A Report On “COnflict and negotiation in Unilever

Bangladesh Ltd”

Course Name: Organizational BehaviorCourse Code: Mgt-321

Sec-06

Submitted to,

Md Mujibul Hoque (MJB) Faculty Member

Prepared by:

Name Id # Signature

Nur Absar MazumderMd. Kamrul Hasan Abu Sadet Md. Sayem

093 0932 030112 0370 030093 0157 530

TH december-2012

TH december-2012

Md Mujibul Hoque (MJB)

Lecturer

School of business

North South University

Subject: Submission of a report base on Conflict & Negotiation of Unilever Bangladesh

Ltd.

Sir,

With due regards and respect we state that we are very thankful & privilege to you as you

assigned us to present this report on ‘‘Conflict & Negotiation of Unilever Bangladesh Limited”

on the basis of 15th chapter in our textbook. It is a great opportunity for us to acquire theoretical

and practical knowledge about conflict and negotiation of a reputed multinational organization.

We have tried our best to gather what we believe to be the most complete information available

in text book, library research, Google etc.

Your kind acceptance and any type of appreciation would surely inspire us. We would always be

available and ready to explain further any of the contexts whenever you ask.

Sincerely yours,

Name ID Signature

Nur Absar MazumderMd. Kamrul Hasa Abu Sadet Md. Sayem

093 0932 030112 0370 030093 0157 530

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

The most pleasant part of submitting the report is to get the opportunity. We would like to thank

those who have contributed to it a lot. Unfortunately, the list of expression of thanks- no matter

how extensive is always incomplete and inadequate. These acknowledgements are no exception.

Our first thank goes to the almighty Allah for bestowing us the patience and courage to finish

this huge task within its deadline.

Thanks must go to the team members, whose unflagging patience and astounding capacity for

creative work, and long hours made the project both possible and successful – under the pressure

of knocking deadline.

At last, we sincerely acknowledge our debt to MD Mujibul Hoque, our honorable faculty, for his

valuable counseling about the regarding chapter of the project. Without his encouragement, this

would have never been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTTopic Page no.

Abstract 06

Introduction 06-07

Definition of Conflict & Negotiation 07-09

Difference between Conflict & Negotiation 09-10

Transition in Conflict : 10-15

The Traditional View of Conflict 12

The Human Relations View of Conflict 12

The Inter actionist View of Conflict 12-13

The Conflict Process : 16-31

Stage 1. Causes or Sources of Conflict 16-18

Stage 2. Cognition and personalization 18-20

Stage 3. Intentions 20-24

Stage 4. Behavior 24-26

& Stage 5. Outcomes 26-31

The Negotiation Process : 31-34

Preparation and Planning 31-32

Definition of ground rules 32-33

Clarification and justification 33-34

Bargaining and problem solving 34

& Closure and implementation 34

Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness : 34-36

Personality Traits in Negotiation 34-35

Moods/Emotions in Negotiation 35

& Gender Differences in Negotiations 35-36

Third- Party Negotiation : 41-44

Mediator, Arbitrator, Conciliator & Consultant 41-44

Present & Beyond 44

Suggestions and comments42-48

Conclusion 49

Bibliography 50

Abstract

Many people automatically assume that conflict is related to lower group and organizational performance. But by doing this project it has demonstrated that this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be both in higher and lower group and in a national and multinational organization like Unilever. It can be either constructive or destructive to the functional of a group or unit. By edition Negotiation is an ongoing activity in group and organizations. Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but it often negatively affects the satisfaction of one or more negotiators because it is focused on the short term and because it is confrontational. Integrative bargaining in contrast tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties and that build lasting relationship.

INTRODUCTION:

Unilever Bangladesh is one of the largest Fast Moving Consumer Goods companies in

Bangladesh. Its parent company is Unilever which is a British-Dutch multinational consumer

goods company. Unilever Bangladesh is a public limited company with Bangladesh Government

holding 39.25% of shares and the rest owned by Unilever.

It’s a company that has its own history intrinsically built with the development of our nation and

our culture. It has been part of the Bangladeshi household since the 19th century with the same

intention of bringing cleanliness and convenience to households as we do today. Unilever is an

Anglo-Dutch company, with a history of grand operation, on which it has gradually built its

capital. Today it owns most of the world's consumer product brands in food, beverages, cleaning

agents and personal care products.

Unilever Bangladesh Ltd is one of the world’s most successful fast moving consumer goods

manufacturing companies with local manufacturing facilities, reporting to regional business

groups for innovation and business results.

Unilever brands are trusted everywhere and, by listening to the people who buy them, they've

grown into one of the world's most successful consumer goods companies. In fact, 150 million

times a day, someone somewhere chooses a Unilever product. Unilever Bangladesh Limited has

five departments to carry out all the organizational functions.

All Unilever employees are expected to avoid personal activities and financial interest’s which

could conflict with their responsibilities to the company. Unilever employees must not seek gain

for themselves or others through misuse of their positions.

Over 90% of the country’s households use one or more of their products. It provides sixteen

verities brands and try to mitigate all types of human demand by introducing with new

innovative products.

Unilever Operations in Bangladesh provide employment to over 10,000 people directly and

through its dedicated suppliers, distributors and service providers. 99.5% of UBL employees are

locals and they have equal number of Bangladeshi working abroad in other Unilever companies

as expatriates.

Unilever has passionate people who want to do real business and have the potential to be highly

motivated by brands, and are enthusiastic, creative and rigorous.

Every individual is responsible for contributing to this conflict and negotiation efforts. Through

working closely together they foster a true sense of collaboration. They stimulate ideas in each

other and encourage more innovative thinking. They share information and challenge accepted

wisdom to shape and evolve an exciting future for our business.

Definition of Conflict & Negotiation:

Conflict

There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict. Despite the divergent meanings the term

has acquired, several common themes underlie most definitions. Conflict must be perceived by

the parties to it, whether or not

Conflict exists is a perception issue. If no one is aware of a conflict, then it is generally agreed

that no conflict exists. Additional commonalities in the definitions are opposition or

incompatibility and some form of interaction, these factors set the conditions that determine the

beginning point of the conflict process.

Defining conflict in Unilever Bangladesh, we can say there is no specific definitions of conflict

there, Unilever believe that perceiving by the parties whether or not. Because it’s a perception

issue. In this term if the company says there is no aware of conflict in there, then we can say that

it is generally agreed that no conflict exists on that company.

