12 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.13 As such, of the three types, relationship conflict appears to
be the most psychologically exhausting for workers.14
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.
Task Conflict While scholars agree that relationship conflict is dysfunctional,
there is considerably less agreement about whether task and process conflict is
functional. Early research suggested that task conflict within groups correlated
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 479
21/12/22 7:05 AM
480
PART 3 The Group
Exhibit 14-1
Conflict and Unit Performance
We will discuss next the different types of conflict and the loci of conflict.
Unit Performance
(High)
A
B
(Low)
C
Level of Conflict
Situation
Level of
Conflict
(High)
Type of
Conflict
Unit’s Internal
Characteristics
Unit Performance
Outcome
Apathetic
Stagnant
Nonresponsive
to change
Lack of new
ideas
Low
Viable
Self-critical
Innovative
High
Disruptive
Chaotic
Uncooperative
Low
A
Low
or
none
Dysfunctional
B
Optimal
Functional
C
High
Dysfunctional
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 non-management positions, and
higher group performance in decision-making teams).15 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.16 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.17
Process Conflict Process conflicts are often about delegation and roles. Conflicts
over delegation often revolve around the perception of some members as
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 actually doing it. Although relatively
less research has been conducted on process conflict, research suggests that it
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 480
21/12/22 7:05 AM
481
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
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).18
Complicating Conflict It also appears to matter whether other types of conflict
occur at the same time. If task and relationship conflict occur together, task
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.19 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.20 This suggests that one might expect relationship and task conflict to
co-occur at the beginning of the relationship. Even the mere perception of relationship conflict during task conflict is enough to cause people to hold on to
their initial preferences regarding the task conflict.21
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.22 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.23 Research suggests that conflict is more likely to
have a positive effect on performance when a few members perceive strong task
disagreement and most others on the team perceive weak task disagreement.
This is because those of the minority opinion are much more likely to present
their disagreements in a careful, cooperative, open manner.24
Loci of Conflict
Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or where the conflict occurs among people. Here, 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.25
Nearly all the research on conflict focuses on intragroup conflict (within
the group). However, it does not necessarily tell us all we need to know about
the contingencies on conflict. For example, research has found that for intragroup task conflict to 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.”26 Similarly, the personal needs of
group members may determine when task conflict has a positive impact on performance. For instance, task conflict can be beneficial for performance when
members are high on the need for achievement.27
But is this concept applicable to the effects of intergroup conflict? For a group
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. For instance, Josh Allen and Stefon Diggs (players for the NFL
football team the Buffalo Bills) are known to have a great relationship on and off
the field. At the same time, they are very competitive with one another in training,
during practice, and even playing video games like Call of Duty.28
But would we care whether members from one NFL team were in conflict
with members from another team? Probably not. In fact, if groups are competing with one another so that only one team can “win,” interteam conflict seems
almost inevitable, and rivalries often sprout between players. For instance,
friendly rivalries between Josh Allen and other players like Sam Darnold
and Patrick Mahomes have even led to proposed throwing competitions, or
“throw-offs.”29
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 481
dyadic conflict Conflict that occurs
between two people.
intragroup conflict Conflict that occurs
within a group or team.
intergroup conflict Conflict between
different groups or teams.
21/12/22 7:05 AM
482
PART 3 The Group
Under the leadership of George
Zimmer, the founder and CEO of
Men’s Warehouse (MW) and its advertising spokesperson, the retailer grew
into a multimillion-dollar firm with
1,450 stores. After retiring as CEO,
Zimmer served as executive chairman
of MW’s board until an intragroup
conflict between him and other members resulted in his removal from the
board.
Source: Patrick Fallon/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Still, it must be managed. Intense intergroup conflict can be quite straining
on relationships between people and might well affect the way they interact. For
instance, The Ohio State University and University of Michigan rivalry, although
oftentimes friendly and well intentioned, has resulted in ostracism, verbal denigration, riots, and even threatened violence at times between fans.30 In fact,
many attribute the rivalry itself to several violent border conflicts between Ohio
and Michigan in the 1800s.31
It may surprise you that a person’s status and power (see the previous
­chapter on power and politics) become even more important during intergroup
conflicts, but not in the way you might guess. 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 networks were better
at resolving conflicts between their group and another one.32 Thus, being at the
core of your work group does not necessarily make you the best person to manage conflict with other groups.
Altogether, 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 task, relationship, and process conflict are
useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conflict, they are less useful
in explaining the effects of intergroup conflict. But how do we navigate and
manage the experience of conflict when it occurs? A better understanding of
the conflict process, discussed next, will provide insight about potential controllable variables.
The Conflict Process
the conflict
­14-2 Outline
process.
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 482
The conflict process has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility,
cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes (see Exhibit
14-2).33
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
Exhibit 14-2
483
The Conflict Process
Stage I
Stage II
Potential opposition Cognition and
or incompatibility personalization
Antecedent conditions
• Communication
• Structure
• Personal variables
Perceived
conflict
Felt
conflict
Stage III
Stage IV
Stage V
Intentions
Behavior
Outcomes
Conflict-handling
intentions
• Competing
• Collaborating
• Compromising
• Avoiding
• Accommodating
Overt conflict
• Party’s
behavior
• Other’s
reaction
Increased
group
performance
Decreased
group
performance
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.34 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,35 we group
the conditions into three general categories: communication, structure, and
personal variables.
Communication Suri had worked in supply chain management at 3M for three
years. Suri enjoyed the job largely because the manager, Aang, was a great
supervisor. Then Aang was promoted and Rumra took the open position. Six
months later, Suri now finds the job frustrating. “Aang and I were on the same
wavelength. It’s not that way with Rumra. Rumra tells me something, I do it, and
then Rumra tells me I did it wrong. I think Rumra means one thing but says
something else. It has been like this since day one. I do not think a day goes by
without Rumra yelling at me or chastising me for something. You know, there
are some people you just find it easy to communicate with. Well, Rumra is not
one of those!”
Suri’s comments illustrate that communication can be a source of conflict
in dyadic and group interactions.36 This experience represents the opposing
forces that arise from miscommunication (see the earlier chapter on communication). Barriers to communication, including communication apprehension,
crisis situations, and cross-cultural differences in norms, may be potential antecedent conditions to conflict. 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. Even the way communication is framed can have an
effect: For example, framing task conflict as a debate increases receptivity to
others’ opinions.37
Structure Armani is a salesperson and Jaylen is the company credit manager at
Furniture Mart, a large discount furniture retailer in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The
two have known each other for years and have much in common: They live two
blocks apart, and their oldest children attend the same middle school and are
best friends. If Armani and Jaylen had different jobs, they might be friends, but
at work they constantly disagree. Armani’s job is to sell furniture and do it well.
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 483
21/12/22 7:05 AM
484
PART 3 The Group
Most of these sales are made on credit. Because Jaylen’s job is to minimize credit
losses, Jaylen regularly has to turn down the credit applications of Armani’s customers. It is nothing personal between the two; the requirements of their jobs
just bring them into conflict.
The conflicts between Armani and Jaylen are structural in nature. The term
structure in this context includes variables such as the size of the 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.38 Furthermore, shared
leadership (see the chapter on leadership) can lead to conflict when power is
scarce, causing people to “fight over their power turfs.”39 Therefore, the potential for intragroup conflict is greatest when group members are younger 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.40
Personal Variables Charlie and Morgan both work at the Pepsi bottling
plant in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Although initially the two seemed
to get along very well, the two were sitting in the break room watching the
news one day in November. As it was an election year, a political ad came
up for the Senate seat that was available. Morgan made a comment about
how it was absolutely imperative that the Republicans must be booted from
office and that it was “a long time coming.” Charlie took major issue with
this comment as a Republican, and a heated, incendiary argument followed.
