Conflicts in teams, at work, and in our personal lives occur in at least two basic forms—substantive and emotional. Both types are common, ever present, and challenging. The question is: How well prepared are you to deal successfully with them?

Substantive conflict is a fundamental disagreement over ends or goals to be pursued and the means for their accomplishment.^[475] A dispute with one's boss or other team members over a plan of action to be followed, such as the marketing strategy for a new product, is an example of substantive conflict. When people work together every day, it is only normal that different viewpoints on a variety of substantive workplace issues will arise. At times people will disagree over such things as team and organizational goals, the allocation of resources, the distribution of rewards, policies and procedures, and task assignments.

In contrast, emotional conflict involves interpersonal difficulties that arise over feelings of anger, mistrust, dislike, fear, resentment, and the like.^[476] This conflict is commonly known as a "clash of personalities." How many times, for example, have you heard comments such as "I can't stand working with him" or "She always rubs me the wrong way" or "I wouldn't do what he asked if you begged me"? When emotional conflicts creep into work situations, they can drain energies and distract people from task priorities and goals. They can emerge in a wide variety of settings and are common in teams, among co-workers, and in superior-subordinate relationships.

Our first tendency may be to think of conflict as something that happens between people, and that is certainly a valid example of what we can call "interpersonal conflict." But scholars point out that conflicts in teams and organizations need to be recognized and understood on other levels as well. The full range of conflicts that we experience at work includes those emerging from the interpersonal, intrapersonal, intergroup, and interorganizational levels.

Interpersonal conflict occurs between two or more individuals who are in opposition to one another. It may be substantive, emotional, or both. Two persons debating each other aggressively on the merits of hiring a specific job applicant is an example of a substantive interpersonal conflict. Two persons continually in disagreement over each other's choice of work attire is an example of an emotional interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict often arises in the performance evaluation process. When P. J. Smoot became learning and development leader at International Paper's Memphis, Tennessee, office, for example, she recognized that the traditional concept of the boss passing judgment often fails in motivating subordinates and improving their performance. So she started a new program that began the reviews from the bottom up—with the employee's self-evaluation and a focus on the manager's job as a coach and facilitator. Her advice is to "Listen for understanding and then react honestly and constructively. Focus on the business goals, not the personality."^[477]

Intrapersonal conflict is tension experienced within the individual due to actual or perceived pressures from incompatible goals or expectations. Approach-approach conflict occurs when a person must choose between two positive and equally attractive alternatives. An example is when someone has to choose between a valued promotion in the organization or a desirable new job with another firm. Avoidance-avoidance conflict occurs when a person must choose between two negative and equally unattractive alternatives. An example is being asked either to accept a job transfer to another town in an undesirable location or to have one's employment with an organization terminated. Approach-avoidance conflict occurs when a person must decide to do something that has both positive and negative consequences. An example is being offered a higher-paying job with responsibilities that make unwanted demands on one's personal time.

Intergroup conflict occurs between teams, perhaps ones competing for scarce resources or rewards, and perhaps ones whose members have emotional problems with one another. The classic example is conflict among functional groups or departments, such as marketing and manufacturing, within organizations. Sometimes such conflicts have substantive roots, such as marketing focusing on sales revenue goals and manufacturing focusing on cost efficiency goals. Other times such conflicts have emotional roots as "egos" in the respective departments cause each to want to look better than the other in a certain situation. Intergroup conflict is quite common in organizations, and it can make the coordination and integration of task activities very difficult.^[478] The growing use of cross-functional teams and task forces is one way of trying to minimize such conflicts by improving horizontal communication.

Interorganizational conflict is most commonly thought of in terms of the competition and rivalry that characterizes firms operating in the same markets. A good example is the continuing battle between U.S. businesses and their global rivals: Ford vs. Toyota, or Nokia vs. Motorola, for example. But interorganizational conflict is a much broader issue than that represented by market competition alone. Other common examples include disagreements between unions and the organizations employing their members, between government regulatory agencies and the organizations subject to their surveillance, between organizations and their suppliers, and between organizations and outside activist groups.

