One would expect the outcomes of interpersonal conflict that fully satisfy the expectations of both parties to be functional for an organization. Previous studies generally indicate that a problem-solving or integrating style by the members of an organization leads to greater satisfaction and effectiveness of the organi- zational members.
A study by Aram, Morgan, and Esbeck (1971) suggested that team collabo- ration was positively related to satisfaction of individuals’ needs, but not to organizational performance. Misquita (1998) reported that when subordinates perceived that their supervisors were handling conflict with an integrating style, their organizational commitment increased. If the subordinates perceived that their supervisors were using avoiding and dominating styles, their organizational commitment reduced. Weider-Hatfield and Hatfield’s (1995) two studies ex- plored the relationship between the five styles of handling conflict and their perceptions of organizational effectiveness, using a human resource model as a guide. Results showed that subordinates’ use of the integrating style was posi- tively associated with six individual and organizational outcomes (job satisfac- tion, global equity, system outcomes, job outcomes, performance outcomes, and interpersonal outcomes). Also, the compromising style was positively associated with interpersonal outcomes, the dominating style was negatively associated with job satisfaction, and dominating and avoiding styles were negatively as- sociated with interpersonal outcomes.
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967a) indicated that a confrontation style was used to deal with intergroup conflict to a significantly greater degree in higher than lower-performing organizations. Likert and Likert (1976) strongly argued, and provided some evidence to suggest, that an organization that encourages partic- ipation and problem-solving behaviors attains higher level of effectiveness. Re- cent studies on the integrative style of handling conflict show consistent results. Use of this style results in high joint benefit for the parties, better decisions, and greater satisfaction of the partner (Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988; Wall & Galanes, 1986). Similar conclusions were reached in studies by Korbanik, Baril, and Watson (1993) and Johnson (1989). Burke (1969) suggested that, in general, a confrontation (integrating) style was related to effective management of conflict and that forcing (dominating) and withdrawing (avoiding) were related to the ineffective management of conflict.
gests that all five styles of handling conflict are useful depending on situations. The situations where each style is appropriate or inappropriate were presented in Table 3.1. This approach to conflict management is consistent with the con- tingency or situational theories of leadership discussed in Chapter 3. According to these theories, effective leaders select and use the styles of handling conflict depending on the situation so that their goals are effectively attained. For ex- ample, an integrative or participative style is appropriate for a leader when he or she is faced with a complex problem that requires input and commitment from subordinates for effective formulation and implementation of solutions. A dominating style may be appropriate when the task or problem is simple or routine.
NEGOTIATION
Fisher and Ury (1981), in their excellent book, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, make a very good point that everybody is a negotiator. Whenever we have a conflict with another party, we are required to negotiate. Negotiation skills are essential for managing interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflicts. Since managers spend more than one-fifth of their time dealing with conflict, they need to learn how to negotiate effectively. Sometimes they are required to negotiate with their superiors, subordinates, and peers, and, at other times, they are required to mediate conflict between their subordinates. Fisher and Ury (1981; see also Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1993) have forcefully argued that a method called principled negotiation or negotiation on merits can be used to manage any conflict. Principled negotiation involves the use of an integrating style of handling conflict. Fisher and Ury’s four principles of ne- gotiation relate to people, interests, options, and criteria.
Separate the People from the Problem
If the parties can concentrate on substantive conflict instead of on affective conflict, they may be able to engage in the problem-solving process. Unfortu- nately, “emotions typically become entangled with the objective merits of the problem. . . . Hence, before working on the substantive problem, the ‘people problem’ should be disentangled from it and dealt with separately” (Fisher & Ury, 1981, p. 11). In other words, the conflicting parties should come to work with and not against each other to deal with their common problem effectively. Focusing on the problem instead of on the other party helps to maintain their relationship. Hocker and Wilmot (1991) suggest that for parties in interpersonal conflicts, “long-term relational or content goals can become superordinate goals that reduce conflict over short-term goals, but only if you separate the people from the problem” (p. 218).
124 Managing Conflict in Organizations
Focus on Interests, Not Positions
This proposition is designed to overcome the problem of focusing on stated positions of the parties because the goal of conflict management is to satisfy their interests. A position is what a party wants, that is, a specific solution to an interest. If a bargainer starts with a position, he or she may overlook many creative alternative solutions for satisfying the interests. Fisher and Ury (1981) argue, “When you do look behind opposed positions for the motivating interests, you can often find an alternative position which meets not only your interests but theirs as well” (p. 43). This is especially true in organizations where members are very often concerned about productivity, efficiency, cost, and so on.
Invent Options for Mutual Gain
Bargainers rarely see the need for formulating options or alternative solutions so that parties may be benefited. As was mentioned before, during period of intense conflict, the parties may have difficulty in formulating creative solutions to problems that are acceptable to both parties. It would help if the parties could engage in a brainstorming session designed to generate as many ideas as possible to solve the problem at hand. Brett (1984) suggests that, “in practice, what seems to work best to break open a negotiation and to generate creative solutions is to initially focus on interests” (p. 673).
Insist on Using Objective Criteria
To manage conflict effectively, a negotiator should insist that results be based on some objective criteria. Brett (1984) presented the classic example of “the tale of the mother with two children and with one piece of cake. Because both children are clamoring for the entire piece, the wise mother tells one child he can cut the cake into two pieces and tells the other child she can make the first choice” (p. 673). Examples of objective criteria include market value, attainment of specific goals, scientific judgment, ethical standards, and so on. Once the negotiators start searching for objective standards for managing conflict effec- tively, the principal emphasis of the negotiation changes from negotiations over positions to alternative standards. “Once a standard is agreed on, there need be no further negotiations over the issue because the settlement terms are implicit in the objective standards” (Brett, 1984, p. 674).
Learning to communicate effectively with the other party is very important in principled negotiation. Hocker and Wilmot (1991) suggest that the following statements may be used if one wants to use the integrating style of handling interpersonal conflict:
Collaborative
Principle Sample Statement
People This is a problem you and I haven’t had to face before. I am sure we can work it out.
Interests What is it that you are most hoping for? or
Let’s figure out where we agree, and that will give us a base to work from.
Options I’d like to postpone making a decision about filing a grievance until our next meeting. Today I want to explore all the options that are available to us in addition to filing a grievance. Is that all right with you?
Criteria I can’t be satisfied with getting my way if you’re miserable. Let’s get an example of the car’s current value from an objective source. (p. 219)
As discussed before, principled negotiation involves the use of the integrating style of handling conflict. The integrating style is appropriate to use in situations involving complex issues. Organizational members should be trained to use prin- cipled negotiation to handle these situations effectively. This type of negotiation is not effective for dealing with trivial or simple issues.