We can define conflict then as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party

has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affects something that the first party cares

about. This definition is purposely broad. It describes that point in any ongoing activity when an

interaction “crosses over “to become an interparty conflict. It encompasses the wide range of

conflicts that people experience in organizations – incompatibility of goals, differences over

interpretations of facts, disagreements based on behavioral expectations, and the like. Finally,

our definition is flexible enough to cover the full range of conflict levels – from overt and violent

acts to subtle forms of disagreement.

In shortage we can say that “A process that begins when one party perceives that another party

has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares

about”.

Negotiation

Negotiation permeates the interactions of almost everyone in groups and organizations. There’s

the obvious, Labor bargains with management. There’s the not–so-obvious, Managers negotiate

with employees, peers, and bosses, salespeople negotiate with customers, purchasing agents

negotiate with suppliers. And there’s the subtle: An employee agrees to answer a colleague’s

phone for a few minutes in exchange for some past or future benefit. In today’s loosely

structured organizations, in which members are increasingly finding themselves having to work

with colleagues over whom they have no direct authority and with whom they may not even

share a common boss, negotiation skills become critical.

In this case Unilever try to permeates the interactions of almost everyone in group. In Unilever

Bangladesh Managers negotiate with employees, peers, and bosses, salespeople negotiate with

customers, purchasing agents negotiate with suppliers and so on.We can define negotiation as a

process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the

exchange rate for them. Note that we use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably.

In this report, we contrast two bargaining strategies, provide a model of the negotiation process,

ascertain the role of moods and personality traits on bargaining, review gender and cultural

differences in negotiation, and take a brief look at third- party negotiations.

Now in shortage we can say easily that negotiation is “Negotiation is the process which two

parties interact thorough various communication channels, to resolve a conflict jointly.”

As a example, before a Unilever creates a new product, it organize a team who composed of

people from all department is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares

about and by doing which other parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the

exchange rate for them to consider all aspects of the potential new product to avoid costly

surprises down the road.

Difference between Conflict & Negotiation:

Conflict NegotiationDisagreements exist in a social situation. The process of making joint decisions.Emotional antagonisms cause frictions. Workplace disagreements arise over a variety of matters.Perceived pressures from incompatible goals. Outcomes that relate to content issues.Perceived pressures from incompatible expectations.

Occurs when substance issues are resolved.

Avoidance-avoidance conflict. Occurs when substance issues are working relationships.Occurs between two or more individuals. Differences in negotiation approaches are influenced by

cultural differences.Occurs among members of different teams. Practices are influenced by cultural differences in Time

orientation.Occurs in the competition. Focuses on positions staked out.Occurs between unions. Parties try to claim certain poor tons of the existing pie.

Occurs between government regulatory agencies organizations.

Integrative negotiation focuses on the merits of the issues.

Surfaces important problems. Integrative negotiation Parties try to enlarge the available pie.

Causes careful consideration of decisions. The possibility of escalating commitment.Causes reconsideration of decisions. Negotiators often develop overconfidence in their

positions.Provides opportunities for creativity. Communication problems can cause difficulties during a

negotiation.Harms group cohesion. Gaining truly interactive agreements rest on good

information.

Unilever almost disagree exist in a social situation. Sometimes Unilever cause frictions

emotionally antagonisms. Unilever perceived pressures from incompatible goals. Unilever

perceived pressures from incompatible expectations. The members of Unilever avoidance-

avoidance conflict. Unilever Occurs between two or more individuals. Unilever also occurs

among members of different teams. Sometimes it is very need to Occurs in the competition. The

member of Unilever occurs between unions. Unilever Almost occurs between government

regulatory agencies organizations. Sometimes it is very need to Surfaces important problems.

Unilever causes careful consideration of decisions. Unilever causes reconsideration of decisions.

Unilever provides opportunities for creativity in many situations. Some decision process of

Unilever Harms group cohesion.

Unilever Bangladesh always tried to process of making the joint decisions, the decision are being

made by managers of Unilever, peers, bosses, and other head of Unilevers. Some time there in a

problem with Workplace at Unilever, the workplace disagreements arise over a variety of matters

inside the Unilever, but they solved it by seating together and try to solve it and make them all

comfortable in working place in each department. Sometimes Unilever face the Outcomes that

relate to content issues. Occurs when substance issues are resolved in Unilever. Occurs when

substance issues are working relationships between Unilever and with its own employees.

Differences in Unilever negotiate and approaches are influenced by cultural differences. Unilever

practices which are being influenced by cultural differences in Time orientation. Unilever

Bangladesh always focuses on positions staked out. Unilever Parties also try to claim certain

poor tons of the existing pie. Unilever Bangladesh Integrative negotiation focuses on the merits

of the issues. Integrative negotiations in Unilever Bangladesh Parties try to enlarge the available

pie. The possibility in Unilever Bangladesh of escalating commitment. Negotiators in Unilever

often develop overconfidence in their positions in Bangladesh. Communication problems in

Unilever Bangladesh can cause difficulties during a negotiation.

Transition in Conflict:

There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict. Despite the divergent meanings the term

has acquired, several common themes underline most definitions. Conflict must be perceived by

the parties to it, whether or not conflict exists is a perception issue. If no one is aware of a

conflict, then it is generally agreed that no- conflict exists. Additional commonalities in the

definitions are opposition or incompatibility and some form of interaction. These factors set the

conditions that determine the beginning point of the conflict process.

Unilever Bangladesh Limited, a fast moving consumer goods company, engages in the

manufacture and distribution of home care products, personal care products, and foods. It offers

household care, fabric cleaning, skin cleansing, skin care, oral care, hair care, and personal

grooming products, as well as tea based beverages. The company was formerly known as Lever

Brothers Bangladesh Ltd. and changed its name in December 2004. Unilever Bangladesh

Limited was founded in 1964 and is based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Unilever Bangladesh Limited

is a subsidiary of The Unilever Group.

We can define conflict, then, as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party

has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affects something that the first party cares

about.

This definition is purposely broad taken from Unilever. It describes that point in any ongoing

activity to become an inter-party conflict. It encompasses the wide range of conflicts that people

experience in Unilever Company— incompatibility of goals, differences over interpretations of

facts, disagreements based on behavioral expectations, and the like. Finally, our definition is

flexible enough to cover the full range of conflict levels — from overt and violent acts to subtle

forms of disagreements.

