Conflict
Download
1 / 26

Conflict - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 95 Views
  • Uploaded on

Conflict. CONFLICT. LIKE RAINFALL POSITIVE :TASK CONFLICT (ISSUE RELEVANT , NOT TOO SEVERE ) THOROUGH EVAL., CREATIVE NEGATIVE: EMOTIONAL CONFLICT (PERSONAL CONFLICT , TOO INTENSE ) MAKES RESOULTION DIFFICULT. Task Conflict. Tjosvold Constructive Controversy.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Conflict' - chelsia


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Conflict1
CONFLICT

  • LIKE RAINFALL

  • POSITIVE :TASK CONFLICT (ISSUE RELEVANT, NOT TOO SEVERE)

  • THOROUGH EVAL., CREATIVE

  • NEGATIVE: EMOTIONAL CONFLICT (PERSONAL CONFLICT, TOO INTENSE)

  • MAKES RESOULTION DIFFICULT


Task conflict
Task Conflict

  • Tjosvold Constructive Controversy

Nemeth: Dissent leads to more divergent thinking

& critical evaluation


Task conflict jehn
Task Conflict (Jehn)

  • Curvilinear Relationship with performance, contingent on task type.

  • Routine task: A little Task Conflict improves performance, but more decreases performance

  • Nonroutine task: Increasing Task Conflict improves performance until, but after a moderately high level further increases hurt performance


PERSONAL CONFLICT CAUSES PROBLEMS

  • LACK OF GOOD COMMUNICATION

  • (TRUCKING STUDY)


Trucking study
TRUCKING STUDY

ACME

START

ACME

END

BOLT

START

BOLT

END


Personal conflict causes problems
PERSONAL CONFLICT CAUSES PROBLEMS

  • LACK OF GOOD COMMUNICATION

  • SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION (We/ They) ETHNOCENTRISM

  • DISTORTED PERCEPTIONS (FOOTBALL, 2-VALUE)

  • LACK OF TRUST (SFP)

  • POOR COORDINATION

  • TENDENCY TO ESCALATE (BEAT OTHER VS SELF-INTEREST)


Discontinuity more cooperation in interpersonal interactions than in intergroup interactions
Discontinuity: More Cooperation in Interpersonal Interactions than in Intergroup Interactions



Mixed motive conflicts
MIXED MOTIVE CONFLICTS

  • DESIRE TO GET ONE’S WAY, BUT

  • DESIRE TO AVOID OR END CONFLICT

  • (LABOR DISPUTE, ARMS RACE, WHERE TO GO ON A DATE)


Conflict resolution
CONFLICT RESOLUTION

  • LESS EFFECTIVE PROCESSES

  • THREATS, COERCIONTRUCKING STUDY, MONOPOLY

  • UNCONDITIONAL COOPERATION QUAKER STUDY

  • GROUP REPRESENTATIVESTEND TO BE LESS FLEXIBLE

  • INFORMATION/ MORAL APPEALS


Conflict resolution1
CONFLICT RESOLUTION

  • MODERATELY EFFECTIVE PROCESSES

  • COMMUNICATION/ INTERACTION

  • CONDITIONAL BENEVOLENCE

  • HARD BARGAINING


9K

seller’s limit

objective value

10K

11.5K

seller’s LOA

Seller’s Aspiration

Range

Seller


8K

buyer’s LOA

9K

seller’s limit

Buyer’s

Aspiration

Range

objective value

10K

Buyer

buyer’s limit

11K

11.5K

seller’s LOA

Seller’s Aspiration

Range

Seller


8K

buyer’s LOA

9K

seller’s limit

Buyer’s

Aspiration

Range

objective value

10K

Buyer

buyer’s limit

11K

11.5K

seller’s LOA

Seller’s Aspiration

Range

Non-Extreme

Initial Position

Moderately Extreme

Initial Position

Seller



More effective strategies
MORE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES

  • THIRD PARTY (MONOPOLY,CARTER)

  • SUPERORDINATE GOALS (CAMP STUDY, JIGSAW CLASSROOMS)

  • GRIT (STEPWISE ONE-SIDED COOP)



Dual concern model
DUAL CONCERN MODEL

Yielding Problem

(Soft Bargaining) Solving

Compromise

Concern About Other’s Outcomes

Inaction Contending

(Avoiding) (Hard Barg.)

Concern About Own Outcomes


DUAL CONCERN MODEL

Yielding Problem

(Soft Bargaining) Solving

Concern About Other’s Outcomes

Allocative

Inaction Contending

(Avoiding) (Hard Barg.)

Concern About Own Outcomes



DUAL CONCERN MODEL

Yielding Problem

(Soft Bargaining) Solving

Concern About Other’s Outcomes

Integrative

Inaction Contending

(Avoiding) (Hard Barg.)

Concern About Own Outcomes



More effective strategies1
MORE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES

  • INTEGRATIVE AGREEMENT,WIN/WIN (OPEN WINDOW, CABINETS)

    • PARTIALLY INTEGRATIVE (WAGE-JOB SECURITY TRADEOFF; COMPUTER PURCHASE)



More effective strategies2
MORE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES

  • PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION

    1. Separate People From the Problem

    2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions

    3. Generate a Variety of Win/Win Possibilities

    4. Insist That the Results be Based on Some Objective Standard


ad