Twitter

Employers are finding that all that Twitters is not gold. Problems and conflicts arise when employee "Tweets" cross the line in discussing customers, new hires, and even co-workers. Two rules of thumb are finding their way into Twitter Codes of Conduct: 1—Don't be stupid. 2–Don't post anything you don't want your mom to read.

There is no doubt that conflict in organizations can be upsetting both to the individuals directly involved and to others affected by its occurrence. It can be quite uncomfortable, for example, to work in an environment in which two co-workers are continually hostile toward each other or two teams are always battling for top management attention. In OB, and as shown in Figure 10.1, however, we recognize that conflict can have both a functional or constructive side and a dysfunctional or destructive side.

Functional conflict, also called constructive conflict, results in benefits to individuals, the team, or the organization. On the positive side, conflict can bring important problems to the surface so they can be addressed. It can cause decisions to be considered carefully and perhaps reconsidered to ensure that the right path of action is being followed. It can increase the amount of information used for decision making. And it can offer opportunities for creativity that can improve individual, team, or organizational performance. Indeed, an effective manager or team leader is able to stimulate constructive conflict in situations in which satisfaction with the status quo inhibits needed change and development.

Dysfunctional conflict, or destructive conflict, works to the disadvantage of an individual or team. It diverts energies, hurts group cohesion, promotes interpersonal hostilities, and overall creates a negative environment for workers. This type of conflict occurs, for example, when two team members are unable to work together because of interpersonal differences—a destructive emotional conflict, or when the members of a work unit fail to act because they cannot agree on task goals—a destructive substantive conflict. Destructive conflicts of these types can decrease performance and job satisfaction as well as contribute to absenteeism and job turnover. Managers and team leaders should be alert to destructive conflicts and be quick to take action to prevent or eliminate them—or at least minimize their disadvantages.

Figure 10.1. The two faces of conflict: functional conflict and dysfunctional conflict.

Society today shows many signs of wear and tear in social relationships. We experience difficulties born of racial tensions, homophobia, gender gaps, and more. All trace their roots to tensions among people who are different from one another in some way. They are also a reminder that culture and cultural differences must be considered for their conflict potential. Among the dimensions of national culture, for example, substantial differences may be noted in time orientation. When persons from short-term cultures such as the United States try to work with persons from long-term cultures such as Japan, the likelihood of conflict developing is high. The same holds true when individualists work with collectivists and when persons from high-power-distance cultures work with those from low-power-distance cultures.^[479]

People who are not able or willing to recognize and respect cultural differences can contribute to the emergence of dysfunctional situations in multicultural teams. On the other hand, sensitivity and respect when working across cultures can often tap the performance advantages of both diversity and constructive conflict. Consider these comments from members of a joint European and American project team at Corning. "Something magical happens," says engineer John Thomas. "Europeans are very creative thinkers; they take time to really reflect on a problem to come up with the very best theoretical solution, Americans are more tactical and practical—we want to get down to developing a working solution as soon as possible." His partner at Fontainebleau in France says: "The French are more focused on ideas and concepts. If we get blocked in the execution of those ideas, we give up. Not the Americans. They pay more attention to details, processes, and time schedules. They make sure they are prepared and have involved everyone in the planning process so that they won't get blocked. But it's best if you mix the two approaches. In the end, you will achieve the best results."^[480]

Most conflicts develop in stages, as shown in Figure 10.2. Conflict antecedents establish the conditions from which conflicts are likely to develop. When the antecedent conditions become the basis for substantive or emotional differences between people or groups, the stage of perceived conflict exists. Of course, this perception may be held by only one of the conflicting parties. It is important to distinguish between perceived and felt conflict. When conflict is felt, it is experienced as tension that motivates the person to take action to reduce feelings of discomfort. For conflict to be resolved, all parties should perceive the conflict and feel the need to do something about it.

Manifest conflict can be addressed through true conflict resolution or merely suppressed, a condition leaving the situation prone to future conflicts of a similar nature.

