Скачать презентацию Conflict Negotiation Conflict v Expressed difference between Скачать презентацию Conflict Negotiation Conflict v Expressed difference between

78d7a1a181febbe6532def4f410fb624.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 24

Conflict Negotiation Conflict Negotiation

Conflict v. Expressed difference between two or more people Conflict v. Expressed difference between two or more people

Consequences of Dispute v Communication becomes distorted. v People view each other as stereotypes, Consequences of Dispute v Communication becomes distorted. v People view each other as stereotypes, not as human beings. v Each new escalation in aggressive behavior is justified as a counter-response to the other person’s perceived aggression. v Struggle to “win, ” even if it means that the other person will lose. We have a “win–lose” battle. v “zero-sum game, ” meaning that everything you gain – dollars, status, power, authority – must be at someone else’s expense

Situations that can lead to disputes: v v v v Interdependence of people and Situations that can lead to disputes: v v v v Interdependence of people and tasks Jurisdictional ambiguities Functional overlap (turf) Competition for scarce resources Differences in organizational status and influence Incompatible objectives and/or methods Differences in behavioral style Differences in information Distortions in communication Unmet expectations Unmet needs or interests Unequal power or authority Misperceptions Historic animosities Ethnic stereotyping.

Components of Conflict v Ambiguity: varying interpretations v Uncertainty: unpredictable future v Competition: winners Components of Conflict v Ambiguity: varying interpretations v Uncertainty: unpredictable future v Competition: winners and losers v Stress and Pressure: high risk consequences v Change: promoters and resisters

Types of conflict. v Substantive conflict. § A fundamental disagreement over ends or goals Types of conflict. v Substantive conflict. § A fundamental disagreement over ends or goals to be pursued and the means for their accomplishment. v Emotional conflict. § Interpersonal difficulties that arise over feelings of anger, mistrust, dislike, fear, resentment, etc.

Different Types of Conflict v Relationship Conflict v Data Conflict v Values Conflict v Different Types of Conflict v Relationship Conflict v Data Conflict v Values Conflict v Structural Conflict v Interest Conflict v Goal Conflict v Method Conflict

Conflict Scale Conflict Scale

Types of conflict. Ø Functional (or constructive) conflict. § Results in positive benefits to Types of conflict. Ø Functional (or constructive) conflict. § Results in positive benefits to individuals, the group, or the organization. Ø Dysfunctional (or destructive) conflict. § Works to the disadvantage of individuals, the group, or the organization.

Stages of conflict. Ø Conflict antecedents. § Set the conditions for conflict. v Perceived Stages of conflict. Ø Conflict antecedents. § Set the conditions for conflict. v Perceived conflict. § Substantive or emotional differences are sensed. v Felt conflict. § Tension creates motivation to act. v Manifest conflict. § Conflict resolution or suppression. § Conflict aftermath.

What is negotiation? Ø The process of making joint decisions when the parties involved What is negotiation? Ø The process of making joint decisions when the parties involved have different preferences.

Definition of Negotiation v Negotiation is one of the most common approaches used to Definition of Negotiation v Negotiation is one of the most common approaches used to make decisions and manage disputes. It is also the major building block for many other alternative dispute resolution procedures. v Negotiation is a problem-solving process in which two or more people voluntarily discuss their differences and attempt to reach a joint decision on their common concerns.

Negotiation goals and outcomes. Ø Substance goals. § Outcomes that relate to content issues. Negotiation goals and outcomes. Ø Substance goals. § Outcomes that relate to content issues. v Relationship goals. § Outcomes that relate to how well people involved in the negotiations and any constituencies they represent are able to work with one another once the process is concluded.

Effective negotiation. v Occurs when substance issues are resolved and working relationships are maintained Effective negotiation. v Occurs when substance issues are resolved and working relationships are maintained or improved.

Positions in a Conflict ASSERTIVENESS High Low COOPERATION High Low Work to resolve Submission Positions in a Conflict ASSERTIVENESS High Low COOPERATION High Low Work to resolve Submission Partner Conflict Avoider Open Rebellion Secret Resistance Open Warfare Guerilla fighter

Types of Negotiation v Positional: “line in the sand” v Distributional: “one pie, more Types of Negotiation v Positional: “line in the sand” v Distributional: “one pie, more for me means less for you” v Collaborative: “expand the pie” § Interest-based § Integrative

Conditions for Negotiation v Identifiable parties who are willing to participate v Interdependence v Conditions for Negotiation v Identifiable parties who are willing to participate v Interdependence v Readiness to negotiate v Means of influence or leverage v Agreement on some issues and interests v Will to settle v Unpredictability of outcome v A sense of urgency and deadline v The people must have the authority to decide v The agreement must be reasonable and capable of implementation

Why Parties Choose to Negotiate? v Gain recognition of either issues or parties v Why Parties Choose to Negotiate? v Gain recognition of either issues or parties v Test the strength of other parties v Obtain information about issues, interests, and positions of other parties v Educate all sides about a particular view of an issue or concern v Ventilate emotions about issues or people v Change perceptions v Mobilize public support v Buy time v Bring about a desired change in a relationship v Develop new procedures for handling problems v Make substantive gains v Solve a problem.

Why Parties Refuse to Negotiate? v Negotiating confers sense and legitimacy to an adversary, Why Parties Refuse to Negotiate? v Negotiating confers sense and legitimacy to an adversary, their goals and needs. v Parties are fearful of being perceived as weak v Discussions are premature. v Meeting could provide false hope to an adversary or to one’s own constituency. v Meeting could increase the visibility of the dispute. v Negotiating could intensify the dispute. v Parties lack confidence in the process. v There is a lack of jurisdictional authority. v Authoritative powers are unavailable or reluctant to meet. v Meeting is too time-consuming. v Parties need additional time to prepare.

Components of Conflict Negotiation Components of Conflict Negotiation

Conflict Escalators v Enemy Image v Simplification v Polarization v Emotions v Humiliation v Conflict Escalators v Enemy Image v Simplification v Polarization v Emotions v Humiliation v Investments v The Obsession to Win

Conflict De-Escalators v Humanize v Perspective v Save Face v Desire to Settle v Conflict De-Escalators v Humanize v Perspective v Save Face v Desire to Settle v Share Savings v Apology

The Four-Sights of Negotiation Wisdom v Foresight: predict events and consequences v Hindsight: learn The Four-Sights of Negotiation Wisdom v Foresight: predict events and consequences v Hindsight: learn from the past to derive lessons for the future v Insight: understand yourself and your reactions to the world about you v Oversight: see the wider scope, its meaning, and interdependence

Any Question ? Any Question ?