MB13-01 : CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND NEGOTIATION SKILLS

Q1. Differentiate between Conflict and competition.

Conflict implies both opposing interests or goals and opposing or incompatible behaviour. Competition, on the other hand, may involve considerable commonality of interests or goals, and only a limited amount of opposing behaviour. Competition occurs when two or more individuals or groups are striving for a goal that can be achieved by only one. Fixed or limited resource is one of the important features of a competitive situation: the person with the most sales wins the sales contest; the bidder with the lowest quotation wins the contact; only one sales officer becomes the Head of Sales. In case of competition, the person who gets promoted, out of the two who applied for the post of Head of Sales, is no doubt the winner; but the other person who lost the race has other options open - including promotion into some other unit in the same or a different location. Such competition might be relatively friendly. However if such a situation is marked by a great amount of antagonism, verbal battles and other negative behaviour, the situation might more aptly be called conflict. Competition, generally, has some ground rules that the parties have agreed to in advance. Parties are aware how far they can gain or lose. Conflict, however, has few or no rules and when parties engage in negative behaviour, they are not aware of how far the situation can escalate. The outcome definitely has the potential to negatively impact one of the parties and sometimes, even the whole system. Competitive rules are generally framed by authorities. For example, top management framing promotion policies; or a chess federation developing contest rules and schedules. Conflict, on the other hand, is more spontaneous and is outside of certain pre-planned set of rules and regulations.

These differences are summarized through the following table:

Differences

Conflict

Incompatibility of goals between the parties

Opposing/antagonistic behaviors

Few or no rules for the particular situation that has the potential to escalate without any limits

One or both parties may be drawn or forced into the contest

High probability of negatively impacting at least one of the parties and the broader system

Competition

Considerable compatibility of goals between the parties

Some opposing behaviors; some cooperative behaviors

Basic ground rules have been planned for this particular type of contest including limits on escalation

Parties usually join the contest willingly

Normally functional outcomes assumed for both parties and the broader system

Similarities

* Both can result in distortions of perceptions and 'we-they' feelings and attitudes.

* Both can have positive and negative consequences.

Usually three types of competition can be created by changing the reward structure.

* Intragroup competition exists when the members of a group contest against each other for a reward. For example, if four members of a group ran a race to find out who was the fastest, they would be engaging in intragroup competition.

* Intergroup competition exists when one group is competing against another group for the rewards. If the above group members formed a relay, and challenged another group to see which team was the fastest, they would be competing in intergroup competition.

* Individual competition is when individuals work independently against an external standard. In the above, they would be engaging in individual competition against their own past record.

Q2. Explain the organizational conflict.

A2. Organizational conflict can be divided into two: Interorganisational Conflict and Intraorganisational Conflict.

Interorganisational Conflict:

The phenomena in interorganisational conflict are much the same as those arising within an organization. The bases of interorganisational conflicts are essentially the same as the bases of intergroup conflict. Most commonly cited reasons for intergroup conflicts like incompatible objectives, conflicts over status, prestige and money are present in interorganisational conflict also. As pointed out by March and Simon, "many of the phenomena of intergroup conflict within the organisation are almost indistinguishable of the phenomena that we might consider under interorganisational conflict. The distinction between internal and external relations for an organisation is a cloudy one." In other words, interorganisational conflict is more extensive, more diffuse than the conflict among persons or groups.

Conditions

For conflict to exist between two organizations, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. Two organizations that are ignorant of each other cannot be conflict, though they might be in competition. So each of the organizations must be present in the image of the responsible decision-makers of the other.
2. A decision on the part of either of the executives must affect the state of both organizations in value-significant direction. Two organizations that do not affect each other cannot be in competition and, therefore, cannot be in conflict.
3. A decision on the part of either of the executives must affect the image of the state of the other in a direction that he considers as unfavorable. Wherever two organizations are expanding into a common field, so that possession of part of the field by one excludes the other, conflict is possible.

