The problem Why conflicts arise In most organizations, conflicts increase as employees assert their demands for an increased

share in organizational rewards, such as position, acknowledgment, appreciation, monetary benefits and independence. Even management faces conflicts with many forces from outside the organization, such as government, unions and other coercive groups which may impose restrictions on managerial activities. Conflicts emanate from more than one source, and so their true origin may be hard to identify. Important initiators of conflict situations include: (i) People disagree. People disagree for a number of reasons (De Bono, 1985). (a) They see things differently because of differences in understanding and viewpoint. Most of these differences are usually not important. Personality differences or clashes in emotional needs may cause conflicts. Conflicts arise when two groups or individuals interacting in the same situation see the situation differently because of different sets of settings, information pertaining to the universe, awareness, background, disposition, reason or outlook. In a particular mood, individuals think and perceive in a certain manner. For example, the half-full glass of one individual can be half-empty to another. Obviously both individuals convey the same thing, but they do so differently owing to contrasting perceptions and dispositions. (b) People have different styles, principles, values, beliefs and slogans which determine their choices and objectives. When choices contradict, people want different things and that can create conflict situations. For example, a risk-taking manager would be in conflict with a risk-minimizing supervisor who believes in firm control and a well-kept routine. (c) People have different ideological and philosophical outlooks, as in the case of different political parties. Their concepts, objectives and ways of reacting to various situations are different. This often creates conflicts among them. (d) Conflict situations can arise because people have different status. When people at higher levels in the organization feel indignant about suggestions for change put forward

from their subordinates or associates, it provokes conflict. By tolerating and allowing such suggestions, potential conflict can be prevented. (e) People have different thinking styles, which encourages them to disagree, leading to conflict situations. Certain thinking styles may be useful for certain purposes, but ineffectual or even perilous in other situations (De Bono, 1985). (f) People are supposed to disagree under particular circumstances, such as in sports. Here conflict is necessary, and even pleasurable. (ii) People are concerned with fear, force, fairness or funds (De Bono, 1985). (a) Fear relates to imaginary concern about something which might happen in the future. One may fear setbacks, disgrace, reprisal or hindrances, which can lead to conflict situations. (b) Force is a necessary ingredient of any conflict situation. Force may be ethical or emotional. It could be withdrawal of cooperation or approval. These forces are instrumental in generating, strengthening and terminating conflicts. (c) Fairness refers to an individual's sense of what is right and what is not right, a fundamental factor learnt in early childhood. This sense of fairness determines the moral values of an individual. People have different moral values and accordingly appreciate a situation in different ways, creating conflict situations. (d) Funds or costs can cause conflict, but can also force a conclusion through acceptable to the conflicting parties. The cost of being in conflict may be measurable (in money terms) or immeasurable, being expressed in terms of human lives, suffering, diversion of skilled labour, neglect or loss of morale and self esteem. (De Bono, 1985). Why does it matter The Effects of Conflict Within an Organization

Mental Health Concerns Conflict within an organization can cause members to become frustrated if they feel as if theres no solution in sight, or if they feel that their opinions go unrecognized by other group members. As a result, members become stressed, which adversely affects their professional and personal lives. Organization members may have problems sleeping, loss of appetite or overeating, headaches and become unapproachable. In some instances, organization members may avoid meetings to prevent themselves from experiencing stress and stress-related symptoms. Decrease in Productivity When an organization spends much of its time dealing with conflict, members take time away from focusing on the core goals they are tasked with achieving. Conflict causes members to focus less on the project at hand and more on gossiping about conflict or venting about frustrations. As a result, organizations can lose money, donors and access to essential resources. Members Leave Organization Organization members who are increasingly frustrated with the level of conflict within an organization may decide to end their membership. This is especially detrimental when members are a part of the executive board or heads of committees. Once members begin to leave, the organization has to recruit new members and appoint acting board members. In extreme cases, where several members leave or an executive board steps down, organizations risk dissolution. Violence When conflict escalates without mediation, intense situations may arise between organization members. Its unfortunate, but organizational conflicts may cause violence among members, resulting in legal problems for members and possibly the organization.

Unmanaged conflict has the potential to cause several negative consequences in workplaces, communities, and homes. Many times these costs are hidden, that is, they

are not readily apparent. At the same time, these costs are very detrimental to individuals, groups, and organizations ORGANIZATIONAL COSTS: The Dana Mediation Institute, Inc. has determined a number of cost factors associated with conflict: #1: Wasted time #2: Opportunity cost of wasted time #3: Lowered job motivation and productivity #4: Lost performance due to conflict-related absenteeism #5: Loss of investment in skilled employees #6: Conflict-incited theft, sabotage, vandalism, & damage #7: Restructuring around the problem #8: Health costs #9: Degraded decision quality A lot of these conflicts are very subtle within an organization, yet still have the power to negatively affect an organizations bottom line.