The difference in political affiliation can be sensed by the rest of the team,
and their coordination and collaboration have been severely affected by this
new knowledge.
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 individual differences) are prone to spar with other people more
often—and to react poorly when conflicts occur.41 On the other hand, the politically skilled are less likely to initiate conflict as they are better able to manage
others’ perceptions.42
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.43 Employees not sharing or experiencing the same
emotions can also engender conflict. For example, employees may experience
more conflict when they are pessimistic about a task and their supervisors
are more optimistic.44 As depicted in the example concerning Charlie and
Morgan, values can often conflict with one another and cause emotionally
charged conflict.
Furthermore, differences in preferences and values can generate higher
levels of conflict. When group members do not agree about their desired
achievement levels, there is more of an opportunity for task conflict; when
group ­members do not agree about their desired interpersonal closeness, there
is more opportunity for relationship conflict; and when group members do not
have similar desires for power, there is more opportunity for conflict over status.45 People differ with regard to their beliefs about conflict and which strategies of managing conflict are the best or worst; these beliefs shape the types of
conflict they perceive as well as how they react.46
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 484
21/12/22 7:05 AM
485
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
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 introduction to the chapter, conflict is a perception.
However, just because a disagreement is a perceived conflict does not mean it
is personalized. Instead, it can become felt conflict, where individuals become
emotionally involved, potentially experiencing 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.47 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 is not fair the supervisor took the long commute
out on me with extra work!”). Moreover, emotions play a major role in shaping
perceptions.48 Negative emotions lead us to oversimplify issues, lose trust, and
put negative interpretations on the other party’s behavior.49 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.50 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.51
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!).52 Ultimately,
a state of mindfulness (see the chapter on health and stress) might be a
good emotional state to aspire toward, given it facilitates constructive conflict
management.53
perceived conflict Awareness by one or
more parties of the existence of or conditions
that create opportunities for conflict.
felt conflict Emotional involvement in
a conflict that creates anxiety, tenseness,
frustration, or hostility.
Stage III: Intentions
Intentions intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions, and their
overt behavior. They are decisions to act in a particular way.54 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 to
respond emotionally to the other’s behavior.
We can think of conflict-handling intentions as falling along two dimensions
(as depicted in Exhibit 14-3).55 These 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)—
can help us identify five conflict-handling intentions (also known as the Thomas
Kilmann conflict modes): competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating
(assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (midrange on both
assertiveness and cooperativeness).56
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.57
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.58
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 485
competing A desire to satisfy one’s
interests, regardless of the impact on the
other party to the conflict.
21/12/22 7:05 AM
486
PART 3 The Group
Exhibit 14-3
Conflict-Handling Intentions
Competing
Assertiveness
Collaborating
Compromising
Avoiding
Accommodating
Cooperativeness
Source: Based on R. H. Kilmann, Celebrating 40 Years With the TKI Assessment: A Summary of My Favorite Insights (Sunnyvale, CA: CPP, 2018).
collaborating A situation in which the
parties involved in a conflict all desire to fully
satisfy the concerns of all parties.
avoiding The desire to withdraw from or
suppress a conflict.
accommodating The willingness of one
party in a conflict to place the opponent’s
interests above their own.
compromising A situation in which each
party to a conflict is willing to give up
something to resolve the conflict.
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 486
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.59 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.60
Avoiding A person may recognize that 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. If you are already overloaded as it is, but your supervisor keeps trying to involve you in more projects
and assign you more tasks at work, you may avoid initiating conversations with
them. Typically, avoidance takes two emotion-driven forms: withdrawal and exit
(e.g., leaving a conversation with another person; usually driven by annoyance)
and silence (e.g., not starting a conversation with another person; usually driven
by anxiety).61
Accommodating A party who seeks to appease the other party may be willing to
place the other’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.
Compromising In compromising, there is no winner or loser. Rather, there is
a willingness to rationalize 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.
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
487
A review that examined the effects of the intentions across multiple studies
found that accommodating and collaborating were both associated with superior group performance, whereas avoiding and competing strategies were associated with significantly worse group performance.62 These effects were nearly
as large as the effects of relationship conflict. Collaboration may be especially
effective for tasks that require innovation, but it can lead to mistrust and conflict when groups are splintered into smaller groups of two or three based on
task.63 Individuals who have been assigned power tend to have a more difficult
time using collaborative strategies.64 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
When most people think of conflict, they tend to focus on Stage IV because
this is where conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes statements,
actions, and reactions made by conflicting parties, usually as overt attempts
to implement their own intentions. As a result of miscalculations or unskilled
enactments, overt behaviors sometimes deviate from original intentions.65
Intentions that are brought into a conflict are likely to be translated into behaviors. Competing brings out active attempts to contend with team members and
more individual effort to achieve ends without working together. Collaborating
creates investigation of multiple solutions with other members of the team and
trying to find a solution that satisfies all parties as much as possible. Avoidance
is seen in behavior as refusals to discuss issues and reductions in effort toward
group goals. People who accommodate put their relationships ahead of the issues
in the conflict, deferring to others’ opinions and sometimes acting as a subgroup with them. When people compromise, they both expect to and do sacrifice
parts of their interests, hoping that if everyone does the same, an agreement will
emerge.
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 back,
and so on. Exhibit 14-4 provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. Each
behavioral stage in a conflict is built upon a foundation. At the lowest point
are perceptions, misunderstandings, and differences of opinions. These may
grow to subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension, such as a student challenging a point the instructor has made. Conflict can intensify until
Exhibit 14-4
Conflict-Intensity Continuum
Annihilatory
conflict
Overt efforts to destroy the other party
Aggressive physical attacks
Threats and ultimatums
Assertive verbal attacks
Overt questioning or challenging of others
Minor disagreements or misunderstandings
No 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.
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 487
21/12/22 7:05 AM
488
PART 3 The Group
it becomes highly destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this upper
range. Conflicts that reach the upper ranges of the continuum are almost always
dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower levels.
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, it is usually under special circumstances, and most of the time the dysfunctional outcomes outweigh the functional outcomes in severity.66 This suggests that managers will likely spend most
of their time reducing dysfunctional conflict rather than stimulating functional
conflict.
Functional Outcomes How might conflict act as a force to increase group performance? It is hard to visualize a situation in which agitated aggression could
be functional. But it is possible to see how low or moderate levels of conflict
could improve group effectiveness and creativity. 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,
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.67 Mild conflicts also may generate energizing emotions, so
IBM encourages employees to engage in functional conflict that results
in innovations, such as the Watson
supercomputer designed to learn
through the same process human
brains use. For innovation to flourish,
IBM relies on the creative tension
from employees’ different ideas and
skills and provides a work environment that promotes risk taking and
outside-the-box thinking.
Source: Jon Simon/Feature Photo Service/Newscom
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 488
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
489
members of groups become more active, energized, and engaged in their work.68
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.69 As mentioned
earlier in this chapter, conflict severity plays a large role.
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.70 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.71 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 deescalate 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.72
At a broader level, executives try to manage conflict proactively by developing conflict management systems of policies and procedures, increase lower-level management’s involvement in conflict management, socialize dysfunctional conflict out
of the organization’s culture, and improvise where needed to adapt to conflict
management needs.73 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).74 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.75 At a narrower level, leaders manage conflict
in three primary ways: instigation (i.e., intentionally creating conflict when needed),
engagement (i.e., escalating conflict, involving others, or strategically observing), and
managing (i.e., handling or resolving conflict).76
Even with the number of ways in which conflict can be managed, there
are some practical guidelines for managers to implement conflict management more effectively. First, 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 discussion, listening and understanding opposing views, and then integrating them constructively.77 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.78 Third, groups that resolve conflicts
successfully discuss differences of opinion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises.79 The most disruptive conflicts are those that are
never addressed directly. 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
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 489
conflict management The use of resolution
and stimulation techniques to achieve the
desired level of conflict.