Manifest conflict is expressed openly in behavior. It is followed by conflict aftermath. At this stage removing or correcting the antecedents results in conflict resolution while failing to do so results in conflict suppression. With suppression, no change in antecedent conditions occurs even though the manifest conflict behaviors may be temporarily controlled. This occurs, for example, when one or both parties choose to ignore conflict in their dealings with one another. Conflict suppression is a superficial and often temporary state that leaves the situation open to future conflicts over similar issues. Although it is perhaps useful in the short run, only true conflict resolution establishes conditions that eliminate an existing conflict and reduce the potential for it to recur in the future.

Figure 10.2. The stages of conflict.

The very nature of organizations as hierarchical systems provides a basis for conflict as individuals and teams work within the authority structure. Vertical conflict occurs between levels and commonly involves supervisor-subordinate and team leader-team member disagreements over resources, goals, deadlines, or performance results. Horizontal conflict occurs between persons or groups working at the same hierarchical level. These disputes commonly involve goal incompatibilities, resource scarcities, or purely interpersonal factors. And, line-staff conflict involves disagreements between line and staff personnel over who has authority and control over decisions on matters such as budgets, technology, and human resource practices. Also common are role ambiguity conflicts that occur when the communication of task expectations is unclear or upsetting in some way, such as a team member receiving different expectations from different sources. Conflict is likely when individuals or teams are placed in ambiguous situations where it is difficult for them to understand just who is responsible for what, and why.

Task and workflow interdependencies are breeding grounds for conflicts. Disputes and open disagreements may erupt among people and teams that are required to cooperate to meet challenging goals.^[482] When interdependence is high—that is, when a person or group must rely on or ask for contributions from one or more others to achieve its goals—conflicts often occur. You will notice this, for example, in a fast-food restaurant, when the people serving the food have to wait too long for it to be delivered from the cooks. Conflict escalates with structural differentiation where different teams and work units pursue different goals with different time horizons as shown in Figure 10.3. Conflict also develops out of domain ambiguities when individuals or teams lack adequate task direction or goals and misunderstand such things as customer jurisdiction or scope of authority.

Figure 10.3. Structural differentiation as a potential source of conflict among functional teams.

Actual or perceived resource scarcity can foster destructive competition. When resources are scarce, working relationships are likely to suffer. This is especially true in organizations that are experiencing downsizing or financial difficulties. As cutbacks occur, various individuals or teams try to position themselves to gain or retain maximum shares of the shrinking resource pool. They are also likely to resist resource redistribution or to employ countermeasures to defend their resources from redistribution to others.

Also, power or value asymmetries in work relationships can create conflict. They exist when interdependent people or teams differ substantially from one another in status and influence or in values. Conflict resulting from asymmetry is prone to occur, for example, when a low-power person needs the help of a high-power person who does not respond, when people who hold dramatically different values are forced to work together on a task, or when a high-status person is required to interact with and perhaps be dependent on someone of lower status.

Most managers will tell you that not all conflict management in teams and organizations can be resolved by getting the people involved to adopt new attitudes, behaviors, and stances toward one another. Think about it. Aren't there likely to be times when personalities and emotions prove irreconcilable? In such cases a more indirect or structural approach to conflict management can often help. It uses such strategies as reduced interdependence, appeals to common goals, hierarchical referral, and alterations in the use of mythology and scripts to deal with the conflict situation.

Reduced Interdependence When workflow conflicts exist, managers can adjust the level of interdependency among teams or individuals.^[483] One simple option is decoupling, or taking action to eliminate or reduce the required contact between conflicting parties. In some cases team tasks can be adjusted to reduce the number of required points of coordination. The conflicting units can then be separated from one another, and each can be provided separate access to valued resources. Although decoupling may reduce conflict, it may also result in duplication and a poor allocation of valued resources.

Workplace Bullying Institute

Have you been bullied at work, perhaps in conflict situations? About 37 percent of workers say they have been exposed to such bullying tactics as being glared at with hostility, given the silent treatment, or treated rudely and disrespectfully, as well as having false rumors spread about them.

