Introduction to Organizational Behavior (OB)

Sunday, March 5, 2017 9:52 AM

Organizational trends & challenges

Introduction

- Globalization:
- Organizational behavior: Study of how ○ What happened:
people think, feel & behave in & around org - Econ, social & cultural connectivity with peo across world
env - Speeded up recently due to policy & tech development
○ Effects:
- Organization: Coordinate social unit of ≥ 2 - ↑ Competition, mergers, work intensification
peo:
- ↑ forms of comm
○ Work independently
- ↑ Workforce diversity
○ Toward some common goals
- Workforce diversity: Gender, disability, race, age, nationality, religion, …
- Why study OB: ○ ↑ Understanding of customer needs
○ Knowledge: Understand org events ○ Challenge: Conflict, miscomm, discrimination
○ Forecast: Predict org events
○ Control: Influence org events - Virtual work:
○ Telework: Perform job away from trad phys workplace thanks to info tech
○ Virtual team:
• Operate across space, time & org boundaries
• Comm mainly through tech

OB anchors
- Workspace values & ethics:
○ Values: Guide employee decisions & actions
○ Globalization: ↑ Awareness of different values
- Multidisciplinary: Many OB concepts adopted from
other disciplines

- Systematic Research: Means to predict behavior

Observe relationship
→ Attempt to attribute causes & effects
→ Draw conclusions based on sci evidence

- Contingency: Particular action may have different

consequences in different situation

- Multiple Lvls of Analysis: Individual, team, org lvl

MGMT 2110 Page 1

Personality & Values
Sunday, March 5, 2017 9:52 AM

Big Five Personality Dimensions: OCEAN

Trait Meaning High score Low score Prediction

Openness to Lvl of interests & Creative, curious, Conventional, ∝:
experience fascination with artistically comfortable with • Training performance
novelty sensitive familiarity • Leadership (comfortable with change & ambiguity)
Conscientiousnes Measure of Responsible, Easily distracted, - ∝:
s reliability organized, disorganized, • Job knowledge ∝ Performance
dependable, unreliable • Leadership
persistent
- 1/∝:
• Adaptability
• Training performance (focus on performance rather than learning)
Extraversion Comfort lvl with Extravert: Introvert: ∝:
relationship Gregarious, Reserved, timid, • Performance in job requiring freq interpersonal interaction
assertive, sociable quiet • Leadership
• Job & life satisfaction
Agreeableness Propensity to defer Cooperative, Cold, -∝ :
to others warm, trusting disagreeable, • Performance in jobs requiring freq interpersonal interaction
antagonistic - 1/∝:
• Engagement in deviant behavior
• Career success (especially earnings)
Neuroticism Degree of Calm, self- Nervous, anxious, - ∝:
emotional confident, secure depressed, • Job & Life satisfaction (more freely express feeling)
stability insecure • Performance in jobs requiring freq interpersonal interaction
- 1/∝:
• Stress lvl
• Impulsive (engagement in risky behaviors)

Ability
Personality Determinants

- Physical: Capacity to do physical activities

- Nature (Biological heritage) - Intellectual: Capacity to do mental activities
heredity, genes, … thinking, reasoning, problem solving

- Nurture (Life experiences)

surrounding environment, education, …
Lay theory of intelligence
- Situation Your beliefs about whether ability is changeable can have huge consequences
funeral, party, …

Beliefs Entity Incremental

Performance "You're not good at this "You're not trying hard enough
feedback task. It's OK, not everyone this time. Work harder next time"
is good"
Self-concepts Consequences - Less willing to improve - More willing to improve skill by
skill practicing more
- Believe ability is fixed - Believe that ability is
- Core Self-Evaluation (CSE): changeable through effort

Positive Negative
- See self: - Question self:
• Effective, capable • Capabilities
• In control of env • Powerless over env Value

- Attain more complex job - Attain simple job

MGMT 2110 Page 2

 • Effective, capable • Capabilities
• In control of env • Powerless over env Value

- Attain more complex job - Attain simple job

- Types:
- Set more ambitious goals - Set less ambitious goals
Espoused (ideal) Enacted (in-use)
- More committed to goals - Less commit to goals
What we say we use & What we actually rely on to guide decisions
often think we use & actions
- Self-evaluation maintenance:
When your best friend/coworker performed better than you
- Typical values:
Reflection effect Comparison effect ○ Individualism vs Collectivism: Degree to which people prefer to act as
- You perceive: You & friend - You perceive: You & friend individual vs as group member
work in different area work in same area