What to do about it Dealing with conflict Conflicts are inescapable in an organization. However, conflicts can be used as motivators for healthy change. In today's environment, several factors create competition; they may be differing departmental objectives, individual objectives, competition for use of resources or differing viewpoints. These have to be integrated and exploited efficiently to achieve organizational objectives. A manager should be able to see emerging conflicts and take appropriate pre-emptive action. The manager should understand the causes creating conflict, the outcome of conflict, and various methods by which conflict can be managed in the organization. With this understanding, the manager should evolve an approach for resolving conflicts before their disruptive repercussions have an impact on productivity and creativity.

Therefore, a manager should possess special skills to react to conflict situations, and should create an open climate for communication between conflicting parties. Ways to resolve conflict When two groups or individuals face a conflict situation, they can react in four ways (De Bono, 1985). They can: Fight, which is not a beneficial, sound or gratifying approach to dealing with a conflict situation, as it involves 'tactics, strategies, offensive and defensive positions, losing and winning grounds, and exposure of weak points.' Fighting as a way of resolving a conflict can only be useful in courtroom situations, where winning and losing becomes a byproduct of the judicial process. Negotiate, towards a settlement with the other party. Negotiations take place within the prevailing situation and do not involve problem solving or designing. Third-party roles are very important in bringing the conflicting parties together on some common ground for negotiations. Problem solve, which involves identifying and removing the cause of the conflict so as to make the situation normal again. However, this may not be easy. It is also possible that the situation may not become normal even after removing the identified cause, because of its influence on the situation. Design, which is an attempt towards creativity in making the conflict situation normal. It considers conflicts as situations rather than problems. Designing is not confined to what is already there, but attempts to reach what might be created given a proper understanding of the views and situations of the conflicting parties. The proposed idea should be appropriate and acceptable to the parties in conflict. A third party participates actively in the design process rather than being just a an umpire.

The pay off If managed well, conflicts can; Inspire Creativity Fortunately, some organization members view conflict as an opportunity for finding creative solutions to solve problems. Conflict can inspire members to brainstorm ideas, while examining problems from various perspectives. Share And Respect Opinions As organization members work together to solve conflict, they are more willing to share their opinions with the group. Conflict can also cause members to actively listen to each as they work to accomplish the organizations goals. Improve Future Communication Conflict can bring group members together and help them learn more about each other. From learning each others opinions on topics relevant to the organizations growth to understanding each members preferred communication style, conflict within an organization can give members the tools necessary to easily solve conflicts in the future. Identify New Members Within organizations members actively participate in each meeting, enjoy serving on multiple committees and have an opinion on each topic the group discusses. There are also members who seemingly contribute little to the group and observe more than talk. Conflict within an organization can inspire typically silent members to step up and demonstrate their leadership skills by offering meaningful solutions to the problem the group is facing

Practitioner points Summing up Conflicts are inevitable in any organization. A modest level of conflict can be useful in generating better ideas and methods, inspiring concern and ingenuity, and stimulating the emergence of long-suppressed problems. Conflict management strategies should aim at keeping conflict at a level at which different ideas and viewpoints are fully voiced but unproductive conflicts are deterred. Stimulation of conflict situations is appropriate if the research manager identifies conditions of 'group-think.' Group-think is a situation where conflict rarely occurs because of high group cohesion, which results in poor decision and inadequate performance. Group-think prevails when there are lot of 'yes men' in a group, with the result that there is no serious appraisal of the situation and new ideas are not suggested. Group members attach greater importance to popularity, tranquillity and peace in the group rather than to technical ability and proficiency. Members are disinclined to verbalize their unbiased views in order to avoid hurting the feelings of other members of the group. Decisions are accepted as they are, adversely affecting organizational productivity. A manager can choose several remedies to avoid group-think (Irving, 1971). A conflict situation can be induced by supporting individualistic thinking or favouring individual competition. Individualistic thinking can be initiated in the group by including some group members who can freely express their views, which can encourage and prod others to do the same. Competition between individuals can be enhanced by acknowledging and rewarding the better performers. Conflict situations can also be introduced by making some organizational changes, such as transferring some group members, redefining roles, and helping the emergence of new leadership. A manager can also create a conflict situation by delivering shocks, such as by reducing some existing perks of the members of the organization. After stimulating the conflict situation, a manager should: identify calibrate the the likely source of of the the conflict situation, situation, and

productiveness

neutralize the unproductive conflict situation.