21/12/22 7:05 AM
490
PART 3 The Group
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.80
However, conditions are not always ideal, and the findings from research on
conflict management showed marked differences in effectiveness across situations.81 First, strategies appropriate for resolving one form of conflict may backfire and cause more conflict in another area.82 For example, adopting a shared
identity, resolving 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.83 For example, clearly outlining differences in what people
do in the presence of task conflict can spill over to stimulate relational conflict.
The fluid, abstract nature of conflict has led many researchers to analyze conflict management through a strategic systems view, viewing conflict as a chain of
events wrought with various thoughts, emotions, and motivations. Taking such
a view can enable managers to approach conflict from a more flexible, adaptive
perspective.84
Cross-Cultural Conflict Management Differences across countries in conflict
resolution strategies may be based on differences in cultural values (see the
chapter on diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizations). Collectivist cultures see people as deeply embedded in c­ onnective social networks, whereas
individualist cultures see them as autonomous and independent. As a result,
collectivists are more likely to seek to preserve relationships and promote the
good of the group as a whole. They avoid the direct expression of conflict, preferring indirect methods for resolving differences of opinion. Collectivists may
also be more interested in demonstrations of concern and working through
third parties to resolve disputes, whereas individualists are more likely to confront differences of opinion directly and openly. For example, compared to
collectivist negotiators, their more individualist counterparts are more likely
to see offers as unfair and reject them. Another study revealed that, whereas
individualist managers were more likely to use competing tactics in the face
of conflicts, compromising and avoiding were the most preferred methods of
conflict management by collectivists.85 Interview data suggest, however, that
top management teams in collectivist high-technology firms prefer collaboration even more than compromising and avoiding.86
Cross-cultural negotiations can lead to trust issues.87 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.88
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.89
Having considered conflict—its nature, causes, and consequences—we now
turn to negotiation, which often resolves conflict.
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 490
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
491
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. And
there is the subtle: An employee agrees to cover for a colleague for a few minutes in exchange for a future favor. In today’s loosely structured organizations,
in which members work with colleagues in self-managed teams over whom they
have no direct authority and with whom they may not even share a common
supervisor, negotiation skills are critical.
We can define negotiation as a process that occurs when two or more parties communicate and confer with one another to come to a mutual agreement
on the exchange of goods or services.90 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.91 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.)
distributive and
­14-3 Contrast
integrative bargaining.
negotiation A process in which two or
more parties communicate and confer with
one another to come to a mutual agreement
on the exchange of goods or services.
Bargaining Strategies
There are two general approaches to negotiation—distributive bargaining and
integrative bargaining.92 As Exhibit 14-5 shows, they differ in their goals and motivation, focus, interests, information sharing, and duration of relationship. Let
us define each and illustrate the differences.
Distributive Bargaining Your team was not aware of a change in policy until it was
already happening.93 This policy meant that your team would receive 20 percent
Exhibit 14-5
Distributive Versus Integrative Bargaining
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
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 491
21/12/22 7:05 AM
492
PART 3 The Group
Exhibit 14-6
The Bargaining Zone
Party A’s aspiration range
Settlement
range
Party A’s
target
point
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.
Party B’s
resistance
point
Party B’s aspiration range
Party A’s
resistance
point
Party B’s
target
point
less 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 other’s 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 (see the chapter on power and politics)—that is, any gain I
make is at your expense, and vice versa. 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 engage in distributive bargaining.
The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14-6. Parties A
and B represent two negotiators. Each has a target point that defines what they
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. As long as 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.
First Offer Anchoring 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 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.94 Moreover, these initial offer anchors are
more effective the more precise they are because it changes the other party’s
perception of the negotiable range.95 For instance, if you make a first offer
for a service contract of $50,000, the purchasing party would be more likely to
consider a range of, say, $40,000 to $60,000. However, if you are more precise
and ask for $51,000, they are much more likely to consider a range of $50,000
to $52,000.
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.96
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.97 Another disadvantage to precision is that
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 492
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
493
if you make a precise offer before negotiations were even entered by both parties, the other party may be less likely to negotiate with you (because they may
perceive you as inflexible).98
Distributive Bargaining Strategy 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.99 If you want a higher economic return, than hardline strategies might 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 distorted).100 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 offer you $8,000
instead) can be an effective softline strategy that communicates your concession
(even if the concession is overstated).101
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.102­­ Moreover, when
one of these alternative attractive offers is no longer available, the negotiator
becomes more assertive and engaged in the negotiation process (having experienced loss) and is therefore positioned to obtain better outcomes, although
they might be less satisfied with the process.103
Distributive Bargaining in Career Management So what does what we know about
distributive negotiation mean for your career? Say that you have a job offer, and
your prospective employer asks you what sort of starting salary you want. Now is
the chance to direct the conversation and make your case—you have an opportunity to set the anchor, meaning you should ask for the highest salary you think
the employer could reasonably offer. Asking for a million dollars is only going to
make most of us look ridiculous, which is why we suggest being on the high end
of what you think is reasonable. Too often, we err on the side of caution, afraid of
scaring off the employer and thus settling for far too little. It is possible to scare
off an employer, and it is true employers do not like candidates to be too assertive in salary negotiations.104 What happens much more often is that we ask for
less than we could have obtained. So, when moving into a salary negotiation, be
sure to go in with the knowledge of industry salary rates and trends, build your
case prior to the discussion if possible, and do not make it all about you—make
it about the value you are providing to the company.105
Integrative Bargaining During her first pregnancy, one woman who worked full
time for the federal government knew that she wanted to reduce her hours so she
could spend more time with her child.106 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 went to her supervisor and discussed possibilities for a part-time work
arrangement and was able to successfully negotiate for this arrangement. This
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 493
21/12/22 7:05 AM
494
PART 3 The Group
Officials of General Motors and
United Auto Workers participate in
the ceremonial handshake that opens
new contract negotiations. They are
committed to integrative bargaining
and work toward negotiating win–win
settlements that boost GM’s competitiveness. From left are GM CEO
Mary Barra, UAW president Dennis
Williams, GM VP Cathy Clegg, and
UAW VP Cindy Estrada.
Source: Paul Sancya/AP Images
.
integrative bargaining Negotiation that
seeks one or more settlements that can
create a win–win solution.
Exhibit 14-7
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 a zero-sum situation. Of course, all parties must be engaged for integrative bargaining to work.
This appears to be more of a possibility in negotiations between multiple (rather
than two) negotiators because two people are more likely to see things in terms
of binary, win–lose trade-offs.107 Moreover, technique also appears to be important in integrative bargaining. Research shows that silent pauses in between offers
and counteroffers communicates to others that you are considering what they are
proposing, deliberately thinking about what they offer, and working with them to
create value for all parties.108
Exhibit 14-7 illustrates how the two bargaining strategies can be utilized
within the same negotiation episode. Early on in the episode, integrative strategies can be used, while later in the episode, distributive strategies can be used.