Individualism Collectivism
- Your action: Bask in friend's - Your action: Reduce your
- Personal freedom, private - Group interest, duty to
reflected glory cognitive dissonance
space group
- Independence, uniqueness - Harmony with others
- Self-enhancement:
○ Promote positive self-view
○ Power distance: Degree to which people accept unequal distr of power
○ Effects: 2 side
Positive Negative
High Low
- Contentment - Arrogance, selfishness (unable to make
- Accept & value unequal power - Expect relatively equal power
- ↑ self-esteem others feel valued & respected)
- Value obedience to authority sharing
- Value consultation
- ↑ Effort & persistent - Overestimate success prob
at task manager's investment decision
○ Uncertainty avoidance: Degree that people tolerate ambiguity
(low)/threatened by ambiguity & uncertainty (high)
Survey about ability to get along with other
100% thought they > avg
High Low
60% thought they in top 10%
"No is no" "No may not be No"
24% thought they in top 1%
- Value structured situation, clearly - Prefer unstructured situation
documented conduct - Prefer indirect comm
- Prefer direct comm

MGMT 2110 Page 3

Altitude & Job Satisfaction
Sunday, March 5, 2017 9:54 AM
Cognitive dissonance theory

- Incompatibility between:
○ ≥ 2 attitudes, OR
Attitude
Evaluation/Judgement of target ○ Behavior & attitude

- Component: - Individual will attempt to ↓ dissonance → ↓ Discomfort:

○ Cognitive: Facts & Beliefs one has about the target ○ Change cognition
My supervisor is unfair: He gave promotion to coworker ○ Change behavior
who deserved it less than me ○ Add consonant cognition (rationalize our behavior)

○ Affective: Feelings about target aroused in person holding

attitude
I dislike my supervisor!

○ Behavioral: Intention to behave in certain way toward target

I'm looking for other jobs

Attitude in OB

- Job satisfaction:
Religion studies
○ Evaluation of own job & work context
Founder of sect announced that end of world coming
○ Collection of attitude about different aspects of job
Only true believers will be saved & picked up by God
pay, promotion, co-worker, …

When day came, all members gather, awaiting end of world & saving from God
- Organizational commitment:
Then, nothing happened.
○ Continuance commitment: Belief that staying with organization serve
Founder announced that "Guardians" told him the world saved because of their
personal interest (calculative)
faithfulness
My groupmate are not fun to hang out with. I am just working with
them to get good grade
Sect members reaction: Happy, become more faithful than ever
Why: Protect self-image
○ Affective commitment: Degree to which one aligns with organization's
▪ Many believed in many year (invested lots of money & resources)
goals & wishes to maintain membership
▪ Very reluctant to revise prior belief ("cognitive dissonance"), despite the
I'm proud of being member of this group
fact against their beliefs.
▪ If revise believe → Appear to be foolish
- ELVN Model: Response to job dissatisfaction

Constructive Destructive
Active Voice Exit
Attempt to improve conditions Leave organization
Passive Loyalty Neglect
Still perform own duty & Reduce own effort
optimistically wait for condition to - Passively allow
improve: conditions to
Speak up in external criticism worsen
form
Believe managers will do right
thing

MGMT 2110 Page 4

Emotion
Sunday, March 5, 2017 9:53 AM

Theory of emotion

Affect, emotions & moods Cannon-Bard Theory James-Lange Theory

Feel emotion
→ Physiological changes
Affect = Emotions + Moods
I see "dinosaur" → I feel fear → Pounding heart
Generic terms, cover broad range of feelings that peo experience
Physiological changes (automatic & out-of-awareness)
→ Feel emotion
I see "dinosaur" → Pounding heart → I feel fear

Evidence for James-Lange Theory: Smiling face experiment

Emotion Mood
Group A: Hold pen in mouth while watching amusement videos
- Cause: Specific event - Cause: Unclear, general Group B: Watch videos as normal

- Duration: short (sec - min) - Duration: Long (hour - day) A found videos more entertaining than B
Why: Hold pen → Unconscientiously "smile" (physical changes) → Feel amused (emotion)
- Types: specific & numerous - Types: more general
anger, fear, happiness, surprise, … positive, negative