Types of lnterorganisational Conflicts

Stanger and Rosen have identified five types of interorganisational conflict:

1. Management-government: Conflicts over political contributions, bribery, anti- trust actions, fair trade, consumer protection etc. (The government will generally monitor organisational activities and management performance in areas where government regulation of business is thought necessary).
2. Inter-management: Managements may compete against each other in ways that they believe will enhance their position in the industry. Disputes over patents and fulfillment of contracts, price wars may be included here.
3. Inter-union: Unions may compete for members or jobs, as in jurisdictional disputes.
4. Union-government: The unions will be scrutinized by agents of the government for illegal activities like criminal activities discrimination, illegal strikes etc.
5. Union-management: If management and labour are to retain their institutional idealities, they must disagree and must adopt appropriate roles. Conflict is essential to survival for the union; lack of conflict would weaken it. Conflict between labour and management is expressed in many forms like strikes, peaceful bargains, grievances, debates, loyalties, sabotage and absenteeism.

Intraorganisational Conflict:

The wellsprings of conflict in an organisation are many. Mainly three kinds of internal strains can be listed.

1. Horizontal conflict: That arises between employees or departments at the same level in an organisation. To reach goals, each department may try to bulldoze others, snatch opportunities from others, grab resources illegally, and even frustrate the efforts of others so that it can emerge as a clear winner. These have already been explained earlier.
2. Vertical conflict: Between users in an organisation is another type of situation that organisations commonly encounter.

There are primarily three reasons for vertical conflicts: (1) inadequate communication between, (2) conflict arises essentially from differences of interests between position holders occupying different status in the organisational hierarchy, and (3) a distinct lack of shared perceptions and attitudes among members in various levels. Vertical conflicts arise because superiors attempt to control subordinates and subordinates tend to resist forcing the superior to increase the dosage of impersonal roles to exact obedience and gain control. Impersonal rules rob the subordinate of the freedom of action enjoyed hitherto and as a result, "he perceives himself to be threatened by and in conflict with his superiors, who are attempting to decrease his autonomy".

Line and Staff Conflict

Controversy and conflict are inherent in the concept of line and staff. It is not an easy task to divide and distribute expertise, authority and roles in equitable quantities between the line generalists and staff specialists. The concept authorizes the splitting of various functions into two categories: hierarchical and non-hierarchical, that is, creation of low status and high status persons. The splitting of functions into hierarchical and non-hierarchical levels and the creation of low status and high status positions creates a discrepancy between expected and actual authority, leading to resentment and frustration to all the parties involved. Line managers look upon staff specialists as "unnecessary impediments in the otherwise simple and efficient administration of production operations". Moreover, the staff specialist is cast in the role of a gatekeeper relative to the line manager and can often monitor information, resources and rewards flowing to him. To make confusion more confounded, line and staff members have different time horizons, objectives and interpersonal orientations and approaches to organisational problems. For example Daiton found that the staff employees who were usually younger, had an upper level of education and came from different social backgrounds than line employees. These different personal characteristics, which are frequently associated with different values and beliefs, often exacerbate conflicts between line and staff. The causes of conflict between line and staff are captured in the following table.

Line Viewpoint

Unauthorized encroachment: Staff oversteps its authority. Because line managers are ultimately responsible for results and profits, they tend to resent staff encroachment upon their duties and prerogatives.

• Academic advice: Staff does not give sound advice. The advice, staff offers, is not fully considered, well balanced, and soundly tested. Staff specialists are, in many cases, cut off from the day-to-day operational realities.
• Staff steals credit: But when things go wrong, the staffs turn the tables on the line officers.
• The staff fails to see the whole picture: specialists have a limited perspective and fail to relate their ideas to the organization's overall objectives. The staff is loyal to a narrow specialty; line is loyal to the organisation.
• Empire building tendencies: Since specialists have fewer organisational levels to advance, each frequently tries to expand his own 'empire'.

Staff Viewpoint

• Line does not use staff properly: The line manager prefers to run his own show. The staff's help is sought as a last resort.
• Line resists new ideas: Line management is often overly cautious and painfully slow in accepting useful ideas.
• Line does not provide staff enough authority: Even the best solutions offered by staff members quite often, are not supported and implemented by the line managers.