Continuing with the previous example, the employee could first clarify her needs
and articulate her interests to the supervisor and the supervisor would do the
same, all without trying to come to a compromise right away. If a compromise is
reached too early, it is more likely that one or more of the parties would settle for
Integration of Two Bargaining Strategies Within a Negotiation Episode
Integrative:
Clarify Needs
Integrative:
Articulate Interests
Try to understand
your needs and
other party’s needs
Focus on interests,
not positions;
articulate interest
clearly
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 494
Integrative:
Avoid Early
Compromise
Avoid compromising
too early, as that often
leads to sub-optimal
agreements – make
sure the interests of
both parties are met
Distributive:
Set High Goals
Once interests are
clarified, now is
the time to set goals
Distributive:
Slice the Pie
Now that the pie has
been expanded,
draw down
concessions so that
they get progressively
smaller
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
495
less than they could have obtained if they had been forced to consider the other
party’s interests, trade off issues, and be creative.109 For example, the employee
could have prematurely agreed to a half-day off a week. However, if both parties
discussed what they wanted (e.g., the employer only wanted the employee to be
working during a core time during the week and would be fine with flexibility
outside that core time, as long as she worked the full hours), she could have been
able to secure a much more attractive, flexible schedule. Similarly, it is important
not to walk away too soon or cave into the negotiation partner’s ultimatum—
persisting through the process can pay off in better negotiation outcomes.110
Once all of the needs and interests are established for both parties, the supervisor could then switch to a distributive strategy, setting goals aligned with the
company’s needs and interests while attempting to maximize the extent to which
both parties’ goals are met.
Choosing Bargaining Methods Integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining because the former builds long-term relationships.111 Integrative bargaining
bonds negotiators and allows them to leave the bargaining table feeling they have
achieved a victory. Distributive bargaining, however, can result in one party feeling
like they lost the negotiation. 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 we not 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.112 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 14-8 provides a simplified model of the negotiation process. It views
negotiation as composed 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.113
the five steps of
­14-4 Apply
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 history leading up to this negotiation? Who
is involved, and what are their perceptions of the situation? Then consider your
goals, in writing, with a range of outcomes from “most helpful” to “minimally
acceptable.” If you are a supply manager at Apple, for instance, and your goal is
to get a significant cost reduction from your telecom components supplier (e.g.,
Qualcomm), 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 opponent’s willingness to give
on key issues before the negotiation even starts end up with lower outcomes.114
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 495
21/12/22 7:05 AM
496
PART 3 The Group
Exhibit 14-8
The Negotiation Process
Preparation and
planning
Definition of
ground rules
Clarification and
justification
Bargaining and
problem solving
Closure and
implementation
BATNA The best alternative to a negotiated
agreement; the least a party in a negotiation
should accept.
When you can anticipate your negotiation partner’s position, you are better
equipped to counter arguments with facts and figures that support your position.
Once you have gathered your information, develop a strategy. You should determine your and the other side’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (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.
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.115 There is an interesting exception to this general
rule—-negotiators with absolutely no alternative to a negotiated agreement
sometimes “go for broke” because they do not even consider what would
happen if the negotiation falls through.116 Even though they are a safeguard against an inferior agreement, they are 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”).117 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 when
their chosen BATNA was not possible to begin with.118
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.
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 496
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation
497
CHAPTER 14
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 (power and politics) on
influence, as framing can be important here.
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.119 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.120
Closure and Implementation
The final step in the negotiation process is formalizing your agreement and
developing procedures necessary for implementing and monitoring it.121 For
major negotiations—from labor–management negotiations to bargaining over
service 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 or verbal confirmation.
Myth or Science?
Good Negotiators Rely on Intuition
I
ntuition often fails us in negotiation due to the unconscious biases
we hold. In fact, negotiators may
unintentionally engage in behavior that
contradicts their values and ethical
standards. The ethical implications of a
decision are often apparent when one
prepares for a negotiation. However,
the implications of our decisions often
fade away during the actual negotiation as we become more focused on
pragmatic concerns. As a result, the
cognitions and biases of negotiators
can interfere with reaching agreements
that reflect our interests.
Researchers have studied negotiators who engaged in empathizing (emotionally feeling what the other party
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 497
was feeling) and those who engaged in
perspective taking (view the world from
the other person’s perspective). The
evidence indicated that individuals are
better prepared to negotiate when they
imagine how their counterpart is thinking, not how they feel.
While we are often capable of
identifying the biases that influence
others, we are often unaware of the
biases that impact our behavior in
negotiations. This disconnect can be
explained by what psychologists have
identified as two different lenses, the
insider lens and the outsider lens, that
individuals utilize during negotiations.
A negotiator usually uses an insider
lens to make decisions when they are
deeply engaged in a specific situation
and relying on intuitive thinking. On
the other hand, a negotiator tends to
adopt an outsider lens when they are
removed from a situation and using
rational thinking. Unfortunately, adopting the outsider lens is frequently not
the default option during negotiations.
However, utilizing the outsider lens
rather than relying on intuition is vital
in preventing negotiators from being
influenced by biases that can ultimately lead negotiators to make irrational decisions.122
21/12/22 7:05 AM
498
PART 3 The Group
I­ ndividual Differences in Negotiation
Effectiveness
how individual
­14-5 Show
differences influence
negotiations.
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.123 On the one hand, some characteristics like
status impact negotiating effectiveness. Take CEOs, for example. They are ultimately able to bargain with corporate boards to get larger shares of residuals, ultimately resulting in shareholders getting less of the cut. Moreover, they have more
bargaining power in their negotiations with boards, prompting some researchers
to ask whether “CEOs ever lose.”124 On the other hand, there are certain personality traits and psychological individual differences that can have an effect on
negotiation effectiveness. For instance, 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 extroverted, open, and honest negotiators tend to have better experiences than others.125
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 only
weakly related, the answer is, at best, sort of.126 Studies of marketing managers,
lawyers, and construction supervisors suggest that when it comes to negotiation
effectiveness, people who are ambitious and likeable tend to fare the best.127
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. Although this prediction
may come true if the agreeable negotiator is bargaining with a partner who is
low on honesty or humility, overall, agreeableness is only weakly related to negotiation outcomes.128 Furthermore, if the agreeable person seeks to preserve
relationships at all costs and avoid straining them, then the person may be more
likely to fare worse in a distributive negotiation.129
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 an agreement faster, perceive less
conflict, display more positive emotions, and have better impressions of the
other negotiation partner.130 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.131
Self-efficacy (see the chapter on motivation theory) is one i­ndividualdifference variable that seems to relate consistently to negotiation outcomes.132
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 confident stake out stronger
claims, are less likely to back down from their positions, and exhibit confidence
that intimidates others. Conversely, those who are less confident and experience
more threats to their self-worth during negotiation are less likely to be assertive
and, therefore, experience suboptimal negotiation outcomes.133 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. One
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 498
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
499
way self-efficacy may operate is through autonomy and control. For instance,
executives who believed that their and their organization’s fate was changeable
were more likely to engage in entrepreneurial, negotiating behaviors (which
improved their financial performance in the long run).134
However, try not to be too confident: If you are negotiating with someone
who has power over you (e.g., a supervisor who will be judging your performance in the future), it would be prudent to try to prevent negative relationship
outcomes because you have more to lose.135 Moreover, a sense of ­entitlement
might lead you to demand excessive and unearned terms in a negotiation,
which can lead to unethical negotiation behavior, a damaged reputation, and
pernicious negotiation outcomes.136
Finally, some research suggests that emotional intelligence (EI) and emotion recognition ability is linked to gains in negotiation performance as well
as to perceptions of being more cooperative and likeable.137 Having an honest
reputation also engenders trust and reduces the extent to which negotiation
partners try to deceive you (but if you deceive them and break your reputation, watch out!).138 In the next section, we describe how specific emotions and
moods affect negotiations.
