4.b. Sources & Management of Conflict

Question 1

Communication

Answer 1

Semantic misunderstandings - arising from selective perception, different training or inadequate information (too much or too little)

Noisy channels of communication

Insufficient exchange of information

Question 2

Structure

Answer 2

Higher likelihood of conflict = bigger groups, more specialized in activities

Specialization - focused expertise areas like finance or marketing
Increases diversity of goals (with focused expertise groups), increasing scope for conflict

Question 3

Ambiguity

Answer 3

greater ambiguity over who’s responsible for what increases likelihood of intergroup feuding for control over resources & domains

Question 4

Leadership

Answer 4

• too much reliance on participative leadership can lead to lots of different viewpoints being expressed, leading to conflict

Question 5

Rewards

Answer 5

One party getting rewards at the expense of another can lead to conflict

Question 6

Interdependency

Answer 6

• Interdependent relationships between various groups in organizations
• Conflict affects task interdependence, trust & autonomy in self-management teams

Question 7

Changes to structure & process

Answer 7

• Significant & fundamental changes to structures, procedures & systems lead to negative perceptions of events, leading to conflict
• Often involves cutting back on staff
• e.g. downsizing leading to conflict within an organization

Question 8

Personal factors

Answer 8

Authoritarian, dogmatic & low self-esteem

Value systems - individual’s outlook & behaviour, what they value & think is important may differ and lead to conflict

Disliking each other

Question 9

Negotiation

Answer 9

• Give & take discussion between parties
• Between different managerial groups, allocating resources etc.

Compromise

Question 10

Bargaining

Answer 10

• Exchange of offers, counter-offers, concessions to come up with an acceptable resolution
• Involves more concessions than negotiation (compromising vs collaborating?)

Question 11

Distributive bargaining

Answer 11

Negotiation strategy
Win-lose situation - can lead to animosity & resentment
Fixed sum of resources is divided up
Organisations: trade union vs management
- salaries, benefits etc.

Question 12

Integrative bargaining

Answer 12

Negotiation strategy
Win-win situation - collaborating

Goal is to increase total resources

Organisation example
- An agreement between the union & management that leads to increase salary AND profits, fulfilling the wishes of both parties

Preferred strategy

Question 13

5 Styles of Conflict Management

Answer 13

Competition
Collaboration
Avoidance
Accommodation
Compromise

Assertiveness vs Cooperativeness

Question 14

Competition

Answer 14

Assertive & uncooperative

win-lose approach
Formal authority & threats

Question 15

Collaboration

Answer 15

Assertive & cooperative

win-win approach

Parties work together to discuss the issue & come up with a mutually beneficial solution

Hearing out the other side, clarifying differences

Question 16

Avoidance

Answer 16

Unassertive & uncooperative

win-lose is avoided but conflict is not resolved
Avoiding opposing person/parties

Two forms: withdrawal & suppression
Withdrawal - removing yourself from the interaction/situation, each party/individual taking control over particular domain and not interfering with each other

Suppression - where withdrawal is not possible, swallowing feelings or withholding information

Question 17

Accommodation

Answer 17

Unassertive & cooperative

One party concedes
Self-sacrificing behaviour
Putting the other party’s interests first

Question 18

Compromise

Answer 18

Intermediate amounts of assertiveness & cooperativeness

Both parties make concessions & come to a compromise

Question 19

Superordinate goals

Answer 19

Make both groups work towards a common/superordinate goal

Favourable information about opposing group is seen in a new light

Leaders are better able to instigate cooperation

May not be applicable to all industrial situations due to power imbalances being at the root of the problem