Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Janssen Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Jul., 1999), pp. 475-491 Published
by: John Wiley & Sons Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100385
Conflict behavior is so omnipresent in organizational life that we too easily take it for granted. Conflict arises
at work when an employee is obstructed or irritated by another person or a group. The conflict can be
handled in either a constructive or a destructive way.
Specifically, it challenges both the classic assumption that problem solving is the most constructive reaction
(e.g. Blake and Mouton, 1970, 1981) as well as the modern contingency assumption that the effectiveness of
both problem solving and forcing depends on situational characteristics (e.g. Rahim, 1992).
First of all, most conflict issues are so complex that problem solving might be more appropriate for some
aspects of the discord, while forcing might be more appropriate for other aspects. For example, problem
solving is especially appropriate for merging insights as well as working through a negative feeling, whereas
forcing is especially appropriate for responding to an emer-gency as well as implementing an important but
unpopular decision (Rahim, 1992; Thomas, 1992). As a consequence, effectiveness might well increase if
problem solving is competently interspersed with forcing, or vice versa
Thus, we felt confident hypothesizing that the dyadic effectiveness of conglomerated conflict behavior is a
positive function of problem solving (hypothesis 1), a negative function of forcing (hypothesis 2), and a
positive function of problem solving in combination with forcing (hypothesis 3). All three hypotheses were
tested in each of the three studies, albeit in very different ways.
Problem solving included making a cooperative statement, asking for information about the other's profit
positions and priorities, giving information about one's own profit positions and priorities, and showing
insight into the other's profit positions or priorities. Forcing was arguing one's own standpoint and sticking to
it, making threats, and being condescending to the opponent.
In experimentul 1 avem o situație în care dacă unul câștigă celălalt pierde. Există 2 opțiuni, una pentru
fiecare participant în diada de negociere
În experimentul 2 avem o negocirere de tip cumpărare vânzare în care se poate obține un echilibru care să
mulțumească ambii parteneri.
Specifically, it has been shown that the simultaneity of problem solving and forcing, preceded by pure
forcing, enhances substantive effectiveness.
În experimentul 3 avem un conflict care nu presupune neaparat negociere. Este vorba de o frustrare
generată de activitatea celor 2 persoane implicate. Totuși sunt puse să negocieze.
Design experiment:
5 cumpărători
5 dealeri
Costul de cumpărare a produsului x este de 20 de lei. Asta înseamna că în prezent dealerii se află la – 40 lei.
Ei trebuie să recupereze investiția și să obțină profit. Cumpărătorii nu știu acest lucru
Cumpărătorii pot negocia cu oricare dealer, când vor, dar individual până când cumpără produsul. După ce
cumpără produsul se retrag.
O variantă mai simplă presupune: 1 cuplu vanzator cumpărător. Cumpărătorul trebuie să cumpere produsul
obligatoriu, dar vanzatorul nu stie acest lucru. Cumpărătorul are la dispozitie 30 de lei. Vanzatorul a platit pe
produs (sau costul de producție) 20 de lei. Interesul fiecăruia este să obțină un pret cat mai bun. Punctul de
echilibru este 25 lei caz in care fiecare ramane cu 5 lei.