Moods and 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.139 A negotiator who shows anger can
induce concessions, for instance, because the other negotiator believes no further
concessions from the angry party are possible. The context matters because negotiators are trying to find a way into the inner world of their negotiation partners. If they
believe the emotion is incidentally being expressed as a part of the situation (and not
a genuine expression), they may disregard it, or it may not be as effective.140
A number of factors influence whether anger is effective in negotiations. One
factor that governs this outcome 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.141
Another factor is how genuine your anger is—“faked” anger, or anger produced
from surface acting, is not effective, but showing anger that is genuine (deep acting) is (see the chapter on emotion and mood).142 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.143
Moreover, having a history of showing anger actually induces more concessions
because the other party perceives the negotiator as “tough.”144 However, when
negotiating with the same partner, negative emotions spill over from negotiation
to negotiation, resulting in worse outcomes in subsequent negotiations.145 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.146 Finally, the effects of anger in negotiations vary 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 perception of East Asians as less quick to show anger.147 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.148
Several other emotions also have effects on negotiation performance. For
instance, anxiety appears to have an impact on negotiation. People who experience more anxiety about a negotiation may use deception more frequently in
dealing with others.149 Moreover, anxious negotiators expect lower outcomes,
respond to offers more quickly, and exit the bargaining process sooner, leading
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 499
21/12/22 7:05 AM
500
PART 3 The Group
them to obtain worse outcomes.150 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.151 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.152 Paradoxically, however, the excessive expression of sympathy and empathy (although leading to better relational outcomes) may actually hurt value capture in negotiation because it
moves the focus from the negotiation partners to one person’s situation.153
Even emotional unpredictability affects negotiation outcomes; 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.154 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.”155 However, emotional
ambivalence tends to be related to more integrative agreements and concession
making, as the ambivalent person is perceived as submissive.156
Culture and Race in Negotiations
Do people negotiate differently as a function of their culture? Yes, they appear
to. In general, it appears people generally negotiate more effectively within cultures than between them.
It appears that for successful cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially
important that the negotiators be high on the personality trait of openness (see
the chapter on personality and individual differences). This suggests a good
strategy is to choose cross-cultural negotiators who are high on openness and to
avoid factors such as time pressure that tend to inhibit learning about the other
party. Second, because emotions are culturally sensitive, negotiators especially
need to be aware of the emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiation. For
example, individuals from East Asian cultures feel that using anger in negotiations is not a desirable or legitimate tactic, so they may refuse to cooperate when
their negotiation partners become upset.157
Some research on negotiations in the United States and Egypt suggests that
the same language that leads to integrative agreements in Western cultures
can backfire in others.158 For example, in the United States, language that
People generally negotiate more effectively within cultures than between
them. Politeness and positivity characterize the typical conflict-avoidant
negotiations in Japan, such as with
labor union leader Hidekazu Kitagawa
(right), shown here presenting wage
and benefits demands to Ikuo
Mori, former president of Fuji Heavy
Industries, which makes Subaru
vehicles.
Source: Kyodo/Newscom
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 500
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation
CHAPTER 14
501
emphasizes cognitive, rational, and logical gains and losses tends to promote
integrative bargaining. However, this language in other cultures, such as Egypt,
can fail. Language that emphasizes honor, moral integrity, and protecting one’s
image and strength is preferable. 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.159
Although not much research has examined the role of race in negotiations, a recent
study has found that Black job seekers in the United States 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.160
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 tend to suggest that the influence of gender in negotiations is highly context dependent, despite very slight differences in
favor of men.161 For example, women may be more effective negotiators in collectivist cultures with high harmony and low assertiveness norms.162
The influence of gender on both negotiation behavior and negotiation outcomes has been examined. Compared to men, women tend to behave in a slightly
less assertive, less self-interested, more cooperative and concessional manner.163
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.164 Furthermore,
men actually behave more unethically in negotiations than women, behaving
more opportunistically and morally disengaging from the negotiation.165
However, when it comes to initiating negotiations, women are less likely to
initiate than men, especially when the situation was ambiguous and when gender role reinforcing information is present in the situational context.166 For
instance, as demonstrated in the OB Poll, women are less likely than men to
engage in salary negotiations following a job offer.
Although earlier research concluded that there was a slight benefit for men
in negotiation outcomes,167 an updated meta-analysis has found no significant
difference in men and women.168 Although men achieved better outcomes, on
average, these differences were reduced when controlling for negotiation experience and knowledge of the zone of bargaining, when negotiating on behalf
OB POLL
Gender Differences in Salary Negotiations
Have you ever negotiated your pay?
No
60%
Yes
40%
Women
Yes
52%
No
48%
Men
Source: Based on M. Leonhardt, “60% of Women Say They’ve Never Negotiated Their Salary—and Many Quit Their Job Instead,” CNBC, January 31, 2020,
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/31/women-more-likely-to-change-jobs-to-get-pay-increase.html
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 501
21/12/22 7:05 AM
502
PART 3 The Group
of others, and when gendered role norms were not activated in the context.169
Moreover, one analysis of data from thousands of women and men negotiators
found that the gender gap only existed when women had a strong outside alternative (e.g., they were more likely to leave the negotiation and get the better
option elsewhere than stay and “win” the negotiation).170
Aspiring Toward Gender Equity in Negotiations Despite virtually no differences in
negotiation performance and outcomes, women still feel more hesitant to initiate
negotiations in organizations. What can be done to change this troublesome state
of affairs? First, organizational culture plays a role. If an organization, even unwittingly, reinforces gender-stereotypic behaviors (men ­negotiating competitively,
women negotiating cooperatively), it will negatively affect negotiations when anyone goes against stereotype. Men and women need to know that it is acceptable
for each to show a full range of negotiating behaviors. Thus, a female negotiator
who behaves competitively and a male negotiator who behaves cooperatively need
to know that they are not violating expectations. Making sure negotiations are
designed to focus on well-defined and ­work-related terms also has promise for
reducing gender differences by minimizing the ambiguous space for stereotypes
to operate. This focus on structure and work relevance also obviously helps focus
negotiations on factors that improve the organization’s performance.
Second, other researchers argue that what can best benefit women is to break
down gender stereotypes for the individuals who hold them.171 In the long term,
gender identity awareness and the elimination of gender role stereotypes will help
women advance in negotiation contexts. However, although ignoring gender differences (i.e., “gender blindness”) is often looked down upon in general, some
research suggests that it can be beneficial in certain work contexts. Negotiation is
one of them—research shows that gender-blindness in these contexts empowers
women to take negotiating actions and builds confidence, taking the attention
away from gender and putting it toward the actual resources to be exchanged.172
Negotiating in a Social Context
the social
­14-6 Describe
factors that influence
negotiations.
We have been mostly discussing negotiations that occur among parties that meet privately and perhaps only on one occasion. In organizations, however, 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 supervisor 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.173 The most effective way to build trust is to
behave in an honest way across repeated interactions.174 Then others will feel
more comfortable making open-ended offers with many different outcomes. This
helps to achieve win–win outcomes because both parties can work to achieve what
is most important to themselves while still benefitting the other party.
Sometimes we either trust or distrust people based on what we hear from
others through the grapevine (see the chapter on power and politics) about
a person’s characteristics. What type of characteristics help a person develop
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 502
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation
ALDI: Downstream Environmental and Social
Implications of Supplier Negotiations
ALDI is an international supermarket chain headquartered in Germany.
For over forty years, it has sought to
provide high-quality groceries at everyday low prices. How does ALDI fulfill
this mission and serve 40 million
customers each month? It does so
through volume purchasing, operating
through exclusive brand products (e.g.,
90 percent of all products offered are
exclusive to ALDI), overstocked nonfood products that revolve in and out of
circulation, and avoiding nonessential
services (e.g., banking, pharmacies)
that other grocers may provide.
Given its business model, ALDI
strives to forge transparent, fair, and
sustainable relationships with its
suppliers, who play a crucial role in
enabling it to fulfill its mission. In fact,
worldwide, ALDI has made many great
strides toward corporate social responsibility (CSR) in its supply chain. For
instance, it is the fourth most progressive brand worldwide in its progress
phasing out unsustainable palm oil
from its chains. ALDI has been lauded
by many for its efforts to carry more
water-efficient fruit and vegetables.