Buffering is another approach that can be used when the inputs of one team are the outputs of another. The classic buffering technique is to build an inventory, or buffer, between the teams so that any output slowdown or excess is absorbed by the inventory and does not directly pressure the target group. Although it reduces conflict, this technique is increasingly out of favor because it increases inventory costs. This consequence is contrary to the elements of just-in-time delivery, which is now valued in operations management.

Conflict management can sometimes be facilitated by assigning people to serve as formal linking pins between groups that are prone to conflict.^[484] Persons in linking-pin roles, such as project liaisons, are expected to understand the operations, members, needs, and norms of their host teams. They are supposed to use this knowledge to help the team work better with others in order to accomplish mutual tasks. Although expensive, this technique is often used when different specialized groups, such as engineering and sales, must closely coordinate their efforts on complex and long-term projects.

Appeals to Common Goals An appeal to common goals can focus the attention of potentially conflicting individuals and teams on one mutually desirable conclusion. By elevating the potential dispute to a common framework wherein the parties recognize their mutual interdependence in achieving common goals, petty disputes can be put in perspective. In a course team where members are arguing over content choices for a PowerPoint presentation, for example, it might help to remind everyone that the goal is to impress the instructor and get an "A" for the presentation and that this is only possible if everyone contributes their best. An appeal to higher goals offers a common frame of reference that can be very helpful for analyzing differences and reconciling disagreements.

Hierarchical Referral Hierarchical referral uses the chain of command for conflict resolution.^[485] Here, problems are moved from the level of conflicting individuals or teams and referred up the hierarchy for more senior managers to address. Whereas hierarchical referral can be definitive in a given case, it also has limitations. If conflict is severe and recurring, the continual use of hierarchical referral may not result in true conflict resolution. Managers removed from day-to-day affairs may fail to diagnose the real causes of a conflict, and conflict resolution may be superficial. Busy managers may tend to consider most conflicts as results of poor interpersonal relations and may act quickly to replace a person with a perceived "personality" problem.

Altering Scripts and Myths In some situations, conflict is superficially managed by scripts, or behavioral routines, that become part of the organization's culture.^[486] The scripts become rituals that allow the conflicting parties to vent their frustrations and to recognize that they are mutually dependent on one another via the larger corporation. An example is a monthly meeting of "department heads," which is held presumably for purposes of coordination and problem solving but actually becomes just a polite forum for superficial agreement.^[487] Managers in such cases know their scripts and accept the difficulty of truly resolving any major conflicts. By sticking with the script, expressing only low-key disagreement, and then quickly acting as if everything has been resolved, for instance, the managers publicly act as if problems are being addressed. Such scripts can be altered to allow and encourage active confrontation of issues and disagreements.

In addition to the indirect conflict management strategies just discussed, it is also very important for everyone to understand how conflict management plays out in face-to-face fashion. Figure 10.4 shows five direct conflict management strategies that vary in their emphasis on cooperativeness and assertiveness in the interpersonal dynamics of the situation. Consultants and academics generally agree that true conflict resolution can occur only when the underlying substantive and emotional reasons for the conflict are identified and dealt with through a solution that allows all conflicting parties to "win." However, the reality is that direct conflict management may pursue lose-lose and win-lose as well as win-win outcomes.^[488]

Lose-Lose Strategies Lose-lose conflict occurs when nobody really gets what he or she wants in a conflict situation. The underlying reasons for the conflict remain unaffected, and a similar conflict is likely to occur in the future. Lose-lose outcomes are likely when the conflict management strategies involve little or no assertiveness.

Figure 10.4. Five direct conflict management strategies.

