280 likes | 492 Views
Conflict. CONFLICT. LIKE RAINFALL POSITIVE :TASK CONFLICT (ISSUE RELEVANT , NOT TOO SEVERE ) THOROUGH EVAL., CREATIVE NEGATIVE: EMOTIONAL CONFLICT (PERSONAL CONFLICT , TOO INTENSE ) MAKES RESOULTION DIFFICULT. Task Conflict. Tjosvold Constructive Controversy.
E N D
CONFLICT • LIKE RAINFALL • POSITIVE :TASK CONFLICT (ISSUE RELEVANT, NOT TOO SEVERE) • THOROUGH EVAL., CREATIVE • NEGATIVE: EMOTIONAL CONFLICT (PERSONAL CONFLICT, TOO INTENSE) • MAKES RESOULTION DIFFICULT
Task Conflict • Tjosvold Constructive Controversy Nemeth: Dissent leads to more divergent thinking & critical evaluation
Task Conflict (Jehn) • Curvilinear Relationship with performance, contingent on task type. • Routine task: A little Task Conflict improves performance, but more decreases performance • Nonroutine task: Increasing Task Conflict improves performance until, but after a moderately high level further increases hurt performance
PERSONAL CONFLICT CAUSES PROBLEMS • LACK OF GOOD COMMUNICATION • (TRUCKING STUDY)
TRUCKING STUDY ACME START ACME END BOLT START BOLT END
PERSONAL CONFLICT CAUSES PROBLEMS • LACK OF GOOD COMMUNICATION • SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION (We/ They) ETHNOCENTRISM • DISTORTED PERCEPTIONS (FOOTBALL, 2-VALUE) • LACK OF TRUST (SFP) • POOR COORDINATION • TENDENCY TO ESCALATE (BEAT OTHER VS SELF-INTEREST)
Discontinuity: More Cooperation in Interpersonal Interactions than in Intergroup Interactions
MIXED MOTIVE CONFLICTS • DESIRE TO GET ONE’S WAY, BUT • DESIRE TO AVOID OR END CONFLICT • (LABOR DISPUTE, ARMS RACE, WHERE TO GO ON A DATE)
CONFLICT RESOLUTION • LESS EFFECTIVE PROCESSES • THREATS, COERCIONTRUCKING STUDY, MONOPOLY • UNCONDITIONAL COOPERATION QUAKER STUDY • GROUP REPRESENTATIVESTEND TO BE LESS FLEXIBLE • INFORMATION/ MORAL APPEALS
CONFLICT RESOLUTION • MODERATELY EFFECTIVE PROCESSES • COMMUNICATION/ INTERACTION • CONDITIONAL BENEVOLENCE • HARD BARGAINING
9K seller’s limit objective value 10K 11.5K seller’s LOA Seller’s Aspiration Range Seller
8K buyer’s LOA 9K seller’s limit Buyer’s Aspiration Range objective value 10K Buyer buyer’s limit 11K 11.5K seller’s LOA Seller’s Aspiration Range Seller
8K buyer’s LOA 9K seller’s limit Buyer’s Aspiration Range objective value 10K Buyer buyer’s limit 11K 11.5K seller’s LOA Seller’s Aspiration Range Non-Extreme Initial Position Moderately Extreme Initial Position Seller
MORE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES • THIRD PARTY (MONOPOLY,CARTER) • SUPERORDINATE GOALS (CAMP STUDY, JIGSAW CLASSROOMS) • GRIT (STEPWISE ONE-SIDED COOP)
DUAL CONCERN MODEL Yielding Problem (Soft Bargaining) Solving Compromise Concern About Other’s Outcomes Inaction Contending (Avoiding) (Hard Barg.) Concern About Own Outcomes
DUAL CONCERN MODEL Yielding Problem (Soft Bargaining) Solving Concern About Other’s Outcomes Allocative Inaction Contending (Avoiding) (Hard Barg.) Concern About Own Outcomes
DUAL CONCERN MODEL Yielding Problem (Soft Bargaining) Solving Concern About Other’s Outcomes Integrative Inaction Contending (Avoiding) (Hard Barg.) Concern About Own Outcomes
MORE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES • INTEGRATIVE AGREEMENT,WIN/WIN (OPEN WINDOW, CABINETS) • PARTIALLY INTEGRATIVE (WAGE-JOB SECURITY TRADEOFF; COMPUTER PURCHASE)
MORE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES • PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION 1. Separate People From the Problem 2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions 3. Generate a Variety of Win/Win Possibilities 4. Insist That the Results be Based on Some Objective Standard