- Accompanied by distinct facial - Generally not indicated by

expressions distinct expressions
Cognitive Arousal Theory
- Action-oriented - Cognitive in nature

- Emotion is result of cognitive evaluation of physical responses

Stimulus → Physiological responses → Cognitive interpretation → Subjective
emotion

Emotional intelligence (EI)

- Same physiological response could lead to different emotions

- Misattribution of arousal effect: Peo make mistake in detecting what cause them to
- Ability to: feel aroused
○ Express emotion smoothly & naturally Male participants:
○ Reason with emotion ▪ Look at nude females
○ Understand others' emotion ▪ While listen to "their" amplified heartbeats
○ Regulate emotion in one self & others
However: Not "their real" heartbeat, but manipulated by experimenter
- High EI:
○ Rated more favorably by coworkers Result: Participant more likely to judge nude as attractive when their "heartbeat"
○ More likely to get what they need fast
⇒ Participant misattribute "pounding heart" to attractiveness

Delay of gratification
Ability to hold impulse
Work-related stress
The "Marshmallow" study:
Children able to pass marshmallow test
(oppress their desire to eat marshmallow in - Stress: Adaptive response to situation perceived as challenging/threatening to well-being
front of them to wait for bigger reward)
- Distress: Deviation from healthy functioning
→ Enjoy greater success as adults
- General Adaptation Syndrome:

Emotional Labor

- Employees need to express organizationally desired emotions during

interpersonal transactions
flight attendant: cheerful
funeral director: said
doctor: emotionally neutral

- Emotional dissonance:
○ Conflict between felt (true) & displayed (organizationally
desired) emotion
○ Solution: - Stress management:
▪ Surface acting (deal with displayed emotion): ○ Withdrawal from stressor
□ : Hide inner feelings + Forgo emotional expressions → ○ Change stress perceptions
Adapt with display rules
○ Control stress consequences
○ Potentially stressful
○ Social support
▪ Deep acting (deal with felt emotion):
○ No denial of stress
○ Try to modify inner true feelings based on display rules
○ Less stressful

MGMT 2110 Page 5

Motivation
Sunday, March 5, 2017 9:53 AM

Motivation theories

Reinforcement Cognitive Evaluation Social learning

Concept Behavior = Function of its consequence:
People learn to behave to:
• Get what they want (Positive reinforcement)
• Avoid what they don’t want (Negative reinforcement)
- Extrinsic motivation: Learning process (Behavioral modeling):
I study because my parents would give me ○ Attention: Observe → Pay attention to role model's
$200 for every A I get behaviors
- Intrinsic motivation: ○ Retention: Remember model's actions
I study because I want to broaden my
knowledge ○ Motor reproduction: Convert Watching → Doing

○ Reinforcement (by observing consequences of model's

Experiment: Give $5 for each book children read behavior)
Result: Children read more book, but shorter book • Incentives/rewards → Encourage
• Punishment → Inhibit

Theory's - We have to do things to learn Reinforcement might not work: We can learn through both observation + direct experience
implication Allocating extrinsic rewards for intrinsically-
- We can make people to do what we want by JUST giving rewarded behavior
what they want (NOT involve any cognition) → ↓ Overall lvl of motivation

- Withhold reinforcement → Behavior stop (Extinction)

Goal Setting Expectancy Equity

Concept Setting specific & difficult goals, with feedback Work effort directed toward behaviors believed to lead to - Individual compare ratio of job inputs & outcomes with
→ ↑ Performance desired outcome others
○ Specificity → Respond to eliminate any inequities
Do your best vs Complete in 30 min
○ Difficulty: Goal must be achievable - Inequity (A: Self, B: Other)
○ Feedback: Credible, timely, specific ○ Underrewarded:

○ Overrewarded:

Theory's - Assumption: Individual committed to goal & determined - 3 component:

implication not lower/abandon it
- Performance-influencing factors:
○ Task characteristics: Performance affected strongly
when goal can divided into tasks that:
• Simple
• Well-known (rather than novel)
• Individually-independent
- Goal difficulty: ↑ Difficulty → ↑ Motivation
○ Helps focus
○ Encourage hard work
- Self-efficacy: Belief in self-ability to perform &
achieve desired outcome
- Personal choice:
○ Participation of subordinate when setting goal
○ Impact depends on cultural norm
Anagram study:
○ Children (different background) play anagram
○ Goals set by: Personal/Researcher (stranger)/Mom
(someone child knows deeply)
○ Measure performance (no of correct answer) &
motivation (time spent)
Finding:
○ Researcher's choice: All perform badly & less
motivated
Personal's choice: Anglo-American perform best &
○ Outcome/Input ratio:
• Input: what employee contributes
• Outcome: what employee receives
○ Referent:
• Peo against whom employee compare to
3 relationship components:
• Not easily identifiable
○ (1) Effort - Performance: Degree of belief that particular
○ Equity evaluation: Compare outcome/input ratio with
effort → performance
other
Max effort → Performance appraisal?
Maybe not: Appraisal system value
- Correct inequity feelings:
nonperformance factors (loyalty, initiative ….)
○ Change input:
↓ Paid → ↓ Effort
○ (2) Performance - Reward: Degree of belief that
performing at particular lvl → Desire outcome ○ Change outcome:
Effort redirected to more desired outcome
Good performance appraisal → Org reward?
○ Distort perceptions of self:
Maybe not: Pay based on seniority, boss's
emotion, … "I realized I work lot harder than everyone else"
○ Distort perceptions of others
○ (3) Reward - Personal goal: Degree of org rewards "Mike's job isn't as desirable as mine"
satisfying personal goals/needs ○ Choose different referent (comparing object)
Reward attractive? ○ Leave field
Maybe not: Want promotion but get rewarded
by pay increase instead
Lvl of Expectancy = (1) × (2) × (3)
-

MGMT 2110 Page 6

 ○ Personal's choice: Anglo-American perform best &
more motivated
○ Mom's choice: Asia-American perform best & more
motivated

Implication for Managers

Motivation

- Reinforcement & Social learning theory:

- Process accounting for individual's intensity, direction Ensure rewards for employees not viewed as coercive
& persistence of effort toward attaining goal
- Goal setting theory:
- How to measure motivation: ○ Clear & difficult goals → ↑ Employee productivity
○ Direction: Toward a goal or not? ○ However, theory doesn't address non-performance factors:
○ Intensity: Lvl of effort? absenteeism, turnover, satisfaction, …
○ Persistence: Time spent?
- Expectancy theory: ↑ Expectancy → ↑ Employee performance
Provide training, ensure rewards are valued

- Equity theory: Perceive justice

MGMT 2110 Page 7

 Attribution theory
Perception
Sunday, March 5, 2017 9:54 AM

- Attribution process:
○ Attribute causes of events to people/situations
○ Assign credit/blame

Perceptual Process Model

- Type of attribution:
Perception: Process of receiving info about & making sense of world
around us ○ Internal: One's behavior due to motivation/ability rather than situation/fate
"I didn't do well in exam because I didn't work hard enough"
○ External: One's behavior due to fate rather than self
"I didn't do well in exam because exam is too hard"

- Determinants: Observation → Interpretation → Attribution of cause

Determinant Question to answer Attribution of Attribution of

cause for YES cause for NO
(more likely) (less likely)
Distinctiveness Does behavior vary across External Internal
different situation?
Consensus Do most people engage in External Internal
this behavior in this situation?
Consistency Is behavior consistent over Internal External
time for this situation?

Why did students fall asleep in my class?

- Selective attention: Process of attending some info received by
some senses & ignoring other Consensus Consistency Distinctiveness Attribution
1 Low High Low Internal
- Organization & Interpretation: (No other students (He's fallen asleep (He falls asleep (Student is lazy)
○ Categorical thinking (mostly unconscious): Organize fall asleep in my in previous class of in other profs'
people/object into categories class) mine) classes)
○ Mental models: Select & organize stimuli in ways consistent with 2 High High High External
our knowledge
(Many students (He's fallen asleep (He doesn't fall (My class is
fall asleep in my in previous class of asleep in other boring)
- Attitude & behavior: Behavior based on own perception of what class) mine) profs' class)
reality is, NOT on objective reality itself
3 Low Low High External
(No other students (He hasn't fallen (He doesn't fall (Student doesn't
fall asleep in my asleep in previous asleep in other sleep well last
class) class of mine) profs' class) night)