It is entirely appropriate to say that there has been Conflict in Unilever since beginning. Over the

role of conflict in groups and organizations like Unilever. One school of thought has argued that

conflict must be avoided — that it indicates malfunction within the group. We call this the

traditional view. Another school of thought, the human relations view, argues that conflict is a

natural and inevitable outcome in any group and that it need not be evil, but rather has the

potential to be a positive force in determining group performance. The third, and most recent,

perspective proposes not only that conflict can be a positive force in a group but explicitly argues

that some conflict is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively. We label this third

school the interaction approach.

The Traditional View of Conflict:

The early approach to conflict assumed that all conflict was bad. Conflict was viewed negatively,

and it was used synonymously with such terms as violence, destruction and irrationality to

reinforce its negative connotation. Conflict, by definition, was harmful and was to be avoided.

The traditional view was consistent with the attitudes that prevailed about group behavior in the

1930s and 1940s conflict was seen as a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor

communication, a lack of openness and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be

responsive to the needs and aspirations of their employees.

So we can say that, “The belief that all conflict is harmful and must be avoided”.

The traditionally Unilever causes many reasons for a given distractive conflict are eliminated

because effective resolution of conflict of Unilever of Bangladesh begins with a diagnosis of the

stage to with conflict has develop and recognize of the causes of the Unilever in Bangladesh.

The Human Relations View of Conflict:

The Human relations position argued that conflict was a natural occurrence in all groups and

organizations like Unilever. Since conflict was inevitable, the human relations school advocated

acceptance of conflict. Proponents rationalized its existence. It cannot be eliminated from a big

multinational company like Unilever, and there are even times when conflict may benefit a

group’s performance in Unilever. The human relations view dominated conflict theory from the

late 1940s through the mid-1970s.

Again we can say about Human Relations View of Conflict that “The belief that conflict is a

natural and inevitable outcome in any group”.

The Inter actionist View of Conflict:

While the human relations approach accepted conflict, the inter-actionist approach encourages

conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is prone to

becoming static, apathetic, and non-responsive to needs for change and innovation. The major

contribution of the inter-actionist approach, therefore, is encouraging group leaders to maintain

an ongoing minimum level of conflict — enough to keep the group viable, self-critical, and

creative.

Finally, for Inter Actionist View of Conflict we can say that, “The belief that conflict is not only

a positive force in a group but that it is also an absolute necessity for a group to perform

effectively”.

The Unilever Bangladesh belief that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but that it is

also an absolute necessity for a group to perform effectively. So we can say from the base of

Unilever that the major contribution of the inter-actionist approach is encouraging group leaders

of Unilever to maintain an ongoing minimum level of conflict — enough to keep the group

viable, self-critical, and creative.

The inter actionist view does not propose that all conflicts are good. Rather, some conflicts

support the goals of the group and improve its performance, these are

1. Functional Conflict

2. Dysfunctional Conflict

3. Task Conflict

4. Relationship Conflict

5. Process Conflict

Functional Conflict:

Functional conflict within the context of Organizational Behavior occurs when low to moderate

levels of conflict improve the effectiveness of a Unilever group. Conflict is constructive when it

improves the quality of decisions, stimulates creativity, innovation and encourages interest and

curiosity among group members in Unilever Bangladesh LTD. It provides a medium through

which problems can be aired and tensions released and fosters an environment of self-evaluation

and change. Conflict is the antidote for groupthink of Unilever.

Unilever Conflict challenges the status quo and therefore furthers the creation of new ideas,

promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group

will respond to change in Unilever Bangladesh LTD.

That’s, Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance.

Dysfunctional Conflict:

Dysfunctional Conflict is Conflict that leads to a decline in communication or the performance of

a group. Dysfunctional Conflict can be an overabundance of conflict or a lack of sufficient

motivating conflict.

So that means, “Conflict that hinders group performance.”

The superiors of Unilever may attribute conflict to poor interpersonal relationship so

dysfunctional conflict of Unilever Bangladesh is that hinders group performance. In Unilever

they lead to a decline in communication or the performance of a group in Unilever.

Dysfunctional Conflict can be an overabundance of conflict in Unilever Bangladesh LTD.

Task Conflict:

Task conflict occurs when there are differences between how workers approach a job or obstacle

in the workplace. The focus of conflict is on the task and how it is performed. Relationship

conflict is its evil twin. It is based on dislike and mistrust and focuses on interpersonal conflict.

Task conflict is easy to identify because it involves multiple potential approaches to the work in

question. In contrast, relationship conflict will bury the task beneath personal issues.

That means “Task Conflict exists within a group or team when there are disagreements among

the group members about the tasks being performed”.

The goals of the work of the Unilever Bangladesh is task oriented so in this sense task conflict

process is very important fact for Unilever. Task conflict in Unilever is over content and goals of

the task and mission of Unilever.

It occurs in Unilever when there are differences between how workers in Unilever approach a

job or obstacle in the workplace like multination company like Unilever.

Relationship Conflict:

Conflict within relationships in inevitable with Unilever Bangladesh. In close relationships, a

certain amount of relationship conflict can even be healthy, according to researcher John

Guttmann of the most known negotiate of Unilever, because conflict can provide couples with

the opportunity to resolve underlying differences and achieve greater intimacy. To be successful,

however, conflict must be well managed, which requires the acquisition of certain social skills

base of Unilever Bangladesh.

This company says that, if anyone who has interactions with other people is going to experience

conflict. It is an inevitable aspect of human relations. However, Unilever Bangladesh also says

about relationship conflict that, the type of conflict experienced in a relationship and how it is

handled are among the determining factors in a relationship's strength and promise. Relationship

conflicts can occur in all types of relationships, including parent/child, friendships and romantic

relationships.

For any organization, interpersonal relationship is very important because it plays a very vital

role in relationship conflict, because here relationship conflict base on interpersonal relationship

and Unilever showed in there possessing.

That’s “Conflict based on interpersonal relationship”

Process Conflict:

Conflict is the process by which parties with differing wishes each believe that the other will act

or is acting against them, and engage in behavior seeking to damage the other party. While

conflict is often seen as negative, some types of conflict, in certain settings, can have a positive

outcome.