(About 70 percent of global freshwater
usage stems from fruit and vegetable
farming.) Moreover, it has set many
ambitious goals, such as diverting
90 percent of its operational waste,
100 percent green packaging for all of
its products, and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions by 26 percent by 2025.
However, ALDI has recently come
under fire for some of its fruit sourcing practices. Namely, the results of
a recent pricing negotiation agreement have caused quite a stir that
has reverberated through the supply
chain. Year over year, suppliers and
watchdogs have become concerned
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 503
with the steadily decreasing ALDI contract prices for bananas. The 2021
price has fallen by about fifteen cents
per pound from the price in 2020.
Banana Link (a banana commodities
trade union) and a group of Central
and South American banana producers
(from Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala,
Honduras, Panama, and Costa Rica)
suggest that this is a signal to the
market of going against its sustainable
sourcing commitments.
These lower negotiated prices worry
banana suppliers, who think this will
result in a labor cost squeeze and
labor conflict as well as market instability. Even worse, downstream effects
may present themselves as the abandonment of rural communities, contributing to local poverty, undermining
social cohesion, and hampering development in South American countries.
Beyond its effect on producers, which
many suggest amounts to an earnings
reduction by as much as 50 percent for
smaller banana growers, many worry
about a price war and other retailers
following suit. In many ways, ALDI’s
contract is “the most important for
South American banana growers.” It
exercises “special market power given
its price benchmarking capacity.” The
downstream effect of this pricing decision could reverberate through the
market as other buyers follow suit.
On the other hand, ALDI has not
disputed the pricing reduction and
notes that it will not affect the price
paid to farmers. It suggests that the
lowered prices stem from differences
in exchange rates and lowered transportation costs due to oil prices plummeting during COVID-19. However, the
union and producers take issues with
this statement and note that ALDI
503
CHAPTER 14
Toward a Better World
should not lower the price to producers without lowering the price to
consumers. They see this as an action
detrimental to banana farmers and
suppliers, especially during a worldwide
health crisis and Hurricane Eta, which
hit several Central American countries
hard. Moreover, many note that ALDI
would make negotiation decisions like
this public at one point—but now, they
claim its practices are more opaque.
As Alistair Smith of Banana Link noted,
“Aldi is listening and not learning . . .
Aldi needs to align their purchasing
practices with their ethical aspirations.
We would encourage their commercial
decision-makers to become more open
to discussion.”
In a joint statement, Banana Link
and the American banana producers
state that “producing in a sustainable
way entails costs which are assumed
exclusively by the producer, while the
rest of the value chain actors avoid
any responsibility . . . Aldi [does] not
assume their share of responsibility
and maintain an opaque negotiating
position that endangers the subsistence of the producers.” The pricing
issues in the banana market have
led The Rainforest Alliance to take a
stand. Leonie Haakshorst, the lead
for banana and fruit at the Alliance,
noted that “prices have gone down
in the past ten years, while the [sustainability] requirements have gone
up, as well as costs.” As such, the
2020 Agriculture Standard has a new
concept for “shared responsibility,” in
which shared financial responsibility is
advocated throughout the supply chain
for producers, workers, and the purchasing companies.175
21/12/22 7:05 AM
504
PART 3
The Group
a trustworthy reputation? Individuals who have a reputation for integrity can
also be more effective in negotiations. 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 more solid reputations are better liked and have more friends and allies—in other words, they have more
social resources, which may give them more implicit 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.176 Repeated negotiations built on a foundation of trust also broaden
the range of options because a favor or concession today can be offered in
return for some repayment further down the road.177 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.178 Repeated negotiations also make integrative approaches more workable because a sense of trust and reliability has
been built up.179 In sum, it is clear that an effective negotiator needs to think
about more than just the outcomes of a single interaction. Negotiators need
to think about the relationship they have (and will continue to have) with the
negotiating partner once an agreement has been reached.
An Ethical Choice
Ethical Challenges in Negotiation
W
ould you ever lie in a negotiation? You may immediately
say no, but imagine you have
spent months looking for a job with
little success. However, you recently
received an offer for the position of
director of marketing. During your discussion, the hiring manager asks if
you have any other offers on the table.
You do not actually have any other
offers. Still, you find yourself saying
that you have several other offers.
When they ask for more details, you
tell them that all the offers are significantly higher than the one the company put forth.
Although you did not intend to
deceive your potential employer, negotiations can place us in high-pressure
situations that present ethical challenges. Research demonstrates that
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 504
the larger the reward, the more likely
we are to lie, showing that our ethical
standards may be more flexible than
we would like to believe. When negotiating with groups, people are also more
likely to lie than with just one person.
The reason is that group interactions
are perceived as less personal, which
becomes a perception that individuals use to justify unethical behavior.
Finally, research indicates that whether
someone will use unethical negotiation
techniques varies depending on the
negotiating partner’s nationality.
Here are some strategies you can
employ to navigate some of these ethical challenges:
1. Build relationships. Negotiators are
less likely to utilize unethical tactics
when they know their counterpart
well and trust them. They understand that their relationship will be
in jeopardy if the other side discovers that they have engaged in unethical behavior.
2. Negotiate in person. Research has
shown that direct face-to-face contact between negotiating parties
decreases the use of ethically ambiguous tactics compared with negotiations conducted via e-mail or
phone.
3. Get to know the whole person.
Negotiators tend to rely on stereotypes when attempting to manage
cultural differences in international
negotiation. Instead, take the time
to learn about the negotiating partner’s culture and get to know them
individually, including their skills
and work experience.180
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
505
Third-Parties in 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. Mediators
are widely used in labor–management negotiations and in civil court disputes. Their overall effectiveness is fairly impressive. For example, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported a settlement rate
through mediation at 72.1 percent.181 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.
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.
Moreover, like mediators, arbitrators are supposed to be impartial and independent. Sometimes, conflicts of interest can arise, such as how Kenneth Robinson was
appointed as arbitrator in multiple cases with several parties (in several different
suits) concerning the Deepwater Horizon oil rig fire in the Gulf of Mexico.182
A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the negotiation partner. 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. 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.183 Comparing conciliation to mediation in terms of effectiveness
has proven difficult because the two overlap a great deal. However, sometimes
the authority vested in arbitrators and mediators is needed. For example,
­twenty-seven employees who worked at the Estonian HKScani Rakvere meat
company went on strike in late 2017 protesting low wages. Despite involving a
conciliator, the dispute continues to be unsolved because neither party is willing to communicate with one another civilly. As the conciliator noted, “I am
also disappointed with [the] results. If one party says that the salary needs to be
raised by 50 percent and the other party says 0 percent, and neither side gives
up, they will never reach an agreement.”184
the roles and
­14-7 Assess
functions of third-party
negotiations.
mediator A neutral third party who
facilitates a negotiated solution by using
reasoning, persuasion, and suggestions for
alternatives.
arbitrator A third party to a negotiation
who has the authority to dictate an
agreement.
conciliator A trusted third party who
provides an informal communication link
between the negotiator and the negotiation
partner.
