Week 4 Discussion Questions
MGT/445 Organizational Negotiations
What are key sources of conflict in the organizational setting? What are the key impediments to efficiently resolving conflict in a negotiation? What means would you apply to preserve or increase the level of trust in an organizational negotiation?
The key sources of conflict are resource, data-type, preferences and nuisances, differing attributions of causation, communication problems, differences in conflict orientation, structural or interpersonal power, identity, values, and displaced and misattributed (Coltri, 2004).
The key impediments to efficiently resolve conflict in negotiation include; abuse of power, conflicting personalities, racial and unethical issues, and assumptions and perceptions.
Higher ranking employees, or those recently promoted, may allow their rank or position to go to their head. This creates conflict and leads to unhappy employees. Conflicting personalities may also cause conflict, as personal opinions and beliefs may not be shared by others. Racial and unethical issues are a major conflict in the workplace. Effective communication is essential in preventing and resolving these types of issues. If individuals do not communicate and respect each other, the workplace can be very hectic. Assumptions and perception lead to rumors. It is imperative that organizations hold frequent meetings to quell any possible rumors.
To preserve or increase the level of trust in an organizational negotiation, I would encourage open and frequent communication, honesty and integrity, truthfulness, transparency, and the building of interpersonal relationships
What are the five negotiation styles for managing conflict? Which style do you typically use when negotiating? Explain why. Which style is most effective when negotiating in the organizational setting? Explain your answer.
The five basic negotiation styles are:
Avoiding – Demonstratesa low level of concern for both self and others.
Dominating / Competing – Demonstrates a high level of concern for self and a low level of concern for other.
Obliging / Accommodating – Demonstrates a low level of concern for self and a high level of concern for other.
Integrating / Collaborating – Demonstrates a low level of concern for self and high level of concern for other.
Compromising – Demonstrates a moderate level of concern for self and other (Coltri, 2004, ¶ 12).
Though negotiation styles vary depending on the circumstances, the style that I typically use is the collaborating style. As a military trainer, the interest of the student is always first. When my organization negotiates an approach to a particular event, we typically focus on how the instructor can best explain the material. Although this benefits the instructor, the student is most important. I believe that integrating, collaborating, and compromising are most effective in the organizational setting because they have a high concern for others and demonstrates the willingness to reach an agreement in the negotiation process.
What are the five major negotiation intervention strategies? When would you use the different intervention strategies? Why is it important to consider intervention strategies when planning a negotiation?
The five major negotiation intervention strategies are:
Means-control strategy: The manager intervenes in the dispute by influencing the process of resolution. The manager facilitates interaction, assists in communication, explains one disputant’s views to another, clarifies issues, lays down rules for dealing with the dispute, and maintains order during talks. The manager does not attempt to dictate or impose a resolution and the final decision is left to the disputants. However, the manager may suggest solutions. Managerial approach is high on process control but low on outcome control.
Ends-control strategy: The manager intervenes in the dispute by influencing the outcome, but does not attempt to influence the process. The manager takes full control of the final resolution, decides what the final decision will be, and imposes the resolution on the disputants. Disputants have control over what information is presented and how it is presented. The managerial process is high on outcome control but low on process control (e.g., arbitration, adjudication, adversarial intervention).
Low control strategy: The manager does not actively intervene in resolving the dispute. The manager encourages the parties to settle the dispute on their own, or stays away from the dispute altogether. Managerial approach is low on both process and outcome control. Managers provide input and encourage parties to negotiate or settle the dispute by themselves.
Full control strategy: The manager intervenes in the dispute by influencing the process and outcome. The manager decides what information is to be presented, how it should be presented, and decides on the final resolution. The manager asks the disputants specific questions about the dispute to obtain information, and imposes a resolution. The manager uses inquisitorial and autocratic intervention, and involvement is high on both process and outcome.
Part control strategy: The manager intervenes in the dispute by sharing control over the process and outcome with the disputants. All parties jointly agree on the resolution process and strive for a consensus on the settlement decision. The manager facilitates interaction to help the disputants arrive at a solution by assisting in communication, discussing the issues, and so on. Additionally, the manager takes an active role in evaluating options, recommending solutions, persuading the disputants to accept solutions, and pushing for a settlement. Managers use a moderate managerial approach to encourage group problem solving, mediation, and arbitration (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry. 2005 p. 508).
It is important to consider intervention strategies when planning a negotiation because it is a form of mediation and problem-solving when issues do arise.
Coltri, Lauri. (2004). Conflict diagnosis and alternative dispute resolution, 1e. Identify the
sources of conflict. Retrieved from Prentice Hall, Inc. A Pearson
Education Company, University of Phoenix electronic database
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M.,& Barry, B. (2005). Negotiation (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Retrieved from Prentice Hall, Inc. A Pearson Education Company, University of Phoenix electronic database