Finally we can say that, “Conflict over how work gets done”

The Conflict Process:

The conflict process can be seen as comprising five stages:

1. Causes or sources of conflict or Potential opposition or Incompatibility

2. Cognition and personalization

3. Intentions

4. Behavior

5. Outcomes

Causes or Sources of Conflict or Potential opposition or incompatibility:

The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for

conflict to arise. They need not lead directly to conflict, but one of these conditions is necessary

if conflict is to surface. For simplicity’s sake, these conditions (which also may be looked at as

causes or sources of conflict) have been condensed into three general categories: communication,

structure, and personal variables.

Communication

The communication source represents the opposing forces that arise from semantic difficulties,

misunderstandings, and noise in the communication channels. A review of the research suggests

that differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the

communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedent conditions to

conflict. Evidence demonstrates that semantic difficulties arise as a result of differences in

training, selective

Perception and inadequate information about others. Research has further Demonstrated a

surprising finding: The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much

communication takes place. Apparently, an increase in communication is functional up to a

point, whereupon it is possible to over communicate, with a resultant increase in the potential for

conflict. Too much information, as well as too little, can lay the foundation for conflict.

Furthermore, the channel chosen for communicating can have an influence on stimulating

opposition. The filtering process that occurs as information is passed between members and the

divergence of communications from formal or previously established channels offer potential

opportunities for conflict to arise.

Structure

The term structure is used, in this context, to include variables such as size, degree of

specialization in the tasks assigned to group members, jurisdictional

Clarity, member–goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of

dependence among groups. Research indicates that size and specialization act as forces to

stimulate conflict. The larger the group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the

likelihood of conflict. Tenure and conflict appear inversely related; meaning the potential for

conflict tends to be greatest when group members are younger and when turnover is high.

A close style of leadership—tight and continuous observation with general control

of others’ behaviors—increases conflict potential, but the evidence is not particularly strong. Too

much reliance on participation may also stimulate conflict. Research tends to confirm that

participation and conflict are highly correlated, apparently because participation encourages the

promotion of differences. Reward systems, too, are found to create conflict when one member’s

gain is at another’s expense. And if a group is dependent on

Another group (in contrast to the two being mutually independent) or if interdependence allows

one group to gain at another’s expense, opposing forces are stimulated.

Personal Variables

As practical experience has taught us, some people are conflict oriented and others are conflict

aversive. Evidence indicates that certain personality types—for example, individuals who are

highly authoritarian and dogmatic—lead to

Potential conflict. Emotions can also cause conflict. For example, an employee who shows up to

work irate from her hectic morning commute may carry that anger to her 9:00 A.M. meeting.

The problem? Her anger can annoy her colleagues, which may lead to a tension-filled meeting.

In addition to personality traits, differing values can explain conflict. Value differences are the

best explanation of diverse issues such as prejudice and disagreements over one’s contribution to

the group, as well as the rewards one deserves. Say that John dislikes African-Americans and

Dana believes John’s position indicates his ignorance. Say that an employee thinks he is worth

$55,000 a year but his boss believes him to be worth $50,000. These are all value differences,

which are important sources for creating the potential for conflict. It is also important to note that

culture can be a source of differing values. For example,

Research indicates that individuals in Japan and in the United States view conflict differently.

Compared to Japanese negotiators, Americans are more likely to see offers from their

counterparts as unfair and to reject such offers.

Cognition and personalization:

If the conditions cited in stage I negatively affect something that one party cares

About, then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second

stage. As our definition of conflict notes, perception is required. One or more of the parties must

be aware of the existence of the antecedent conditions. However, because a conflict is perceived

does not make it personalized. In other words, “A may be aware that B and A are in serious

disagreement . . . but it may not make A tense or anxious, and it may have no effect whatsoever

on A’s affection toward B.”6 It is at the felt level, when

Individuals become emotionally involved, that parties experience anxiety, tension,

Frustration or hostility.

Cognition and personalization can be described by perceived conflict and felt conflict.

Perceived Conflict:

This is a situation where it becomes aware that one is in conflict with another party. It can block

out some conflict. Can perceive conflict when no latent conditions exist? For instance,

misunderstanding another person's position on an issue. Perceptions of Social Impacts can be

also discuss in Perceived conflict between walking and biking parallels other widely documented

inter-activity conflicts. As has been apparent for biking, the perceived impacts of motorized use

have similarly emphasized environmental impact and safety; the appearance, noise, behavior,

presence of mechanization; and the inappropriateness of these in natural settings. Implicit in this

has been the assumption that the recreation objectives, environmental attitudes, and values of

these other recreationists are also different.Inter-activity conflict research has often found clear

differences that reflect these perceptions, such as those between the recreation preferences and

motivations of snowmobilers and cross-country skiers (Knopp & Tyger, 1973; Butler, 1974;

Duvall and Harry, 1981; Jackson & Wong, 1982). When both groups are trying to use the same

settings, perceptions of conflict are almost inevitable. Similar patterns of experience preferences

were also reflected in the other activities in which these groups participated. Given these

differences, it was concluded that such groups would always tend to be in conflict, even when in

different activities and settings. The main question here is if such differences are represented

between walking and biking. The desirability in international arbitration of having an impartial

and independent arbitrator is widely recognized across different legal cultures.  It is reflected

both in domestic arbitration laws and in international and institutional rules.  Our report on

perceived conflicts of interest involving arbitrators and advocates coming from the same set of

barristers' chambers is based on a survey of our colleagues in overseas law firms with whom we

have a close working relationship. 

Some of the key findings include:

78% of lawyers believed their clients would not be happy with barristers from the same

set of chambers acting as arbitrator and appearing as opposing counsel in the same case.

94% of lawyers felt that disclosure should be made by a nominated arbitrator if he or she

was aware that a fellow barrister from the same chambers had already been instructed as

advocate.

65% felt that, under domestic laws, a challenge to an arbitrator that came from the same

chambers as one of the advocates was likely to succeed.

Felt Conflict:

Felt conflict is a type of conflict which the individual think that whatever is going on within the

organization is not favorable for him and not supporting to him. Generally, felt conflict arises

due to lack of knowledge about working environment and not satisfied with job which are

delegated to him or her.