Summary
Conflict is an inevitable part of organizational life. As long as people hold different opinions, value different things, see the future differently, or contest over
control of valued resources, conflict will arise. However, negotiation is a tool
people can use to stave off conflict or otherwise address its more nefarious effects and come to an agreement. In this chapter, we described how conflict can
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 505
21/12/22 7:05 AM
506
PART 3 The Group
be both functional and dysfunctional in organizations. Although we often think
of it in dysfunctional terms, conflict can be a good thing when the organization is stagnating or when there is a desire to produce novel ideas and innovation from the tension. Moreover, there are many different types of conflict. It
can occur within interpersonal relationships, over the nature of work, and over
the way work gets done. It can also occur between people or groups or within
groups. Understanding conflict of a process is also essential because it outlines
where problems can arise, how parties can approach the conflict productively,
and where workers and negotiators (such as mediators, arbitrators, and conciliators) can intervene effectively. Concerning negotiation, two general approaches
revolve around whether the resources being negotiated over are fixed or variable. Just as there is an explicit conflict process, so too is there a negotiation
process that is important to follow. Careful attention to all parts of the negotiation process (but particularly the preparation and planning phase) is critical to
negotiation success. Moreover, certain factors are critical in influencing the success of negotiations, including negotiators’ personality traits, emotions, culture,
race, and gender identity. Overall, we must realize that conflict and negotiation
are social phenomena. They have substantial implications for reputation and
relationship management.
Implications for Managers
Do not try to discourage conflict at all costs—sometimes it is beneficial,
like when trying to brainstorm new ideas or approaches for a new project.
● Communication skills training, efficient organizational structures, skillful
emotion regulation, and an openness to others’ personalities and values
are all key in averting unproductive conflict.
● When choosing conflict-handling intentions or conflict management
strategies, competing and avoiding are rarely effective. Try to take a collaborative, compromising, or accommodating approach depending on
your goals and the situation.
● Conflict management is a strategic enterprise. It involves perceiving conflict accurately through multiple lenses (e.g., awareness of cross-cultural
perspectives), managing others, highlighting shared interests, open discussion, and, at times, instigating conflict.
● Integrative negotiation strategies often lead to desirable outcomes, but
can be combined with distributed negotiation strategies to reach even better outcomes.
● When both parties have agreed to a negotiation, you will be at an advantage if you can anchor the negotiations by making a precise first offer.
● Although both hardline and softline negotiation strategies have their benefits, softline strategies are often better in the long run if the relationship
needs to be preserved.
● Softline strategies can show your negotiation partner that you are flexible
(e.g., giving multiple offers that are of equal value) and giving concessions (e.g., communicating phantom anchors; in other words, you were
going to ask for more, but you are going to ask for less to preserve the
relationship).
● Preparation and planning is the most crucial part of the negotiation process. Before going into the negotiation, it is often essential to establish
your (and guess your negotiation partners’) best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). This is the least you (or your partner) would
●
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 506
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
507
accept from the negotiation. This establishes how much you or your partner is willing to lose.
● Keep in mind that many personality traits and individual differences influence negotiation effectiveness. These have important implications for
who to select as negotiators (e.g., personality), what to train for negotiation effectiveness (e.g., communication skills and emotion regulation),
and what your organization can do from a diversity, equity, and inclusion
(DEI) standpoint to foster equitable negotiations.
● Always keep in mind that negotiation is a social activity—it is critical to
be aware of your actions’ effect on your reputation and relationships with
others.
● When negotiation is unsuccessful and when conflict persists, it may be of
use to bring in a third party (e.g., a mediator, arbitrator, conciliator).
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 507
21/12/22 7:05 AM
508
PART 3
The Group
Nonunion Positions and the Gig Economy
Are Bad for Workers
POINT
W
hat do Uber, DoorDash, and Amazon Mechanical Turk all
have in common? These platforms are fuel for short-term
freelance work and reflect what economists have dubbed
the gig economy. Fifty years ago, employers expected workers to stay
with a company for thirty years. In exchange for their loyalty, employees
were given more opportunities and a pension. Unlike the labor market
of today, companies promoted talent from within. As this practice fell
by the wayside, employers hired employees for shorter and shorter
periods. Now, many new jobs are not long-term or even short-term
positions: They are gigs. Employees work as independent contractors, using third-party platforms to connect to clients. Because these
employees do not have a traditional employment contract, they have
complete flexibility: They can work as much or as little as they want.
Unfortunately, many of these platforms have a dirty secret. Unlike
regular employment, people employed primarily through gigs do not
have the benefits of a traditional job. Because they are considered
self-employed, they do not get paid for overtime, do not receive benefits, and have no collective bargaining power. There is also evidence
that they are replacing rather than supplementing more stable employment. For example, Uber and Lyft drivers tripled in Silicon Valley
from 2012 to 2014, while payrolled cab and limo jobs decreased by
31 percent in the same period.
Without the ability to collectively bargain, the labor market is akin
to the Wild West frontier. That is why many freelancers on these platforms are trying to unionize. In New York and Seattle, labor unions
are trying to allow gig employees to create collective bargaining units.
Doing so will allow employees to demand health benefits and overtime. It will also ensure that these employees make a living hourly
wage, rare for gig employees. Despite working sixty hours a week,
many employees still do not make as much as traditional employees. However, many gig workers turn to the Freelancers Union for legal
advice, access to insurance, and many other resources despite the
inability to collectively bargain.
Yes, it is great for employers to sell younger generations on the
flexibility of these positions; however in exchange for flexibility, they
are also losing the power to negotiate for fair working conditions. Let
us stop pretending that freelance work platforms like Uber are suitable for the economy and leave the gig economy trend at the curb.
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 508
COUNTERPOINT
W
hile the gig economy has its drawbacks, these platforms
exist for a reason. Employers and employees alike are fed
up with traditional employment. Yes, some people who work
through freelance apps use it as a primary source of income. But
there are just as many, if not more, who just want a flexible second
job to get a little extra cash. If these positions were like the services
they are replacing (e.g., cab companies), then gig employees would
have to agree to specific policies regarding sick days and work a set
schedule.
Many are also skeptical of the idea that freelancers are replacing
traditional employment. Yes, some city-level data shows that gig-based
jobs increased while payroll jobs decreased. But more data suggest
that contractor and payroll jobs have increased in most sectors that
support freelance platforms. For example, while freelance platforms
like Uber Eats increased over four years, payroll jobs in hospitality also
increased. The same is true for the transportation industry over the
same period. If anything, the reason these freelance platforms have
been so successful is that these industries are growing. It is not that
they are replacing traditional services—they are meeting the demand
that traditional services cannot fulfill.
The benefits of having a collective bargaining agreement may also
be exaggerated. Whenever a group tries to create a collective bargaining agreement, it causes conflict. One poll indicated that most
employees (80 percent) believed leaders will not protect the group’s
interests as a whole. Instead, leaders usually use their power in numbers to protect their own self-interests in negotiations.
Collective bargaining does not just hurt businesses—it also hurts
the public. For example, the International Civil Aviation Organization
has been trying to put cameras in commercial airline cockpits. These
cameras would allow authorities and employers to monitor pilots
on the job. These videos can help piece together why plane crashes
occur. Yet pilots have been using collective bargaining techniques to
fight the initiative because it violates airline pilots’ privacy. They also
insist that it could be used to “lead investigators away from accurate
conclusions” regarding employees’ performance.
Yes, traditional employment allows employees to bargain for rights
as a group. But this also leads to concessions and conflict that do not
benefit employees or their employers.185
21/12/22 7:05 AM
509
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
CHAPTER REVIEW
QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW
14-1
What are the three types of conflict and the
three loci of conflict?
14-2 What are the steps in the conflict process?
14-3 What are the differences between distributive
14-5 How do individual differences influence
negotiations?
14-6 What are the social factors that influence
negotiations?
and integrative bargaining?
14-7 What are the roles and functions of third-party
14-4 What are the five steps in the negotiation
negotiations?
process?
APPLICATION AND EMPLOYABILITY
As you learned in this chapter, conflict can be beneficial
in certain contexts. However, as we portray it more often,
it can also be a very destructive force. Thankfully, through
conflict management and negotiation practices, you have
learned how and when negotiation and conflict resolution strategies may be used to address its adverse effects.