Avoidance is an extreme form that basically displays no attention toward a conflict. No one acts assertively or cooperatively; everyone simply pretends the conflict does not really exist and hopes it will go away. Accommodation, or smoothing as it is sometimes called, involves playing down differences among the conflicting parties and highlighting similarities and areas of agreement. This peaceful coexistence ignores the real essence of a given conflict and often creates frustration and resentment. Compromise occurs when each party shows moderate assertiveness and cooperation and is ultimately willing to give up something of value to the other. As a result of no one getting their full desires, the antecedent conditions for future conflicts are established. See OB Savvy 15.1 for tips on when to use this and other conflict management styles.

Win-Lose Strategies In win-lose conflict, one party achieves its desires at the expense and to the exclusion of the other party's desires. This is a high-assertiveness and low-cooperativeness situation. It may result from outright competition in which one party achieves a victory through force, superior skill, or domination. It may also occur as a result of authoritative command, whereby a formal authority such as manager or team leader simply dictates a solution and specifies what is gained and what is lost by whom. Win-lose strategies of these types fail to address the root causes of the conflict and tend to suppress the desires of at least one of the conflicting parties. As a result, future conflicts over the same issues are likely to occur.

Win-Win Strategies Win-win conflict is achieved by a blend of both high cooperativeness and high assertiveness.^[489] Collaboration, or problem solving, involves recognition by all conflicting parties that something is wrong and needs attention. It stresses gathering and evaluating information in solving disputes and making choices. Win-win outcomes eliminate the reasons for continuing or resurrecting the conflict because nothing has been avoided or suppressed. All relevant issues are raised and openly discussed.

The ultimate test for collaboration and a win-win solution is whether or not the conflicting parties see that the solution to the conflict (1) achieves each party's goals, (2) is acceptable to both parties, and (3) establishes a process whereby all parties involved see a responsibility to be open and honest about facts and feelings. When success in each of these areas is achieved, the likelihood of true conflict resolution is greatly increased. However, it is also important to recognize that collaboration and problem solving often take time and consume lots of energy; something to which the parties must be willing to commit. Collaboration and problem solving may not be feasible if the firm's dominant culture rewards competition too highly and fails to place a value on cooperation.^[490] And finally, OB Savvy 10.2 points out that each of the conflict management strategies has advantages under certain conditions.

Two important goals must be considered in any negotiation: substance goals and relationship goals. Substance goals deal with outcomes that relate to the "content" issues under negotiation. The dollar amount of a wage agreement in a collective-bargaining situation is one example. Relationship goals deal with outcomes that relate to how well people involved in the negotiation and any constituencies they may represent are able to work with one another once the process is concluded. An example is the ability of union members and management representatives to work together effectively after a contract dispute has been settled.

Unfortunately, many negotiations result in damaged relationships because the negotiating parties become preoccupied with substance goals and self-interests. In contrast, effective negotiation occurs when substance issues are resolved and working relationships are maintained or even improved. Three criteria for effective negotiation are:

Managers and others involved in negotiations should strive for high ethical standards of conduct, but this goal can get sidetracked by an overemphasis on self-interests. The motivation to behave ethically in negotiations is put to the test by each party's desire to "get more" than the other from the negotiation and/or by a belief that there are insufficient resources to satisfy all parties.^[492] After the heat of negotiations dies down, the parties involved often try to rationalize or explain away questionable ethics as unavoidable, harmless, or justified. Such after-the-fact rationalizations may be offset by long-run negative consequences, such as not being able to achieve one's wishes again the next time. At the very least the unethical party may be the target of revenge tactics by those who were disadvantaged. Furthermore, once some people have behaved unethically in one situation, they may become entrapped by such behavior and prone to display it again in the future.^[493]

Leaders on Leadership

UN SECRETARY GENERAL BAN KI-MOON PURSUES WORLD PEACE

Talk about conflict and negotiation! Whose job could be more intense in this regard than Ban Ki-Moon, the 37th secretary general of the United Nations? On any given day he could be getting off the plane in some far part of the world to meet with heads of state, dealing with problems in Somalia, marshalling aid for relief in some natural disaster, or handling delicate disagreements with and among the UN's member nations.