Stereotyping - Fundamental Attribution Error: When judge others' behavior, tend to:
○ Underestimate influence of external factors
○ Overestimate influence of internal factor
- Def:
○ Develop social categories Drug abuse
○ Assign traits to people based on their group membership Overestimate internal factor: Bad person
(→ Solution: Punishment, education)
- Outgroup homogeneity effect: Tendency to overestimate similarity within Underestimate external factor: Bad family background, bad
groups which they don't belong neighborhood
Business students perceive Engineering students as single entity, can't see (→ Solution: Transfer people to better environment)
diversity in Engineering (Electrical, Computer, Mechanical, …)

Sales manager: Find cause of sales agents' poor performance

- Sources:
Overestimate internal factor: Agent laziness
○ Personal experience:
Underestimate external factor: Competitor's innovative product line
Initial encounter, …
○ Cultural upbringing: - Self-serving bias: Tendency to
"Do you eat dogs", … ○ Attribute success to internal factor
○ Media images ○ Putting blame for failure on external factors

- Functions:
○ Categorical thinking: Unconscious, energy-saving process to simplify
sense-making Self-fulfilling prophecy
○ Fulfill strong need to understand & anticipate other's behavior

- Problems: A's expectancy about B influence A's behaviors toward B

○ Inaccuracy → B will behave in way to match A's expectancy
○ Discrimination → A's expectancy toward B strengthened
○ Biased judgement

Experiment:
2 groups of participants see video of Hannah (girl) answering 25 general
knowledge questions.

MGMT 2110 Page 8

 ○ Biased judgement

Experiment:
2 groups of participants see video of Hannah (girl) answering 25 general
knowledge questions.
Her performance is inconsistent & ambiguously (approx. similar no of
right & wrong answer)

Group 1: Being told Hannah from wealthy family → Perceive Hannah

more capable (positive expectancy)
Group 2: Being told Hannah from poor family → Perceived Hannah less
capable (negative expectancy)

Improving perception: Johari window

Promote mutual understanding: Encourage disclosure & feedback

between peers/coworkers
↑ Awareness values, beliefs & biases of yourself & others
(↑ Open area + ↓ Blind, Hidden & Unknown area)

MGMT 2110 Page 9

Decision Making
Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:41 PM
Bounded Rationality Approach

(Traditional) Rationality Approach - Assumption:

○ Limit mental capacity for info processing
○ Less accurate strategies used when info overloaded
- Process: Utilize all available info → Max outcome → Decision errors are common
○ 1: Identify problem
○ 2: Choose best decision proc
○ 3: Develop alternative solution
○ 4: Choose best alternative
○ 5: Implement selected alternative
○ 6: Evaluate outcome

- Issues:
○ Problem clarity + Known options:
Confirmation bias:
□ Search info → Confirm pre-conception
□ Peo tend to create opportunity for themselves to "confirm"
their belief
Job interview: Interview
◊ Give more opportunity for applicant with good
impression, act more friendly …
◊ Ask more difficult question with poor impression, act
less friendly, …

○ Clear & Const preferences: Heuristic Approach

Cognitive Dissonance: Change attitude to justify situation, own
feeling & behavior, …
- Assumption: People generally "lazy" in cognitive processing
○ No cognitive constraints: → Mainly reply on "heuristics" (mental "shortcut") for decision
▪ Past experience shape expectation → Constrain solution-seeking making
proc → Decision errors are common
▪ Mem not continuous,more like sets of fragmentary notes
▪ Misinformation effect: - Availability heuristics: Judge thing likelihood in terms of instant
Witness event, but injected misleading info during/afterward availability in mem
→ Incorporate "misinfo" into mem Plane crashes are usually big news → Immediately conclude
air travel more dangerous than car travel
But truth is opposite
Question asked after witnessing car crash:
How fast were cars going when they smashed
into/hit/contacted each other?
Estimated speed answer: smash into > hit > contact

○ Max Payoff: Not always, ∃ asymetry in decision-making

Prospect theory: Perceive gain → Take fewer risk
Perceive loss → Take more risk

- Avoid "irrationality":
○ Look for disconfirming info
○ Avoid creating meaning out of randomness
○ See different perspective → ↑ Options