Basic problems in inter-group behaviour are conflict of goals and communication failures, A basic tactic in resolving conflicts, therefore, is to find goals upon which scientists or groups can agree, and to ensure proper communication and interaction. Some conflicts arise because of simple misconceptions, which can be overcome by improved communication. A manager should manage conflicts effectively rather than suppress or avoid them. To manage them, a manager needs to ask 'What?' and 'Why?' - and not 'Who?' - to get at the root of a problem. In the process of resolving conflicts, many problems can be identified and solved by removing obstacles and creating a new environment of individual growth. If conflicts are not managed properly, they can be damaging, as they waste a lot of energy and time, and invoke tension, which reduces the productivity and creativity of those involved.

De Bono, E. 1985. Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them. London: Harrap. Filley, A.C. 1975. Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. Glenview IL: Scott, Foresman. Thomas, K.W., & Kilman, R.H. 1974. Conflict Mode Instrument. Tuxedo, New York NY: Xicom. Tosi, H.L., Rizzo, J.R., & Carroll, S.J. 1986. Organizational Behaviour. New York,

NEGOTIATION

egotiation Challenges
Reprinted from: Tero's Beyond Compromise: A Better Way To Negotiate Training Manual A number of things can occur in a negotiation that can be especially challenging. Anticipating challenges and developing strategies to deal with them can be helpful when they happen. Below are some common negotiation challenges and strategies for handling them. By being able to recognize them, you will be in a better position to handle them effectively. By being conscious of them, you will be less likely to inadvertently use one yourself. Time Pressure

The other party, early in the negotiation, says 'let"s skip the haggling, just give me your best price". Whether you are negotiating a price for a product, the start date for a project, or how many resources you can temporarily loan to another department, beware if the other party puts you under unexpected time pressure and attempts to push you straight to your fallback position. Try responding, "I'd like to give you my best price but until I've learned more about your requirements, I don't know what my best price is." Sidestepping the request and signaling that you need information is a good countermeasure because you have agreed that you want to learn the needs of the other party. Another Decision-maker Well into the negotiations, you discover that you are not talking to a decision-maker. He or she leaves the room and returns five minutes later saying that the boss will not agree unless another x percent is conceded. That point is negotiated and the party disappears again asking for another concession. Sometimes, they don't even leave the room - they simply say "my boss would never agree to that". Insist on discussing matters with the decision-maker or resurrect matters that the other party thought were already agreed. "If you want delivery in two weeks and an x percent discount we'll have to take another look at quantity." With this countermeasure you are not only sidestepping the attempted manipulation but also effectively encouraging the other person to be open and honest. That way you can arrive at an agreement with which you both feel comfortable. Delay Tactics This is a tactic that senior people frequently use on more junior people. It is a way of saying, "I'm calling the shots around here because I'm the more important person." Their hope is that you will become more nervous, or that the effect on your schedule will cause you to feel under pressure and so you will agree to what they want in order to keep the discussion short. An effective countermeasure, assuming you do not want to reschedule the meeting, is always to bring some work or reading along with you. That way the attempt at pressure becomes a gift of time during which you do some work that you would not otherwise have done. Alternatively, you can use the time for some last-minute preparation. Finally, if the time available for the meeting becomes too tight you may have no alternative but to reschedule. If the delay was genuinely unavoidable, the other party will understand. If it was an attempt to manipulate you, he or she will see it will not work and be less inclined to try it on you in the future. Last-minute Wavering Just when you think that negotiations are over and you have reached agreement, the other party begins wavering over some seemingly trivial point. The other party knows that your defenses are down as the negotiation nears completion and they ask for another concession. Actually, the other party can waver several times, squeezing several additional concessions from you each time. Your defense is to remember that every time he or she raises another issue, points that have been previously agreed to can be brought back for discussion using the word if. As in, "I can consider this new point but only if we reconsider . . ." If the new point is genuine the other party will not mind resurrecting a previously agreed to one; if the new point is not genuine, the other party will retract it. An Early Concession Some negotiators begin with an early concession and then wait for you to reciprocate and in the spirit of relationship-building, you probably will.