But Mr. Ban is well prepared, having come to his post with 37 years experience in public and government service. Prior to becoming secretary general he served as the Republic of Korea's minister of foreign affairs and trade, and was well traveled and highly respected in global leadership circles. Mr. Ban speaks Korean, English, and French, and his principles for world peace and prosperity are reflected in his priorities as found on the United Nations Web site. They include:

Peace and security—"By enhancing our capacity for preventive diplomacy and supporting sustainable peace processes, we will build long-term solutions and respond more effectively to conflict."

Climate change—"If we care about our legacy for succeeding generations, this is the time for decisive global action. The UN is the natural forum for building consensus and negotiating future global action—all nations can take firm steps towards being carbon-neutral."

Development—"While threats to peace must be addressed, my concern lies equally with those men, women and children of the world struggling to make ends meet—it is intolerable that almost 1 billion people still live on less than $1 a day ... I will mobilize political will and hold leaders to their commitment to allocate adequate resources and development aid."

UN Reform—"Global problems demand global solutions— and going it alone is not a viable option ... I do have faith in human decency, diligence and incremental progress. Above all, I believe in results, not rhetoric. The fundamental purposes and principles of this Organization are inspiring and enduring—we need to renew our pledge to live up to them."

Managers and team leaders should be prepared to participate in at least four major action settings for negotiations. In two-party negotiation the manager negotiates directly with one other person. In a group negotiation the manager is part of a team or group whose members are negotiating to arrive at a common decision. In an intergroup negotiation the manager is part of a group that is negotiating with another group to arrive at a decision regarding a problem or situation affecting both. And in a constituency negotiation each party represents a broader constituency, for example, representatives of management and labor negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.

Workers in France Take Managers Hostage

Laid-off workers in Caterpillar's French plant took five managers hostage for 24 hours. The bosses were released after the company agreed to renegotiate compensation for workers losing their jobs. A poll showed some 45 percent of French people approved of such "bossnapping."

The existence of cultural differences in time orientation, individualism, collectivism, and power distance can have a substantial impact on negotiation. For example, when American business executives try to negotiate quickly with their Chinese counterparts, culture is not always on their side. A typical Chinese approach to negotiation might move much more slowly, require the development of good interpersonal relationships prior to reaching any agreement, display reluctance to commit everything to writing, and anticipate that any agreement reached will be subject to modification as future circumstances may require.^[494] All this is quite the opposite of the typical expectations of negotiators used to the individualist and short-term American culture.

In distributive bargaining approaches, the participants would each ask this question: "Who is going to get this resource?" This question frames the negotiation as a "win-lose" episode that will have a major impact on how parties approach the negotiation process and the outcomes that may be achieved. A case of distributive negotiation usually unfolds in one of two directions, with neither one nor the other yielding optimal results.

"Hard" distributive negotiation takes place when each party holds out to get its own way. This leads to competition, whereby each party seeks dominance over the other and tries to maximize self-interests. The hard approach may lead to a win-lose outcome in which one party dominates and gains. Or it can lead to an impasse.

"Soft" distributive negotiation, in contrast, takes place when one party is willing to make concessions to the other to get things over with. In this case one party tries to find ways to meet the other's desires. A soft approach leads to accommodation, in which one party gives in to the other, or to compromise, in which each party gives up something of value in order to reach agreement. In either case at least some latent dissatisfaction is likely to develop. Even when the soft approach results in compromise (e.g., splitting the difference between the initial positions equally), dissatisfaction may exist since each party is still deprived of what it originally wanted.

Figure 10.5 illustrates the basic elements of classic two-party negotiation by the example of the graduating senior negotiating a job offer with a corporate recruiter.^[496] Look at the situation first from the graduate's perspective. She has told the recruiter that she would like a salary of $55,000; this is her initial offer. But she also has in mind a minimum reservation point of $50,000—the lowest salary that she will accept for this job. Thus she communicates a salary request of $55,000 but is willing to accept one as low as $50,000. The situation is somewhat the reverse from the recruiter's perspective. His initial offer to the graduate is $45,000, and his maximum reservation point is $55,000; this is the most he is prepared to pay.