Keep in mind two points.first, stage 2 is important because it’s where conflict issues tend to be

defined. This is the place in the process where the parties decide what the conflict is about. In

turn, this “sense making” is critical because the way a conflict is defined goes a long way toward

establishing the sort of outcomes that might settle it. For instance, if I define our salary

disagreement as a zero – sum situation, I am going to be far less willing to compromise than if I

frame the conflict as a potential win. So the definition of conflict is important because it typically

delineates the set of possible settlements. Our second point is that emotions play a major role in

shaping perceptions. For example, negative emotions have been found to produce

oversimplification of issues, reduction in trust, and negative interpretations of the other party’s

behavior. In contrast, positive feelings have been found to increase the tendency to see potential

relationships among the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the situation and to

develop more innovative solutions.

Intentions:

Intentions intervene among people’s perceptions and emotions and overt behaviors. These

intentions are decisions to act in a given way. Intentions are separated out as a distinct stage

because you have to infer the other’s intent to know how to respond to that other’s behavior. A

lot of conflicts are escalated merely by one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other

party. In addition, there is typically a great deal of slippage between intentions and behavior, so

behavior does not always accurately reflect a person’s intentions.

Our graph represents one author’s effort to identify the primary conflict handling Intentions.

When we perceive another, we blend our perception of their manifestations, determinable, and

dispositions--their field of expression--with perceived intentions. We impute to another some

motive which organizes our perception of their behavior. Now, insofar as I use the term, an

intention is a disposition in the process of realization; it is the active desire to achieve some

future goal through some specific behavior in a particular circumstance. For example, we

perceive a man bent over fingering the laces on his shoe as if intending to tie them, a women

reaching for a car door as if intending to open it, or a student enrolled in college as if intending to

get a degree. Perceived intentions organize our perspective; they give yet another kind of

meaning to our understanding of the social world in terms of purposes, goals, aims, plans,

designs, missions, and ends. Intentions are the active, conscious, future aims we perceive another

to have. These intentions are projected towards us through another's field of expression. He presents a

complex of phenomena bearing on our perspective and forcing recognition of specific,

underlying, latent intentions. Thus, we see a field of expression that is a women opening a refrigerator

door as a women intending to get some food. We may be wrong, of course. She may intend to check the

inside temperature. Moreover, she may know we are watching and be deceiving us about her real

intentions (say, to distract us from the game of chess we are playing against her). She may be framing a

field of expression that conveys an intended intention, as does the actor on stage. Of course.

But the percipient's perspective includes the other's field of expression only as a situation within

the percipient's dynamic psychological field. Within this field, the perception becomes part of the

percipient's cognitive balance and structure of beliefs and is related to his personality. Thus, the

other's intentions are interpreted as a total historical and psychological act: as a gestalt whose

elements are our past experience with him and similar others; our cultural meanings, values, and

norms; our beliefs and personality; and our own intentions, including our super ordinate goal of

self-esteem.

Intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions and their overt behavior. These intentions

are decisions to act in a given way. Intentions are separated out as a distinct stage because you

have to infer the other’s intent to know how to respond to that other’s behavior. a lot of conflicts

are escalated merely by one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other party. In addition

there is typically a great deal of slippage between intentions and behavior, so behavior doesn’t

always accurately reflect a person’s intentions.

Using two dimensions—cooperativeness (the degree to which oneParty attempts to satisfy the

other party’s concerns) and assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or

her own concerns)—we can identify it five Conflict-handling intentions:

Dimensions of Conflict – Handling Intentions:

Competing:

When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests, regardless of the impact on the other

parties to the conflict, that person is competing. Competing is when you, for example, win a bet

your opponent loses.

Assertive and uncooperative, such as when you strive to achieve your goal

At the expense of the other party achieving his.

Collaborating:

When the parties to conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns of the parties, there is

cooperation and search for a mutually beneficial outcome, in collaborating, the intention of the

parties is to solve a problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating various

points of view. If we attempt to find a win/win solution that lows both parties, goals to be

completely achieved, that’s collaborating. Assertive and cooperative—intending to find a win–

win solution that makes both parties happy.

Avoiding:

A person may recognize that a conflict exists and want to withdraw from it or suppress it.

Example, of avoiding includes trying to just ignore a conflict and avoiding others with whom we

disagree. Unassertive and uncooperative, such as when you avoid a conflict based on the hope it

will just go away.

Accommodating:

When one party seeks to appease an opponent, that party may be willing to place the opponent’s

interests above his or her own. In other words, in order for the relationship to be maintained, one

party needs to be willing to be to self- sacrificing. We refer to this intention as accommodating.

Supporting someone else’s opinion despite our reservations about it. For example, would

represent accommodation. Unassertive and cooperative, such as when you give in just to please

someone else.

Compromising:

When each party to a conflict seeks to give up something, sharing occurs, resulting in a

compromised outcome. In compromising, there is no clear winner or loser. Rather, there is a

willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a solution that provides incomplete

satisfaction of both parties concerns. The distinguishing characteristic of compromising,

therefore, is that each party intends to give up something.

Intentions are not always fixed. During the course of a conflict, they might change because of

reconceptualization or because of an emotional reaction to the behavior of the other party.

However, research indicates that people have an underlying disposition to handle conflicts in

certain ways. Specifically, individuals have preferences among the five conflict- handling

intentions just described. These preferences tend to be relied on quite consistently and a person’s

intentions can be predicted rather well from a combination of intellectual and personality

characteristics.

Mid-range on both assertiveness and cooperativeness, where the pie is

People differ in the degree to which they generally rely on these strategies (e.g., some

People are competitive in most situations), but the approach also will vary by the situation,

example, a strategy one intends to use in a conflict with a loved one will often differ from a

conflict with strangers.

Behavior:

When most people think of conflict situations, they tend to focus on stage IV because this is

where conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and

reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to

implement each party’s intentions, but they have a stimulus quality that is separate from

intentions. As a result of miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviors sometimes

deviate from original intentions. It helps to think of stage IV as a dynamic process of interaction.

For example, you make a demand on me; I respond by arguing; you threaten me; I threaten you

back; and so on. All conflicts exist somewhere along this continuum. At the lower part of the

continuum, we have conflicts characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of

tension, such as a student questioning in class a point the instructor has just made. Conflict

intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly

destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this upper range. For the most part, conflicts

that reach the upper ranges of the continuum are almost always dysfunctional. Functional

conflicts are typically confined to the lower Range of the continuum.

When most people think of conflict situation, they tend to focus on stage 4 because this is where

conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made

by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each

party’s intentions. But these behaviors have a stimulus quality that is a separate from intention.

