Managing Conflict and

the Art of Negotiation

Chapter4
As was discussed previously as a project manager you should not satisfy
one stakeholder on the expense of another
Ideally, the Project Manager (PM) should seek to identify opportunities
that satisfy all stakeholder needs simultaneously by aligning the goals of
all stakeholders with the purpose of the project.

Chapter 4 is about conflict. It is also about negotiation—the skill required

to resolve most conflicts.
 Why is there so much conflict on projects?
One of several causes is that conflict arises when people working on the same
project have somewhat different ideas about how to achieve project objectives

For example, the client of the project’s outputs often has a substantially different
point of view than those at the input end of the project, such as suppliers, or
functional managers. And other stakeholders may have even different points of
view.
Most conflicts have their roots in uncertainty
 What is conflict?
Conflict : the process that begins when one party perceives that the other
has frustrated, or is about to frustrate, some concern of his or hers.

conflict can arise over issues of belief or feelings or behavior

goal conflicts :occur when an individual or group pursues goals different
from those of other individuals or groups.

 how onflict can be solved ?

When all parties to the conflict are satisfied
There are many ways to resolve conflicts like
“Methods of Resolving Interpersonal Conflict”
such as withdrawal, smoothing, compromise, forcing, and
confrontation/problem-solving.

As noted, confrontation/problem-solving (i.e., facing the issue directly,

such as by negotiation) is the most effective method .
However, forcing or brute force, is the most ineffective.
we are going to discuss them in depth at the end of the chapter .
Successful negotiation tends to be idiosyncratic to the actual
situation, and most brief examples do little to help transform
theory into practice.
 Identifying and Analyzing Stakeholders

The best approach for managing conflict is to proactively take steps to

align the goals of the various stakeholders with the purpose of the
project.

Before the goals of the stakeholders can be aligned with the purpose of the project, they must be identified.
Most commonly the expert judgment of the PM and project team are employed to identify the stakeholders.
After identifying the stakeholders, a stakeholder register should be created to maintain key information about
them, including contact information, their requirements and expectations, and what stage in the project they have
the most interest in.
In addition, separate from the stakeholder register, a stakeholder issue log should be maintained to catalog issues
that arise and how they were resolved.
after identifying the stakeholders ,a number of tools can be used to analyze them to gain
insight about how to manage the relationship with them.
the stakeholder register should be updated.

 Illustrative Power-Interest Grid

One tool that is useful for analyzing stakeholders is the Power-Interest Grid.
As its name suggests, this tool analyzes stakeholders on two dimensions:
(1) their interest in the project and
(2) their relative power in the organization.

Based on these two dimensions, the model suggests the appropriate relationship
between the PM and the stakeholder group from:
monitoring to keeping informed, to keeping satisfied, to closely managing.
A useful tool for accessing the level of commitment needed from
stakeholders is the Commitment Assessment Matrix.

In this matrix, both the current level of commitment and the desired
level of commitment are assessed for each stakeholder group.
Stakeholder engagement management

managing stakeholder engagement involves the following activities:

• Obtaining and confirming stakeholders’ commitment to the project’s success at the

appropriate stages in the project .
• Communicating with stakeholders to manage their expectations.
• Proactively addressing stakeholder concerns before they become major issues.
• Resolving issues in a timely fashion once they have been identified.
 Conflict and the Project Life Cycle

 We are going to link the project life cycle with the fundamental conflict categories and discover that
certain patterns of conflict are associated with the different periods in the life of a project.

 With this knowledge, the PM can do a faster and more accurate job of diagnosing the nature of the
conflicts he or she is facing, thereby reducing the likelihood of escalating the conflict by dealing with it
ineffectually.

 Various authors have defined the stages of the project life cycle in different ways. And according to
Adam’s typical definition consisting of four stages: conceptualization, planning, execution, and
termination.
 More on the project lifecycle
 Initial planning is undertaken, basic objectives are often adopted, and the project
may be “scoped out.”
 The second stage is typified by detailed planning, budgeting, scheduling, and the
aggregation of resources.
 In the third stage, the actual work on the project is accomplished.
 During the final stage of the life cycle, work is completed, and products are turned
over to the client or user. This stage also includes disposition of the project’s assets
and personnel. It may even include preparation for the initial stage of another related
project to follow.
 Categories of Conflict

All stages of the project life cycle appear to be typified by conflict.

Conflicts in projects are centered on matters such as schedules,
priorities, staff and labor requirements, technical factors, administrative
procedures, cost estimates, and, of course, personalities
Project life cycle
On examination of the data, it appears that the conflicts fall into three
fundamentally different categories:

1. Groups working on the project may have different goals and

expectations.
2. There is significant uncertainty about who has the authority to make
decisions.
3. There are interpersonal conflicts between the stakeholders in the
project.
 Some conflicts reflect the fact that the day-to-day work on projects is usually
carried out by many different units of the organization, units that often differ in
their objectives and technical judgments
( they arise because the PM and the Functional managers have very different goals).