While exploring these topics, you used many skills that can
help you be more employable. You developed your critical
thinking, creativity, communication, and social responsibility competencies by evaluating whether good negotia-
tors rely on their intuition, considering the downstream
effects of corporate negotiation on the environment and
sustainability, outlining the ethical challenges in negotiation, and debating the benefits of the gig economy for
workers. In the next section, you will develop these skills
further while also using your leadership skills to resolve a
conflict between coworkers, assess how to handle conflict
resulting from an o
­ pen-floor-plan office design, and participate in a negotiation role play.
EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE A Negotiation Role Play
You will consider two scenarios for this case: One is more
distributive, the other more integrative. Form pairs, with
one of you taking the role of the engineering director
and the other taking the role of the marketing director.
Read only your own side’s specific information for the two
negotiation processes. The overall situation is the same
for both scenarios, but the priorities and outlook for the
parties change depending on whether you are negotiating the “contested resources” scenario or the “combined
future” scenario.
The Case
Cytrix develops integrated bicycle and running performance systems. Runners and bikers wear the Cytrix watch,
which uses GPS signals to identify their location and the
distance they have covered. This information can then be
uploaded to the Cytrix Challenge website, where users
record their performance over time. Social media tools
also allow them to compare their performance relative to
that of friends. The majority of users are either amateur
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 509
student-athletes or committed adult hobbyists like marathon runners.
The organization needs to determine how to allocate
a fixed pool of resources for future development between
the marketing and engineering groups. Rather than making an executive decision about resource allocation, the
top management team has asked the respective teams to
allocate $30 million for planned future development and
decide who will run different parts of the project.
Specific Information for the Marketing Group
Only the marketing manager should read this section.
The marketing group has been tracking the major sales
areas and has concluded that Cytrix has saturated the market. New sources of customers, especially general consumers interested in health but are not committed athletes,
will need to be considered for future growth. Research
into sales of competitive products and areas where competitors are failing to meet consumer demands is needed.
21/12/22 7:05 AM
510
PART 3 The Group
The marketing group’s primary goal is to allocate sufficient resources to finance the research. The group also
wants to retain control over which new products will be
developed. Marketing would prefer to see engineering act
in a consulting role, determining how best to manufacture the devices that fit the needs identified above.
Specific Information for the Engineering Group
Only the engineering manager should read this section.
The engineering group has recently been tracking the
development of new hardware to improve the accuracy
of distance and speed estimates in remote areas. Several
other companies are already experimenting with similar
designs. Engineering believes it will be necessary to develop the technology further to realize this improvement
fully, so it is both lightweight and inexpensive to produce.
The engineering group’s primary goal is to allocate sufficient resources to develop these new technologies. The
engineers would prefer to see marketing act in a consulting role, determining how best to advertise and deliver
the new devices.
Contested Resources Scenario
The marketing and engineering departments are locked
in a power struggle. Your side (either marketing or engineering) should try to direct the most significant possible
proportion of both money and authority toward your proposed program. You still need to think of a solution. The
other side ultimately agrees to assist you in implementing
the program. If you cannot reach an agreement for
shared resources, the CEO will appoint new directors for
both groups.
­ ombined Future Scenario
C
The marketing and engineering departments are eager to
find a positive solution. Both sides should try to see that
the company’s future needs are met. You know that to
achieve success, everyone needs to work together, so you
would like to find a way to divide the money and resources
that benefits both marketing and engineering. Plans can
incorporate multiple techniques for sharing and collaborating with resources.
The Negotiation
At the start of the negotiation, the instructor randomly assigns half the groups to the contested resources scenario
and the other half to the combined future scenario. Begin
the process by outlining the goals and resources for your
side of the negotiation. Then negotiate over the terms
described in your scenario, attempting to advocate for a
solution that matches your perspective.
Debriefing
Afterward, you will get together with the other students to
discuss the processes used. Especially consider the differences in outcomes between the contested resources and
combined future scenarios. Either scenario could arise in
a natural work environment, so think about how different
negotiation situations give rise to different strategies, tactics, and outcomes.
ETHICAL DILEMMA To Intervene or Not to Intervene?
About a year ago, Finley noticed an issue developing between two of the coworkers on his team. It was likely not
apparent to everyone as they never yelled at one another
or were overtly hostile. However, they began to avoid
each other and would not sit near one another at meetings. Finley noticed that the tension between the two had
begun to affect their team’s work. Finley decided it was
necessary to figure out the underlying reason that the two
were not getting along. Finley decided to talk with one
of them, as they were close friends. After listening to the
friend describe the situation, Finley provides friendly support: Finley is available if they ever need advice or want
to vent.
Despite Finley’s best efforts, the issue persists. Finley worries that it may escalate and ultimately impact the team’s
success. Finley wonders about making their supervisor
aware of the situation in hopes of finally resolving the
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 510
conflict. However, Finley worries about the consequences
of involving the supervisor and ultimately decides to try
to act as a mediator, arranging a conversation with both
coworkers. At the end of the meeting, the two coworkers
only agree to continue avoiding one another as much as
possible.
Questions
14-8. How would you have handled the conflict between your two coworkers? Should you have
tried to resolve the conflict or stayed out of it
altogether?
14-9. At what point, if any, would you escalate the situation and bring it to your supervisor’s attention?
14-10. As a team member, do you believe you have a
responsibility to act as a mediator to ensure the
conflict does not impact the team’s success?186
21/12/22 7:05 AM
Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14
511
CASE INCIDENT Disorderly Conduct
The sound of Matt and Peter’s arguing is familiar to
­everyone in the office by now. To make the best use of
space and ensure a free flow of discussion and ideas,
the founder of Markay Design decided to do something
about the office layout. He decided to convert the onefloor ­office of the company to an open plan with no walls
­between workers. The goal of such a layout is to eliminate
boundaries and enhance creativity. But for Matt and Peter,
the new arrangement creates a growing sense of tension.
The argument boils down to the question of workspace
order and organization. Peter prefers to keep his desk
completely clean and clear, and he keeps a stack of cleaning wipes in a drawer to eliminate any dust or dirt. On
the other hand, Matt likes to keep all his work visible on
his desk, so sketches, plans, magazines, and photos are
scattered everywhere, alongside boxes of crackers and
­
coffee cups. Peter finds it hard to concentrate when he
sees Matt’s piles of materials everywhere. At the same
time, Matt feels he can be more creative and free-flowing
when he is not forced to clean and organize constantly.
Many of Matt and Peter’s coworkers wish they would just
let the issue drop. Peter and Matt enjoyed a good working relationship in the past, with Peter’s attention to detail
and thorough planning serving to rein in some of Matt’s
wild inspirations. But of late, their collaborations have
been derailed in disputes.
emerging body of research has examined so-called conflict cultures in organizations. The findings suggest having a culture that actively avoids and suppresses conflicts
is a­ ssociated with lower levels of creativity. Cultures that
push conflict u
­ nderground but fail in reducing the underlying tensions can become passive-aggressive. These cultures become marked by underhanded behavior against
other coworkers.
Ultimately, finding a way through the clutter dispute
will probably be an ongoing process to find a balance
­between perspectives. Both Matt and Peter worry that
their usually positive work relationship will be too contentious to bear if they cannot find a solution. That
would be a real mess.
Questions
14-11. D
escribe some of the factors that led this situation to become an open conflict.
14-12. D
o you think this is an issue worth generating
conflict over? What are the potential costs and
benefits of Matt and Peter having an open discussion of the issues?
14-13. H
ow can Matt and Peter develop an active
problem-solving discussion to resolve this conflict? What could effectively be changed, and
what is probably going to remain a problem?187
Everyone knows it is not productive to engage in conflicts
over every minor irritant in the workplace. However, altogether avoiding conflict can be equally harmful. An
M14_ROBB0025_19_GE_C14.indd 511
21/12/22 7:05 AM