As a result of a miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviors sometimes deviate from

original intentions.

Conflict- Intensity Continuum

It helps to think stage 4 as a dynamic process of interaction. For example, you make a demand on me, I respond by arguing, you threaten me, I threaten you back and so on. Next graph we show that how it provides a way of visualizing

Conflict behavior. All conflicts exist somewhere along this continuum. At the lower part of the

continuum are conflicts characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension.

An illustration might be a student questioning in class a point the instructor has just made.

Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly

destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this upper range. For the most part, we should

assume that conflicts that reach the upper ranges of the continuum are almost always

dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower range of the continuum.

In a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what

options exist if conflict is too low and needs to be increased? This brings us to conflict-

management techniques the downward graph we shows the major resolution and stimulation

techniques that allow managers to control conflict levels. Note that several of the resolution

techniques were described earlier as conflict handling intentions. This, of course, shouldn’t be

surprising. Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into comparable

behaviors.

Conflict – management techniques

Conflict Resolution Techniques

Communication

Bringing in outsiders

Restructuring the organization

Appointing a devil’s advocate

Conflict Resolution Techniques

Communication

Bringing in outsiders

Restructuring the organization

Appointing a devil’s advocate

Outcomes:

The action–reaction interplay among the conflicting parties results in consequences. These

outcomes may be functional in that the conflict results in an improvement in the group’s

performance, or it may be dysfunctional in that it hinders group performance.

Functional Outcomes How might conflict act as a force to increase group performance?

It is hard to visualize a situation in which open or violent aggression could be Functional. Yet in

a number of instances, it’s possible to envision how low or moderate levels of conflict could

improve the effectiveness of a group. Because people often find it difficult to think of instances

in which conflict can be constructive, let’s consider some examples and then review the research

evidence. Note how all these examples focus on task and process conflicts and exclude the

relationship variety.

Conflict is constructive when it:

Conflict Resolution Techniques

Problem solving

Superordinate goals

Expansion of resources

Avoidance

Smoothing

Compromise

Authoritative command

Altering the human variable

Altering the structural variables

Conflict Resolution Techniques

Problem solving

Superordinate goals

Expansion of resources

Avoidance

Smoothing

Compromise

Authoritative command

Altering the human variable

Altering the structural variables

1. improves the quality of decisions,

2. stimulates creativity and innovation,

3. encourages interest and curiosity among group members,

4. Provides the medium through which problems can be aired and tensions released, and

5. Fosters an environment of self-evaluation and change.

The evidence suggests that conflict can improve the quality of decision. Making by allowing all

points, particularly the ones that are unusual Or held by a minority, to be weighed in important

decisions. Conflict is an antidote for groupthink. It doesn’t allow the group too passively.

Rubber-stamp decisions that may be based on weak assumptions, inadequate. Consideration of

relevant alternatives, or other debilities. Conflict challenges the status quo and therefore furthers

the creation of new ideas, promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases

The probability that the group will respond to change. You don’t have to look further than

automobile behemoth General.

Motors to see a company that suffered because it had too little functional Conflict.Many of GM’s

problems, from the late 1960s to the late 1990s, can be traced to a lack of functional conflict. It

hired and promoted individuals who were yes-men, Loyal to GM to the point of never

questioning company actions. Managers were, for the most part, homogenous: conservative

white males raised in the Midwestern United States who resisted change: They preferred looking

back to past successes rather than forward to new challenges. They were almost sanctimonious in

their belief that what had worked in the past would continue to work in the future. Moreover, by

sheltering executives in the company’s Detroit offices and encouraging them to socialize with

others inside the GM ranks, the company further insulated managers from conflicting

perspectives.

Provides a more recent example of a company that suffered because of too little functional

conflict.10 Begun in 1994, by 1999 Yahoo! had become one of the best-known brand names on

the Internet. Then the implosion of dot.com stocks hit. By the spring of 2001, advertising sales

were plunging and the company’s stock was down 92 percent from its peak. It was at this point

that Yahoo!’s most critical problem became exposed: The company was too insulated and void

of functional conflict. It couldn’t respond to change. Managers and staff were too comfortable

with each other to challenge the status quo. This kept new ideas from percolating upward and

held dissent to a minimum. The source of the problem was the company’s CEO, Tim Koogle. He

set the tone of no confrontation. Only when Koogle was replaced in 2001, with a new CEO who

openly challenged the company’s conflict-free climate, did Yahoo! begin to successfully solve

its problems. Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of conflict,

demonstrating that, among established groups, performance tended to improve more when

conflict occurred among members than when fairly close agreement was prevalent. When groups

analyzed decisions made by its individual members, investigators found the average

improvement among the high-conflict groups was 73 percent greater than that of those groups

characterized by low-conflict conditions.11 Others have found similar results: Groups composed

of members with different interests tend to produce higher-quality solutions to a variety of

problems than do homogeneous groups.

Dysfunctional Outcomes

The destructive consequences of conflict on a group’s or organization’s performance are

generally well known. A reasonable summary might state that uncontrolled opposition breeds

discontent, which acts to dissolve communities, and eventually leads to the destruction of the

group. And, of course, a substantial

body of literature documents how conflict—the dysfunctional varieties—can reduce group

effectiveness.13 Among the more undesirable consequences are a retarding of communication,

reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting

among members. At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and potentially

threaten the group’s survival. The demise of an organization as a result of too much conflict isn’t

as unusual as one might expect. For instance, one of New York’s best-known law firms, Shea &

Gould, closed down solely because the 80 partners couldn’t get along.14 As one legal consultant

familiar with the organization said, “This was a firm that had basic and principled differences

among the partners that were basically irreconcilable.” That same consultant also addressed the

partners at their last meeting: “You don’t have an economic problem,” he said. “You have a

personality problem. You hate each other!”

Creating Functional Conflict

In this section we ask, if managers accept the interactions view toward conflict, what can they

do to encourage functional conflict in their organizations?

Consultants generally agree that creating functional conflict is a tough job, particularly in large

U.S. corporations. As one consultant put it, “A high proportion of people who get to the top are

conflict avoiders. They don’t like hearing negatives; they don’t like saying or thinking negative

things. They frequently make it up the ladder in part because they don’t irritate people on the

way up.” Another suggests that at least 7 out of 10 people in U.S. business hush up when their

opinions are at odds with those of their superiors, allowing bosses to make mistakes even when

they know better. Such anticonflict cultures may have been tolerable in the past but not in

today’s fiercely competitive global economy. Organizations that don’t encourage and support

dissent may find their survival threatened. Let’s look at some approaches organizations are using

to encourage their people to challenge the system and develop fresh ideas.