MGMT 2110 Page 10

Group & Team Dynamics
Monday, March 20, 2017 12:13 PM
Team Processes

Group vs Team - Team development:

1. Forming 2. Storming 3. Norming 4. Performing 5. Adjourning

- Team ⊆ Group
- Group: Just people assembled together
Group of employees enjoy lunch together
- Team has task interdependence
Wrap up task

Work group Work team Team might regress back to earlier stage

- Team norm:
○ Norm: Acceptable behavior standards within group
○ Types of norm:
▪ Performance:
How member expected to perform
▪ Appearance:
How member expected to present himself
▪ Allocation of resources:
Goal Share info Collective performance
How resources allocated among members: Work more, get more?
Synergy Neutral (sometimes negative) Positive ▪ Social arrangement
Accountability Individual Individual + Mutual Lunch time
Skills Random, varied Complementary ○ Reference group: Important groups
▪ Individuals belong/hope to belong
▪ Norm likely to conformed
○ Source of norm:
▪ Initial team experience
▪ Critical events in team's history
Team effectiveness ▪ Experience/values brought by members
○ Develop norm:
▪ Introduce when forming team
- Achieve organizational goals ▪ Select members with preferred traits
- Satisfy member needs ▪ Discuss counter-productive norms
- Maintain team survival ▪ Reward behaviors representing desired norms
▪ Disband team with dysfunctional norms

- Team roles: Formal leadership:

○ Imposed by organization
Team design
○ Derive power from organizational structure

- Team cohesiveness:
- Task characteristics:
○ Def: How much member feel attached with team?
○ Better when: clear, easy to implement
○ Types of attachment:
○ Can share common inputs, proc, outcomes
▪ Calculative: Member believes team will fulfill own goals & needs
○ Interdependent
▪ Emotional: Team is part of member's social identity
○ Members of highly-cohesive team:
- Team size: Smaller better, but large enough to accomplish task
▪ Want to remain
▪ Willing to share info
- Team composition:
▪ Strong interpersonal bonds
Cooperating, Coordinating, Communicating, Comforting,
▪ Resolve conflict effectively
Conflict resolving

○ ↑ cohesiveness:
- Team diversity
▪ ↑ Member similarity
Homogeneous Heterogeneous
▪ ↓ Team size
- Less conflict - More conflict ▪ ↑ Member interaction
- Faster development - Longer development ▪ ↑ Entry difficulty
- Perform better on - Perform better on ▪ Group reward
cooperative task complex task
▪ External challenges
- Better coordination - More creative

MGMT 2110 Page 11

Troubles in team

Is team needed?
- Evaluation apprehension: Belief that other members silently
evaluating you
- Work complex?
- Peer-pressure conformity: Suppress options opposing team norms - Need for different perspective?
- Common purpose?
- Groupthink: Concurrent-seeking too dominant → Override realistic - Task interdependence?
appraisal of alternative solutions

- Social loafing:
○ Shared goals + Efforts pooled + Individual unaccountable to
own effort
→ ↓ Individual effort
○ Solution:
▪ Make individual performance more visible
Small team, specialized tasks, Measure individual
performance
▪ Increase motivation
Enrich job (sense of meaning, sense of achievement)

MGMT 2110 Page 12

Communication
Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:50 PM
Communication Process Model

Basic concepts

- Communication: Info transmitted & understood

between ≥ 2 peo

- Good communication: Successfully transmit

sender's intended meaning (not just symbols)

- Direction of communication: - Message = Fact (Word, number, …) + Feeling (body language, voice, …)

- Encoding: Convert message → Symbolic form

- Decode: Retranslate sender's message

- Channel: Medium where message travels

mail, call, non-verbal clues (gestures, facial expressions, …), …
- Feedback: Receiver → Sender, for checking misunderstanding

- Noise: Irrelevant info

Reduce neg consequences of rumor
▪ Provide clear info
▪ Explain actions which may appear inconsistent, unfair, secretive
▪ Refrain from shooting messenger
▪ Maintain open comm channels:
Encourage employees to share concerns, suggestion, ideas

Nonverbal Communication
Cultural Barriers in Communication

- Automatic & unconscious

- Less rule bound than verbal comm - Caused by semantics + word connotation
- Influence meaning of verbal & written symbols
- High-context culture: Rely heavily on nonverbal & subtle situation cues
- Transmit most info in face-to-face meetings to convey meaning
NO can mean YES
- Important part of emotional labor - Low-context culture: Rely heavily on word to convey meaning
NO is NO