Figure 10.5. The bargaining zone in classic two-party negotiation.

The bargaining zone is defined as the range between one party's minimum reservation point and the other party's maximum reservation point. In Figure 10.5, the bargaining zone is $50,000-$55,000. This is a positive bargaining zone since the reservation points of the two parties overlap. Whenever a positive bargaining zone exists, bargaining has room to unfold. Had the graduate's minimum reservation point been greater than the recruiter's maximum reservation point (for example, $57,000), no room would have existed for bargaining. Classic two-party bargaining always involves the delicate tasks of first discovering the respective reservation points (one's own and the other's), and then working toward an agreement that lies somewhere within the resulting bargaining zone and is acceptable to each party.

In the integrative approach to negotiation, participants begin by asking not "Who's going to get this resource?" but "How can the resource best be used?" The latter question is much less confrontational than the former, and it permits a broader range of alternatives to be considered in the negotiation process. From the outset there is much more of a "win-win" orientation.

At one extreme, integrative negotiation may involve selective avoidance, in which both parties realize that there are more important things on which to focus their time and attention. The time, energy, and effort needed to negotiate may not be worth the rewards. Compromise can also play a role in the integrative approach, but it must have an enduring basis. This is most likely to occur when the compromise involves each party giving up something of perceived lesser personal value to gain something of greater value. For instance, in the classic two-party bargaining case over salary, both the graduate and the recruiter could expand the negotiation to include the starting date of the job. Because it will be a year before the candidate's first vacation, she may be willing to take a little less money if she can start a few weeks later. Finally, integrative negotiation may involve true collaboration. In this case, the negotiating parties engage in problem solving to arrive at a mutual agreement that maximizes benefits to each.

Underlying the integrative or principled approach is a willingness to negotiate based on the merits of the situation. The foundations for gaining truly integrative agreements can be described as supportive attitudes, constructive behaviors, and good information.^[497]

Attitudinal Foundations There are three attitudinal foundations of integrative agreements. First, each party must approach the negotiation with a willingness to trust the other party. This is a reason why ethics and maintaining relationships are so important in negotiations. Second, each party must convey a willingness to share information with the other party. Without shared information, effective problem solving is unlikely to occur. Third, each party must show a willingness to ask concrete questions of the other party. This further facilitates information sharing.

Behavioral Foundations During a negotiation all behavior is important for both its actual impact and the impressions it leaves behind. Accordingly, the following behavioral foundations of integrative agreements must be carefully considered and included in any negotiator's repertoire of skills and capabilities:

Information Foundations The information foundations of integrative agreements are substantial. They involve each party becoming familiar with the BATNA, or "best alternative to a negotiated agreement." That is, each party must know what he or she will do if an agreement cannot be reached. This requires that both negotiating parties identify and understand their personal interests in the situation. They must know what is really important to them in the case at hand, and they must come to understand the relative importance of the other party's interests. As difficult as it may seem, each party must achieve an understanding of what the other party values, even to the point of determining its BATNA.

The negotiation process is admittedly complex on ethical, cultural, and many other grounds. It is further characterized by all the possible confusions of complex, and sometimes even volatile interpersonal and team dynamics. Accordingly, negotiators need to guard against some common negotiation pitfalls when acting individually and in teams.^[498]

The first pitfall is the tendency in negotiation to stake out your position based on the assumption that in order to gain your way, something must be subtracted from the gains of the other party. This myth of the fixed pie is a purely distributive approach to negotiation. The whole concept of integrative negotiation is based on the premise that the pie can sometimes be expanded or used to the maximum advantage of all parties, not just one.