Hewlett-Packard rewards dissenters by recognizing go-against-the-grain types,

or people who stay with the ideas they believe in even when those ideas are rejected by

management. Herman Miller Inc., an office furniture manufacturer, has a formal system in which

employees evaluate and criticize their bosses. IBM also has a formal system that encourages

dissension. Employees can question their bosses with impunity. If the disagreement can’t be

resolved, the system provides a third party for counsel. Royal Dutch Shell Group, General

Electric, and Anheuser-Busch build devil’s advocates into the decision process. When the policy

committee at Anheuser- Busch considers a major move, such as getting into or out of a business

or making a major capital expenditure, it often assigns teams to make the case for each side of

the question. This process frequently results in decisions and alternatives that hadn’t been

considered previously.

One common ingredient in organizations that successfully create functional

conflict is that they reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders. The real challenge for managers,

however, occurs when they hear news that they don’t want to hear. The news may make their

blood boil or their hopes collapse, but they can’t show it. They have to learn to take the bad news

without flinching. No tirades, no tight-lipped sarcasm, no eyes rolling upward, no gritting of

teeth. Rather, managers should ask calm, even-tempered questions: “Can you tell me more about

what happened?” “What do you think we ought to do?” A sincere “Thank you for bringing this

to my attention” will probably reduce the likelihood that managers will be cut off from similar

communications in the future.

Having considered conflict—its nature, causes, and consequences—now we turn to negotiation.

Negotiation and conflict are closely related because negotiation often resolves conflict.

The Negotiation Process:

In our graph we try to provide a simplified model of the negotiation process. It views

negotiation:

As made up of five steps:

1. Preparation and planning

2. Definition of ground rules

3. Clarification and justification

4. Bargaining and problem solving

5. Closure and implementation

Preparation and Planning

Before negotiating anything, we need to do your homework. What’s the nature of the conflict?

What’s the history leading up to this negotiation? Who’s involved, and what are their perceptions

of the conflict?

What a organization want from the negotiation? What are there goals? If they’re a supply

Manager at Dell Computer, for instance, and your goal is to get a significant cost

Reduction from your supplier of keyboards, make sure that this goal stays paramount in your

discussions and doesn’t get overshadowed by other issues. It often helps to put your goals in

writing and develop a range of outcomes—from “most hopeful” to “minimally acceptable”—to

keep your attention focused.

You also want to prepare an assessment of what you think the other party’s goals

Are. What are they likely to request? How entrenched are they likely to be in their

Position? What intangible or hidden interests may be important to them? What might they be

willing to settle on? When you can anticipate your opponent’s position, you are better equipped

to counter arguments with the facts and figures that support your position.

The importance of sizing up the other party is illustrated by the experience of

Keith Rosenbaum, a partner in a major Los Angeles law firm. “Once when we were negotiating

to buy a business, we found that the owner was going through a nasty divorce. We were on good

terms with the wife’s attorney and we learned the seller’s net worth. California is a community-

property-law state, so we knew he had to pay her half of everything. We knew his time frame.

We knew what he was willing to part with and what he was not. We knew a lot more about him

than he would have wanted us to know. We were able to twist him a little bit, and get a better

price.”

Once you’ve gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy. For example,

Expert chess players have a strategy. They know ahead of time how they will

Respond to any given situation. As part of your strategy, you should determine yours and the

other side’s Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Your BATNA determines

the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement. For example, an airline may find

that at a certain level of settlement, the cost of hiring replacement workers is the same. Thus, in

negotiating, hiring replacement workers would be its BATNA. Any offer you receive that is

higher than your BATNA is better than an impasse. Conversely, you shouldn’t expect success in

your negotiation effort unless you’re able to make the other side an offer it finds more attractive

than its BATNA. If you go into your negotiation having a good idea of what the other party’s

BATNA is, even if you’re not able to meet it, you might be able to get it changed.

Definition of Ground Rules

Once you’ve done your planning and developed a strategy, you’re ready to begin defining the

ground rules and procedures with the other party for the negotiation itself. Who will do the

negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints, if any, will apply? To what issues

will negotiation be limited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached?

During

This phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands.

Clarification and Justification

When initial positions have been exchanged, both you and the other party will explain, amplify,

clarify, bolster, and justify your original demands. This needn’t be confrontational. Rather, it’s

an opportunity for educating and informing each other on the issues, why they are important, and

how each of you arrived at their

Initial demands. This is the point at which you might want to provide the other party with any

documentation that helps support your Position.

The Negotiation Process

Bargaining and Problem Solving

The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give-and-take involved in hashing out an

agreement. It is here where concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties.

Closure and Implementation

The final step in the negotiation process is formalizing the agreement that has been negotiated

and developing any procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring. Major

negotiations—labor–management

negotiations, bargaining over lease terms, buying a piece of real estate, negotiating a job offer for

a senior management position—will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract.

For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a

handshake.

Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness:

Many people negotiate better than other. Here we discuss three factors that influence how

effectively individuals negotiate:

1. Personality.

2. Mood/emotions.

3. Gender.

Personality Traits in Negotiation:

Assessments of the personality-negotiation relationship have been that personality traits have no

significant direct effect on either the bargaining process or the negotiation outcomes.The people

who are hired into an organization are chosen for fit; they are then shaped and directed to behave

in certain ways. When an organization is con-fronted with change, this structural inertia acts as a

counterbalance to sustain stability. Another organizational factor that leads to resistance to

change is the limited focus of change. Organizations are made up of interdependent subsystems.

One can’t change without affecting the others. For example, if management changes the techno-

logical processes without simultaneously modifying the organization’s structure to match, the

change in technology is not likely to be accepted.

Moods/Emotions in Negotiation:

Do moods and emotion influence negotiation? They do, but the ways they do appear to depend

on the type of negotiation.Emotions are intense feelings that are directed at someone or

something. Moods are feelings that tend to be less intense than emotions and that lack a

contextual stimulus. Emotions Caused by specific event-Brief in duration-Specific and numerous

in nature (anger, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise)-Action oriented in nature.