○ Enhance cross-cultural communication:

▪ Know yourself
Common Barriers to Effective Communication ▪ Foster climate of mutual respect, fairness, democracy
▪ Learn cultural context of each other
▪ Listen when in doubt
- Filtering ▪ State facts, not your interpretation
Employees try to tell things boss wants to hear ▪ Consider others' viewpoint
▪ Proactively maintain group identity
- Selective perception

- Info overload

- Extreme emotion (↓ Effectiveness)

- Comm apprehension: People afraid to comm because of

issues of trust, uncomfortableness, safety, …

- Lying

MGMT 2110 Page 13

Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:30 AM
Conflict: Basic concepts

- Conflict: 1 party perceives its interest opposed/negatively affected

by another

Negotiation/Bargaining: Basic concepts

- Views of conflict:
○ Traditional view: All conflicts harmful, must avoided

○ Human relation view: Conflict is natural, inevitable outcome

- Negotiation: ≥ 2 parties
in any group
○ Exchange goods/services
○ Attempt to agree to exchange rate

- Aspiration point: Specific goals negotiator wishes to achieve

- Reservation point (BATNA: Best Alternative to Negotiated

Agreement): Lowest acceptable value to negotiator

- Negotiation process:
○ Prepare & plan
○ Interactionist view: Conflict is positive force, absolutely
○ Define ground rules
necessary for group to perform effectively
○ Clarify & justify
○ Bargain & solve problems
○ Implement

Functional vs Dysfunctional Conflict

Bargaining types

Functional conflict Dysfunctional conflict

Distributive bargaining Integrative bargaining Charact - Improve decision making - Divert energy & resources
Goal Get as much of pie as Expand pie → Satisfy both eristics - Strengthen team dynamics - Weaken knowledge management
possible parties - Increase frustration
Motivation Win-Lose Win-Win
Focus Position: "I can't go Interest: "Can you explain Example Constructive (task-relative) conflict: Socioemotional (relationship) conflict:
beyond this point" why this is so important to ○ Aim at issue, not parties ○ Viewed as personal attack
you?" ○ Help recognize problems & ○ Introduce perceptual biases
Interests Opposed Congruent identify solutions ○ Distort info processing
Info sharing Low, as this will allow High, as this will allow parties
other party to take to find ways to satisfy each
advantages other
Duration of Short-term Long-term
relationship

Bargaining Strategies

- Bad practices:
○ Commitment: Choose position too early
Conflict Management
○ Compromise: Say Yes to everything too early
○ Even-split
○ Adopt entirely cooperative stance - Styles:

- Good practices:
○ Info sharing:
• Share: interests, preferences, priorities
• NOT share: BATNA
• Beware illusion of transparency: DON'T assume:
□ Others know what we know
□ Others know what we want

MGMT 2110 Page 14

 • NOT share: BATNA
• Beware illusion of transparency: DON'T assume:
□ Others know what we know
□ Others know what we want

○ Issue-bundling:
• Single-issue offer prone to pie-slicing
• Negotiate with multiple issues as a whole:
□ ↑ Persuasive
□ Know opponent better

- Use of mediator: Collaborating Avoiding Competing Accommodating Compromising

○ Independent third party, no authority - Interests not - High - You have deep conviction - Other party has much - Parties have
○ Facilitate info sharing: Active listening, help parties "listen" perfectly relationship about your position more power equal power
to each other opposing
○ Engage in reality testing - Conflict - Need quick resolution - Issue much less - Need quick
- Parties have resolution important to you than resolution
trust/openness cost > - Other party would take other party
Benefits advantage of cooperation
- Complex issue - Your position is unsteady

- Methods:
○ Superordinate goals: Emphasize common objectives > conflicting sub-goals

○ Reduce goal incompatibility & differentiation

▪ Remove source of different values & beliefts
▪ Establish collaborative norms

○ Structural method (implemented in organizational lvl):

▪ Communication/Understanding: Appreciate each other's views
▪ ↓ Task interdependence
Divide shared resources, combine tasks
▪ ↑ Resources

MGMT 2110 Page 15