RESEARCH INSIGHT

Words Affect Outcomes in Online Dispute Resolution

A study of dispute resolution among eBay buyers and sellers finds that using words that give "face" were more likely than words that attack "face" to result in the settlement of online disputes. Jeanne Brett, Marla Olekans, Ray Friedman, Nathan Goates, Cameron Anderson, and Cara Cherry Lisco studied real disputes being addressed through Square Trade, an online dispute resolution service to which eBay refers unhappy customers. The researchers note that a study by the National Consumer League reported that 41 percent of participants in online trading had problems, often associated with late deliveries. For purposes of the study, a "dispute" was defined as a form of conflict in which one party to a transaction made a claim that the other party rejected.

The researchers point out that most past research on dispute resolution has focused on situational and participant characteristics. In this case they adopted what they call a "language-based" approach based on the perspectives of face theory, essentially arguing that how participants use language to give and attack the face of the other party will have a major impact on results. For example, in filing a claim an unhappy buyer might use polite words that preserve the positive self-image or face of the seller, or they might use negative words that attack this sense of face. Examples of negative words are "agitated, angry, apprehensive, despise, disgusted, frustrated, furious, and hate."

This study examined 386 eBay-generated disputes processed through Square Trade. Words used in the first social interchange between parties were analyzed. Results showed that expressing negative emotions and giving commands to the other party inhibited dispute resolution, whereas providing a causal explanation, offering suggestions, and communicating firmness all made dispute resolution more likely. A hypothesis that expressing positive emotions would increase the likelihood of dispute resolution was not supported. The study also showed that the longer a dispute played out, the less likely it was to be resolved.

In terms of practical implications the researchers specifically state: "Watch your language; avoid attacking the other's face either by showing your anger toward them, or expressing contempt; avoid signaling weakness; be firm in your claim. Provide causal accounts that take responsibility and give face." Finally, they note that these basic principles apply in other dispute resolution contexts, not just online.

You Be the Researcher

Consider the suggestions for successful online dispute resolution. Can you design a study to test how well they apply to disputes that may occur in virtual teamwork?

Source: Jeanne Brett, Marla Olekans, Ray Friedman, Nathan Goates, Cameron Anderson, and Cara Cherry Lisco, "Sticks and Stones: Language and On-Line Dispute Resolution," Academy of Management Journal 50 (February 2007).

Second, because parties to negotiations often begin by stating extreme demands, the possibility of escalating commitment is high. That is, once demands have been stated, people become committed to them and are reluctant to back down. Concerns for protecting one's ego and saving face may lead to the irrational escalation of a conflict. Self-discipline is needed to spot this tendency in one's own behavior as well as in the behavior of others.

Third, negotiators often develop overconfidence that their positions are the only correct ones. This can lead them to ignore the other party's needs. In some cases negotiators completely fail to see merits in the other party's position—merits that an outside observer would be sure to spot. Such overconfidence makes it harder to reach a positive common agreement.

Fourth, communication problems can cause difficulties during a negotiation. It has been said that "negotiation is the process of communicating back and forth for the purpose of reaching a joint decision."^[499] This process can break down because of a telling problem—the parties don't really talk to each other, at least not in the sense of making themselves truly understood. It can also be damaged by a hearing problem—the parties are unable or unwilling to listen well enough to understand what the other is saying. Indeed, positive negotiation is most likely when each party engages in active listening and frequently asks questions to clarify what the other is saying. Each party occasionally needs to "stand in the other party's shoes" and to view the situation from the other's perspective.^[500]

Negotiation may sometimes be accomplished through the intervention of third parties, such as when stalemates occur and matters appear not resolvable under current circumstances. In a process called alternative dispute resolution, a neutral third party works with persons involved in a negotiation to help them resolve impasses and settle disputes. There are two primary forms through which ADR is implemented.

In arbitration, such as the salary arbitration now common in professional sports, the neutral third party acts as a "judge" and has the power to issue a decision that is binding on all parties. This ruling takes place after the arbitrator listens to the positions advanced by the parties involved in a dispute. In mediation, the neutral third party tries to engage the parties in a negotiated solution through persuasion and rational argument. This is a common approach in labor-management negotiations, where trained mediators acceptable to both sides are called in to help resolve bargaining impasses. Unlike an arbitrator, the mediator is not able to dictate a solution.