 Other conflicts reflect the fact that both technical and administrative procedures are
important aspects of project management. Uncertainty about who has the authority
to make decisions on all matters affecting the project.

 Finally, some conflicts reflect the fact that human beings are an integral part of all
projects(personalities).
Goal type conflicts
1.Functional managers also may not see eye-to-eye with the PM on issues such as :
 the project’s priority .
 the desirability of assigning a specifically named individual to work on the
project.
 the applicability of a given technical approach to the project.

2.the client’s priorities and schedule, whether an inside or outside client, may differ
radically from those of senior management and the project team.
3.Finally, the project team has its own ideas about the appropriateness of the
schedule or level of project staffing.
The project life cycle

 Project Formation Phase

 Project Buildup Phase
 Main Program Phase
 Project Phase-out
 Project Formation Phase
Conflicts of early stages:

 Matrix Management ( a form of organizational structure in which employees report

to multiple bosses rather than one.)
 Trans between first stage (project formation)and buildup stage.
 Lack of clarity about the relative power/influence/authority of the PM and the functional
managers is a major component of all conflicts involving technical decisions, resource
allocation, and scheduling.
During project formation there are fundamental issues must be
handled:

 specify the technical objectives

 resource commitment
 prioritization of projects.
 establishing the organizational structure of the project .

The PM who practices conflict avoidance in this stage is inviting disaster in the next
Project Buildup Phase

This is the phase during which the project moves (or should move)
from a general concept to a highly detailed set of plans.

As the project’s plans become detailed, conflicts over technical issues

build— again, conflicts between the PM and the functional areas tend to
predominate.
The total level of conflict is at its highest in this transition period.
Main Program Phase

Schedules are still a major source of conflict in the main

program phase of the project life cycle.
EX. If some activity runs into difficulty and is late in being
completed. Every task that is dependent on this late activity
will also be delayed, that’s will lead to delay the entire project

In order to prevent this consequence:

Pm must try to get the schedule back on track
Throughout previous chapters we have referred to the PMs job of managing time- cost-scope trade-offs .
Maintaining the project schedule is precisely an exercise in managing trade-offs.
(adding to the project’s cost or scaling down the project’s technical capabilities in order to save time are
trad-offs the PM will not take if there is any viable alternative ).
Like schedule conflicts,technical conflicts are frequent and serious during the main program stage.

Ex. Just as computer and printer must be correctly linked together in order to preform properly.
These linkages are known as interfaces (the number of interfaces increases rapidly as the project gets
larger and complexed )

The need to manage these interfaces and to correct incompatibilities is the key to the technical conflicts
in the main program phase .
Project Phase-out

Issues during the final phase:

 Non-solved issues related to the schedule in main program phase will be carried out to the project phase-
out and it’s considered as one of the major source of conflict in this phase .

 Technical problems are mostly rare to happen during phase-out because in the best-case scenario most
have been solved or bypassed earlier.

 Personality conflicts are the seconed-ranked source of conflict during phase-out.

 Conflict arises between projects phasing out and those just starting, particularly if the latter need resources
or personnel with scarce talents being used by the former.

 conflicts sometimes can be quite bitter, focused on the distribution of the project’s capital equipment and
supplies when the project is completed.
 Dealing with conflict
With a better understanding of the relationship between the project life cycle and
conflict, we now turn our attention to the strategies employed to deal with
conflict.

Based on two dimensions researchers Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann

identified five strategies people use to deal with conflict.

On the one hand, we can consider how On the other hand, we can evaluate how
assertive the parties are, which can range cooperative the parties are, ranging from
from being unassertive to assertive. uncooperative to cooperative.
 Dealing with conflict
five strategies to deal with conflict:

Competing strategy: approaching a situation assertively and being

unwilling to cooperate.

When a competing strategy is employed, the person is viewing the

situation as though someone must lose in order for the other to win
(win–lose).

This strategy may be appropriate in situations where the decision

must be made quickly.
Avoiding strategy: when the position is not asserted aggressively but the
person is still unwilling to cooperate.

This is a lose–lose strategy because you are not cooperating with the other
person to help them achieve their goals nor are you actively pursuing your
own goals.

This strategy might be applied when the issue is not that important to you or
you deem the detrimental effects from the conflict outweigh the benefits of
resolving the issue in a desirable way.
Collaborating strategy: When you assertively state your position
but do so in a spirit of cooperation.

Here your focus is on achieving your goals but with the

recognition that the best solution is one that benefits both parties.
Thus, the collaborating strategy can be considered a win–win
strategy.

This is the preferred strategy in most situations and particularly in

situations where the needs of both parties are important.
Accommodating strategy: In situations where you do not assert your
position and focus more on cooperating with the other party.

n this case, the focus is on resolving the issue from the other person’s
point of view. Here the situation can be described as I lose, you win,
or lose–win.

