Conflict

Management

Chapter Ten

Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, In

McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Constructive Confrontation at Intel

Intel employees learn to fully

evaluate ideas through
“constructive confrontation.”
The objective is to attack the
problem, not the employee,
but some critics claim the
process is a license for some
Intel staff to be bullies.

10-2
 Conflict Defined

The process in which one party

perceives that its interests are
being opposed or negatively
affected by another party

10-3
Is Conflict Good or Bad?: Pre 1970s View

Historically, experts viewed Good

conflict as dysfunctional

Undermined relations

Conflict outcomes
Wasted human energy
0
Results in job
dissatisfaction, turnover,
stress, lower productivity,
less information sharing

Bad
Low Level of conflict High

10-4
Is Conflict Good or Bad?: 1970s-1990s
View
From 1970s to 1990s, Good
experts believed there is an
optimal level of conflict

Conflict outcomes
Dysfunctional to have too
little and too much conflict
0
Some conflict is good
because:
 better decisions
 reexamine assumptions Optimal
 Improves responsiveness conflict
to external environment Bad
 Increases cohesion within Low Level of conflict High
the team

10-5
Is Conflict Good or Bad?: Emerging View

Two types of conflict

Constructive (task) conflict
 Conflict is aimed at issue, not parties
 Produces benefits of conflict
 Upper limit to any conflict, including constructive

Relationship (socioemotional) conflict

 Aims conflict a the person (e.g. their
competence), not the task or issue
 Introduces perceptual biases
 Distorts information processing

10-6
Is Conflict Good or Bad?: Emerging View

Lack of constructive Good

conflict is bad, but some Constructive
produces positive conflict

Conflict outcomes
outcomes, up to a point

Relationship conflict is
dysfunctional 0

Problem: difficult to
Relationship
separate constructive from
conflict
relationship conflict
 Drive to defend naturally
activated when ideas are Bad
critiqued
Low Level of conflict High

10-7
 Minimizing Relationship Conflict

Three conditions that minimize relationship

conflict while engaging in constructive
conflict
 Emotional intelligence
 Cohesive team
 Supportive team norms

10-8
 The Conflict Process

Conflict
Perceptions
Sources of Manifest Conflict
Conflict Conflict Outcomes
Conflict
Emotions

Conflict
Escalation Cycle

10-9
 Structural Sources of Conflict

Incompatible • One party’s goals perceived to

Goals interfere with other’s goals

• Different values/beliefs
Differentiation • Explains cross-cultural and
generational conflict

• Conflict increases with

Task interdependence
Interdependence • Higher risk that parties interfere with
each other
more

10-
 Sources of Conflict (con’t)

Scarce • Motivates competition for the resource

Resources

• Creates uncertainty, threatens goals

Ambiguous Rules • Without rules, people rely on politics

• Increases stereotyping
Communication • Reduces motivation to communicate
Problems • Escalates conflict when arrogant

10-
 Interpersonal
Conflict Handling
Styles

Conflict Management

Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, In

McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Interpersonal Conflict Handling Styles
High
Forcing Problem-solving
Assertiveness

Compromising

Avoiding Yielding

Low High
Cooperativeness
10-
Problem Solving Conflict Handling at
ThedaCare

To resolve conflict between nurses and pharmacists

regarding prescription ordering, ThedaCare
management formed a task force that devised a new
system satisfactory to both parties. They resolved their
conflict through problem solving.

10-
Problem Solving Conflict Handling
Contingencies

Problem solving conflict handling is best

when…
 Interests are not perfectly opposing
 Parties have trust/openness
 Issues are complex

10-
Other Conflict Handling Style Contingencies

Avoiding is best when…

 relationship conflict is high
 Conflict resolution cost is higher than its benefits

Forcing is best when…

 You have a deep conviction about your position
 Quick resolution required
 Other party would take advantage of cooperation

10-
Other Conflict Handling Style Contingencies
(con’t)

Yielding is best when…

 Other party has much more power
 Issue is much less important to you than other party
 Value/logic of your position is unsteady

Compromising is best when…

 Parties have equal power
 Quick solution is required
 Parties lack trust/openness

10-
Managing Conflict: Superordinate Goals

Emphasizing common objectives rather

than conflicting sub-goals

Reduces goal incompatibility and

differentiation

10-
 Structural
Solutions for
Managing Conflict

Conflict Management

Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, In

McGraw-Hill/Irwin
 Managing Conflict: Reducing
Differentiation

Remove sources of different values and

beliefs

Move employees around to different jobs,

departments, and regions

Other ways to reduce differentiation:

 Common dress code/status
 Common work experiences

10-
 Managing Conflict:
Communication/Understanding

Employees understand and appreciate

each other’s views through communication
 Relates to contact hypothesis

Two warnings:
1. Apply communication/understanding after
reducing differentiation
2. A Western strategy that may conflict with
values/traditions in other cultures

10-
 Other Ways to Manage Conflict

Reduce Task Interdependence

 Dividing shared resources
 Combine tasks
 Use buffers

Increase Resources
 Duplicate resources

Clarify Rules and Procedures

 Clarify resource distribution
 Change interdependence

10-
Types of Third Party Intervention

High
Mediation Inquisition

Level of
Process
Control

Arbitration

Low Level of Outcome Control High

10-
Choosing the Best 3rd Party Strategy

Managers prefer inquisitional strategy

 Provides consistency and control
 Problems: risk of poor decision and less perceived
fairness

But best solution depends on situation,

leader-follower relations, cultural values
Mediation potentially offers highest
satisfaction with process and outcomes
Use arbitration when mediation fails

10-
 Conflict
Management

Chapter Ten

Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, In

McGraw-Hill/Irwin