Thank them, remember the concession for later, and continue exploring. Aggressive Behaviors Sarcastic comments, patronizing, bullying, attempts to make you feel guilty, attempts to make you feel inferior, bribery, belittling remarks and dismissive words are all forms of inappropriate influencing. They are designed to help the other person "win" at your expense. Sometimes these aggressive behaviors work. They get us what we want, but only in the short term and at a long term cost. Behaviors such as these can create resentment, lack of ownership of what has been agreed to, lack of initiative from other people when problems arise, withdrawal of goodwill, poor relationships, and retaliation. If we communicate with people openly, honestly and above all, respectfully, we tend to avoid these problems. While communicating with people this way does not guarantee that we shall achieve our short terms goals (although the chances are certainly increased) we usually experience long term benefits because people prefer being treated this way. Linking Logic This is based on the assumption that if a person is correct in one thing, he or she must be correct in another. So, in a debate about modern technology, one person could ask the other, "Would you give up your cell phone?". Since the answer is probably no, he or she has just strengthened his/her argument. The fact that your resistance to the technology the other party is promoting and your decision to carry a cell phone are unconnected may escape your attention. Your best defense against this form of manipulation is asking questions. You need to get to the bottom of the other person's point to see if the logic he or she is applying is sound or not. Price-only Negotiation Negotiators who pay attention exclusively to price turn potentially cooperative deals into adversarial ones. While price is an important factor in most deals, it is rarely the only one. People care about much more than the absolute level of their own economic outcome. Competing interests include relative results, perceived fairness, self-image, reputation, and so on. Successful negotiators, acknowledging that economics aren't everything, focus on important non-price factors such as relationships (short and long-term) and the larger interests. Less experienced negotiators often undervalue the importance of developing working relationships with the other parties, putting the relationship at risk by overly tough tactics of simple neglect. This is especially true cross-culturally. Letting Positions Override Interests Despite the clear advantages of reconciling deeper interests, people have a built-in bias toward focusing on their own positions instead. This hardwired assumption that our interests are incompatible implies a zero-sum pie in which my gain is your loss. Issues - topic on the table for agreement Positions - one party's stands on the issues Interests - underlying concerns that would be affected by the resolution Reconciling interests to create value requires patience and a willingness to research the other side, ask many questions, and listen. Neglecting the Other Side's Problem

You can't negotiate effectively unless you understand your own interests and your own no-deal options. But there is much more to it than that. Since the other side will say "yes" for its reasons, not yours, agreement requires understanding and addressing the other party's problem as a means to solving your own. Successful negotiators agree that overcoming this self-centered tendency is critical. Spend time trying to understand how the poor man or woman on the other side of the table is going to sell this deal to his or her boss. Before you can change a person's mind, you have to first learn where that person's mind is.

Negotiation
When the parties involved in a conflict want to work toward an amicable resolution, they must engage in a communication process to decide what kind of a deal would be acceptable to both. In other words they must negotiate to reach an agreement. Here what is important is that all the parties concerned must want a solution. And for this they must put up or encourage proposals, not hold on to whatever grievances they have or whatever arguments they deem right. Arguments cannot be negotiated, only proposals can. This demands that emotions be kept under control. Negotiating is a delicate process and a lot of thinking must go into it, both before it actually gets underway, and while it is going on.

Approaches

to

Negotiation

As with conflict management, negotiation can be handled in different ways. The outcome of a negotiation depends on the approach. Orientation

Bargaining

This approach is based on the premise that one person can win only at the expense of the other that any victory by one party must be matched by the others loss. That is why this is also called the win-lose approach. Although this approach is marked by competitiveness and may create ill will, this is sometimes the best approach when the other party is determined to take advantage of you or when your interests truly conflict with those of the other party and compromising is not a satisfactory option.

Lose-Lose

Orientation

This is adopted when one negotiating partner feels his own interests are threatened and reacts by doing all he can to ensure that the outcome of the negotiation does not serve the other partys interests either. In effect, everybody ends up being a loser. Lose-lose outcomes occur when negotiating partners ignore one anothers needs or when the need to hurt each other outweighs the need to find some kind of an acceptable solution. Compromise A lose-lose situation is hardly a desirable outcome. To avoid this, sometimes people compromise. Both parties give up a part of what they had originally sought, and settle for something less than that. A compromise is the best way out when it is impossible for both parties to convince each other or when even the partial attainment of one partys goals depends on the satisfaction of the other. Compromise is a good option when disputed resources are limited. For instance, if two managers each need a full-time secretary, but budget restrictions make this impossible, they may have to compromise by sharing one secretary. Win-Win Orientation

When the needs of the negotiating parties are compatible, a win-win solution, which satisfies the needs of all parties, becomes possible. The win -win approach is superior to other problem-solving styles, because everyone ends up feeling satisfied. However, such a solution is only possible when the needs of the parties involved do not conflict. This approach works well when the following five steps are followed.

1. Determine the needs of both parties. If both parties can identify what issues are important to the other, they would find it easier to work toward a mutually acceptable solution. 2. Develop a list of possible solutions. Once the basic issues have been identified, the two parties can sit together and come up with several solutions that would satisfy everyones

needs. All possible solutions are put down, without any of them being evaluated. 3. Choose the most appropriate solutions. At this stage each solution is evaluated and the ones understands that it, are most and promising then are implement adopted. it. 4. Implement the solution. Once the best solution is decided upon, make sure everyone

5. Follow up on the solution. Even the best plans need to be monitored after they have been implemented. A while after the plan has been put into action, meet with the other parties involved and discuss how the solution is working out. If anyones needs are still unmet, you could go back to the problem-solving procedure and identify another solution.