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
Integrative No Decision
Avoid 36% 0%
Cooperative 82% 18%
Controversy
Competitive 0% 91%
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 ACME
START END
BOLT BOLT
END START
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
40
35
30
Competition
25
20
15
10
5
0
2 Individuals 2 Groups
Discontinuity in Everyday Life
45
40
35
% Competitive
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
One-on-one Within Group Between Grops
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, COERCION
TRUCKING STUDY, MONOPOLY
UNCONDITIONAL COOPERATION
QUAKER STUDY
GROUP REPRESENTATIVES
TEND TO BE LESS FLEXIBLE
INFORMATION/ MORAL APPEALS
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
MODERATELY EFFECTIVE
PROCESSES
COMMUNICATION/ INTERACTION
CONDITIONAL BENEVOLENCE
HARD BARGAINING
9K seller’s limit
10K objective value
11.5K seller’s LOA
Seller’s Aspiration
Range
Seller
8K buyer’s LOA
9K seller’s limit
Buyer’s
Buyer
Aspiration 10K objective value
Range
11K buyer’s limit
11.5K seller’s LOA
Seller’s Aspiration
Range
Seller
8K buyer’s LOA
9K seller’s limit
Buyer’s
Buyer
Aspiration 10K objective value
Range
11K buyer’s limit
11.5K seller’s LOA
Seller’s Aspiration
Range
Non-Extreme
Initial Position Moderately Extreme
Seller Initial Position
MORE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES
THIRD PARTY
MORE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES
THIRD PARTY (MONOPOLY,CARTER)
SUPERORDINATE GOALS
(CAMP STUDY, JIGSAW CLASSROOMS)
GRIT (STEPWISE ONE-SIDED COOP)
Profits to Buyer & (Seller)
PRICE TV Stereos Computers
A 2000 (0) 1200 (0) 800 (0)
B 1750 (100) 1050 (150) 700 (250)
C 1500 (200) 900 (300) 600 (500)
D 1250 (300) 750 (450) 500 (750)
E 1000 (400) 600 (600) 400 (1000)
F 750 (500) 450 (750) 300 (1250)
G 500 (600) 300 (900) 200 (1500)
H 250 (700) 150 (1050) 100 (1750)
I 0 (800) 0 (1200) 0 (2000)
DUAL CONCERN MODEL
Concern About Other’s Outcomes
Yielding Problem
(Soft Bargaining) Solving
Compromise
Inaction Contending
(Avoiding) (Hard Barg.)
Concern About Own Outcomes
DUAL CONCERN MODEL
Concern About Other’s Outcomes
Yielding Problem
(Soft Bargaining) Solving
Inaction Contending
(Avoiding) (Hard Barg.)
Concern About Own Outcomes
Allocative Dimension
DUAL CONCERN MODEL
Concern About Other’s Outcomes
Yielding Problem
(Soft Bargaining) Solving
Inaction Contending
(Avoiding) (Hard Barg.)
Concern About Own Outcomes
Integrative Dimension
MORE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES
INTEGRATIVE AGREEMENT,WIN/WIN
(OPEN WINDOW, CABINETS)
PARTIALLYINTEGRATIVE (WAGE-JOB
SECURITY TRADEOFF; COMPUTER
PURCHASE)
Profits to Buyer & (Seller)
PRICE TV Stereos Computers
A 2000 (0) 1200 (0) 800 (0)
B 1750 (100) 1050 (150) 700 (250)
C 1500 (200) 900 (300) 600 (500)
D 1250 (300) 750 (450) 500 (750)
E 1000 (400) 600 (600) 400 (1000)
F 750 (500) 450 (750) 300 (1250)
G 500 (600) 300 (900) 200 (1500)
H 250 (700) 150 (1050) 100 (1750)
I 0 (800) 0 (1200) 0 (2000)
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