It would be appropriate to employ the accommodating strategy when

you were wrong or the issue is much more important to the other
person.
Compromising strategy: when you take a middle ground position on
both dimensions.

In these cases, nobody wins and nobody loses. Thus, you have likely
arrived at a solution that you and the other party can live with but are
not particularly happy about.

You might employ a compromising strategy when the potential

benefits of trying to develop a win–win solution are exceeded by the
costs.
Dealing with conflict
 The Nature of Negotiation

As just noted, while there are a variety of approaches for dealing with conflict, generally speaking
the favored technique for resolving conflict is negotiation.

Negotiation is a field of knowledge and endeavor that focuses on gaining the favor of people from
whom we want things.

Most of the conflicts that involve the organization and outsiders have to do with property rights and
contractual obligations. In these cases, the parties to negotiation see themselves as opponents.

Conflicts arising inside the organization may also appear to involve property rights and obligations,
As far as the firm is concerned, they are conflicts between allies not opponents.
 The Nature of Negotiation

Pareto-optimal solution: the general objective is to find a solution such that no party
can be made better off without making another party worse off by the same amount or
more.

The concept of a Pareto-optimal solution is important. Approaching intraproject

conflicts with a desire to win a victory over other parties is inappropriate.

The PM must remember that he or she will be negotiating with project stakeholders
many times in the future. If he or she conducts a win–lose negotiation and the other
party loses, from then on he or she will face a determined adversary who seeks to
defeat him or her.
Partnering, Chartering, and Scope Change

Projects provide ample opportunity for the PM to utilize her or his skills at
negotiation in three situations :

 the use of subcontractors.

 the use of input from two or more functional units to design and develop
the project’s mission.
 the management of changes ordered in the project’s deliverables and/or
priorities after the project is underway.
 Partnering

 Project partnering is a method of transforming contractual relationships into a

cohesive, cooperative project team with a single set of goals and established
procedures for resolving disputes in a timely and effective manner.

They present a multistep process for building partnered projects

First, the parent firm must make a commitment to partnering, select

subcontractors who will also make such a commitment, engage in joint team-
building exercises, and develop a “charter” for the project.
 Partnering

Second, both parties must implement the partnering process with a four-part agreement on:
1-“joint evaluation” of the project’s progress

2- a method for resolving any problems or disagreements

3- acceptance of a goal for continuous improvement (also known as “total quality

management,” or TQM) for the joint project

4-continuous support for the process of partnering from senior management of both parties

Finally, the parties commit to a joint review of “project execution” when the project is
completed.
 Partnering

Each step in this process must be accompanied by negotiation.

Partnering requires strong support from senior management of all participants, and it
requires continuous support of project objectives and partnering agreements.

Above all, and most difficult of all, it requires open and honest communication between
the partners. However, partnering yields benefits great enough to be worth the efforts
required to make it work correctly.
 Chartering

The agreements between groups partnering on large endeavors are often referred to as
charters.

A project charter is a detailed written agreement between the stakeholders in the project.

Typically, it gives an overview of the project and details the expected deliverables,
including schedules, personnel, resource commitments, risks, and evaluation methods.

Examples: Meet design intent, Finish project on schedule, Keep cost growth to less than
2 percent….etc.
 Scope change

No matter how carefully a project is planned, No matter how carefully defined at

the start, the scope of most projects is subject to considerable uncertainty.

causes for change in projects:

Some changes result because planners erred in their initial assessment about how to
achieve a given end or erred in their choice of the proper goal for the project.

Technological uncertainty is the fundamental causal factor for either error.

 Scope change
The foundation for a building must be changed because a preliminary geological study did
not reveal a weakness in the structure of the ground on which the building will stand.

The project team becomes aware of a recent innovation that allows a faster, cheaper
solution.

Other changes result because the client/user or project team learns more about the nature of
the project deliverable or about the setting in which it is to be used.

another source of change this is a change in the environment in which the project is being
conducted.
 Some Requirements and Principles of
Negotiation

Separate the people from the problem:

The conflicting parties are often highly emotional. Conflicting parties tend to attack
one another rather than the problem. To minimize this, the substantive problem should
be carefully defined. Then everyone can work on it rather than each other.

Focus on interests, not positions:

Positional occurs when the PM says to a functional manager: “I need this subassembly
by November 15.” The functional manager responds: “My group can’t possibly start
on it this year. We might be able to deliver it by February 1.”
 Some Requirements and Principles of Negotiation

Before trying to reach agreement, invent options for mutual gain:

The parties in conflict usually enter negotiations knowing the outcome they would like. As
a result, they are blind to other outcomes and are not particularly creative. some effort
should be devoted to finding a wide variety of possible solutions—or elements thereof—
that advance the mutual interests of the conflicting parties.

Insist on using objective criteria:

Rather than bargaining on positions, attention should be given to finding standards (e.g.,
market value, expert opinion, law, company policy) that can be used to determine the
quality of an outcome.