![Conflict ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Destacado
Destacado (20)
Similar a Conflict And Negotiation 2
Similar a Conflict And Negotiation 2 (20)
Conflict And Negotiation 2
- 10. Types of Conflict Dysfunctional Conflict Functional Conflict Hinder group performance Supports the goals of the group and improve its performance
- 12. Negotiation Process Preparation and Planning Definition of Ground Rules Clarification and Justification Closure and Implementation Bargaining and Problem Solving
Notas del editor
- Conflict can be defined as a process in which an effort is purposely made by “A” to offset the efforts of “B” by some form of blocking that will result in frustrating “B” in attaining his or her goals or furthering his or her interests. This definition is comprised of five elements. Conflict must be perceived by the parties to it. If there is no awareness , then no conflict exists. Additional elements are opposition, scarcity, and blockage and the assumption that there are two or more parties whose interests or goals appear to be incompatible . Resources are limited, and scarcity encourages blocking behavior. The parties, therefore, are in opposition . And when one party blocks another’s means to a goal, conflict exists. There is debate over whether conflict is limited to only overt acts. The above definition assumes that conflict is a determined action , which can exist at either the latent or overt level.
- Conflict can be defined as a process in which an effort is purposely made by “A” to offset the efforts of “B” by some form of blocking that will result in frustrating “B” in attaining his or her goals or furthering his or her interests. This definition is comprised of five elements. Conflict must be perceived by the parties to it. If there is no awareness , then no conflict exists. Additional elements are opposition, scarcity, and blockage and the assumption that there are two or more parties whose interests or goals appear to be incompatible . Resources are limited, and scarcity encourages blocking behavior. The parties, therefore, are in opposition . And when one party blocks another’s means to a goal, conflict exists. There is debate over whether conflict is limited to only overt acts. The above definition assumes that conflict is a determined action , which can exist at either the latent or overt level.
- Conflict can be defined as a process in which an effort is purposely made by “A” to offset the efforts of “B” by some form of blocking that will result in frustrating “B” in attaining his or her goals or furthering his or her interests. This definition is comprised of five elements. Conflict must be perceived by the parties to it. If there is no awareness , then no conflict exists. Additional elements are opposition, scarcity, and blockage and the assumption that there are two or more parties whose interests or goals appear to be incompatible . Resources are limited, and scarcity encourages blocking behavior. The parties, therefore, are in opposition . And when one party blocks another’s means to a goal, conflict exists. There is debate over whether conflict is limited to only overt acts. The above definition assumes that conflict is a determined action , which can exist at either the latent or overt level.
- The traditional view of conflict has argued that it must be avoided because it indicates a malfunction in the group. Conflict was viewed negatively as being synonymous with violence, destruction, and irrationality. The view that all conflict is bad is simplistic. To improve group or organizational performance, all we need to do is address the causes of conflict and correct them. Although strong evidence disputes this view, many use it to evaluate conflict. The human relations view argues that conflict is a natural, inevitable outcome in any group. Since conflict is inevitable, it should be accepted. And there are even times when conflict may benefit the performance of a group. This view dominated conflict theory from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s. The current approach is the interactionist view . It encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, cooperative group is likely to become static and apathetic--unable to respond to the challenges of the global marketplace. The major contribution of this approach is to urge group leaders to maintain an ongoing minimal level of conflict--enough to keep the group alive, self-critical, and creative.
- Not all conflict is productive. Functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves its performance. Dysfunctional conflict hinders group performance. The line between the two types of conflict is neither clear nor precise. Therefore, no one level of conflict can be identified as acceptable or unacceptable under all conditions. Conflict that may facilitate the goals of one group may debilitate another group. The important criterion is group performance. It is the impact of conflict on the group as a whole that defines functionality. In an appraisal of either the functional or dysfunctional impacts of conflict on group behavior, whether the individual group members perceive the conflict as good or bad is irrelevant.
- Two negotiation methods are distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining. When negotiating the price of a used car, the buyer and seller are engaged in distributive bargaining. This type of bargaining is a zero-sum game: any gain that one party makes comes at the expense of the other party. So, the essence is negotiating over who gets what share of a fixed pie. The next technique assumes that more than one “win-win” settlement exists. Generally preferable to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining builds long-term relationships because each negotiator can leave the table feeling victorious. For integrative bargaining to succeed, negotiators must be open, candid, sensitive, trusting, and flexible. All things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. The former builds long-term relationships and facilitates future cooperation. The latter, on the other hand, leaves one party a loser; so it can build animosities and deepen divisions when people have to work together on an ongoing basis.
- Irrational escalation of commitment occurs when people continue a previously selected course of action beyond what rational analysis would recommend. Such misdirected persistence can waste a great deal of time, energy, and cash. The mythical fixed pie. Bargainers assume that their gain must come at the expense of the other party. By assuming a “zero-sum game” they exclude any opportunities for finding “win-win” solutions. Anchoring and adjustments. People often anchor their judgments on irrelevant information, such as initial offers. Effective negotiators do not let an initial anchor minimize the amount of information and depth of analysis they use to evaluate a situation. Framing negotiations. People are affected by the way information is presented to them. Availability of information. Negotiators often rely too much on information that is readily available while ignoring more relevant data. They should learn to distinguish between what is familiar and what is reliable and relevant. The winner’s curse is the regret one feels after negotiation. Since your offer was accepted by your opponent, you become concerned that you offered too much. You can reduce the “curse” by getting as much information as possible and putting yourself in your opponent’s shoes. Overconfidence. When people hold certain beliefs and expectations, they tend to ignore any information that contradicts them. The result is that negotiators tend to be overconfident, which can lessen the incentive to compromise.