Moods Cause is general and often unclear-Last longer than emotions (hours or days)-More

general (positive affect /negative affect)-Cognitive in nature.

In integrative negotiations, in contrast, positive moods and emotions appear to lead to more

negative agreements.

Gender Differences in Negotiations:

Do men and women negotiate differently? and does gender affect negotiation outcomes? The

answer to the first question appears to be no. The answer to the second is a qualified yes. A

popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative and pleasant in negotiations than are

men. The people who are hired into an organization are chosen for fit, they are then shaped and

directed to behave in certain ways. When an organization is con-fronted with change, this

structural inertia acts as a counterbalance to sustain stability. Another organizational factor that

leads to resistance to change is the limited focus of change. Organizations are made up of

interdependent subsystems. One can’t

change without affecting the others. For example, if management changes the techno-logical

processes without simultaneously modifying the organization’s structure to match, the change in

technology is not likely to be accepted. So, limited changes in subsystems tend to get nullified by

the larger system one side may also have no real interest in reaching agreement on terms

acceptable to the other side, and may only be interested in negotiation only as a means to provide

diplomatic cover while it continues actions that the other side wishes to limit. In this case, the

other side may seek a suspension of those actions as a precondition to negotiation. Or, on the

other hand, one side may seek to gain a concession through preconditions without the bargaining

interest in actual negotiations. Negotiating teams may also begin to consider packaging and

timing. How can various trade-offs be bundled? Which issues should be considered first and

which should be saved for last?

Zartman describes three principles that guide this process: “simplification,” or “reducing the

number of elements to the most important” structuring, or “giving these elements some priority

and relation to one another” and giving direction, or “moving these components toward an

intended policy goal. They are penalized for violating a gender stereotype. Negotiate nice and it

only reinforces the stereotype.

Individual Differences in Negotiation

• We can predict opponents negotiation tactics if you know something about personality.

• A high risk taker is a aggressive bargainers who make fewer concessions.

• No significant relationship found between personality and negotiation.

• If we are an agreeable extrovert, we are not in a disadvantageous position.

• We all can learn be a better negotiator.

• Individual decision making is an important part of organizational behaviour.

• Qualities of decisions are largely influenced by individual’s perception.

• One person’s problem is another person’s satisfactory state of affairs

• Every decision requires us to interpret and evaluate information. We typically receive

data from multiple sources that need to screen, process and interpret

Individual Differences in Negotiation Moods and Emotions

• Mood and emotions influence negotiations depending on the type of negotiation.

• It appears that, in distributive bargaining, negotiators who show anger (even if not being

truly angry) negotiate better outcomes.

• In contrast, in integrative negotiations, positive moods and emotions appear to lead a

more integrative agreements

• Negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win/win solution.

• Goal is to expand the pie so that both parties are satisfied

• Parties focus on other’s interests

• They have similar interests

• High information sharing

• Long-term relationship

Individual Differences in Negotiation Gender Differences

• Do men and women negotiate differently

• Does gender affect negotiation outcome?

• Stereotype: women are more cooperative and pleasant than are man.

• But evidence does not support that believe.

• Perceived conflict: awareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that

create opportunities for conflict to arise. (A is aware of his/her disagreement with B but it

may not have any effect on A’s affection toward B)

• Felt conflict: emotional involvement in a conflict creates anxiety, tenseness, frustration,

or hostility. Problem solving, expansion of resources, avoidance, smoothing,

compromise, authoritative command, altering the structural variables.

• The belief that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but that is also an absolute

necessity for a group to perform effectively.

• However, men have been found to negotiate better outcomes than women although the

difference is relatively small. Accepting the interactions view toward conflict managers

can encourage functional conflict to improve quality of the decisions.

• The belief that women are nicer than men in negotiations is probably due to confusion

between gender and the lower degree of power women hold in most large organizations.

• The believe that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but that it is also an

absolute necessity for a group to perform effectively.

• Can you predict opponents negotiation tactics if you know something about personality?

• Is a high risk taker a aggressive bargainers who make fewer concessions?

• No significant relationship found between personality and negotiation.

• If you are an agreeable extrovert, you are not in a disadvantageous position.

• We all can learn be a better negotiator.

• Occasionally, individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to

resolve their differences through direct negotiations, in which cases they seek help of

third party to find a solution.

• Cross-cultural negotiations constitute an important part of international manager’s job

• Understanding dynamics of negotiation process and the influence of culture can help

improve negotiating outcomes

• Moderate adaptation may be most effective

• Implications for Managers

Traditional view: the view that all conflict is harmful and must be avoided.

Human relations view: believes that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any

group.

Interactions view: the belief that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but that is

also an absolute necessity for a group to perform effectively.

Evidence indicates that certain personality types—for example, individuals who are highly

authoritarian and dogmatic—lead to potential conflict. Emotions can also cause conflict. For

example, an employee who shows up to work irate from her hectic morning commute may carry

that anger to her 9:00 A.M. meeting. The problem? Her anger can annoy her colleagues, which

may lead to a tension-filled meeting. In addition to personality traits, differing values can explain

conflict.

Furthermore, because functional conflict relies on a careful consideration of alternatives, and

assumptions underlying decisions (Cosier & Schwann, 1990), the provision of frequent low

value information may also stifle functional conflict between managers. Managers receiving low

value information on a frequent basis are unlikely to be able to use that information effectively in

decision making, and such information may eventually be ignored by the receiver. Consequently,

high frequency communication is likely to be associated with lower functional conflict. This

finding is also reflected in our results for communication quality, which had the single strongest

positive effect on functional conflict, and the second strongest negative effect on dysfunctional

conflict. High quality information is the basis for effective decision-making, and under

conditions of uncertainty, high quality information helps managers evaluate all options, and

challenge ideas and assumptions, engages in behaviors indicative of functional conflict.

Conversely, where communication is poor in quality, this is likely to frustrate peer managers,

and lead to conflict with those managers providing poor quality information.

One of the most well-documented findings from studies of individual and organizational

behavior is that organizations and their members resist change. In a sense, this is positive: It

provides a degree of stability and predictability to behavior. Without any resistance,

organizational behavior would take on the characteristics of chaotic randomness. Resistance to

change can also be a source of functional conflict. For example, resistance to a reorganization

plan or a change in a product line can stimulate a healthy debate over the merits of the idea and

result in a better decision. But there is a definite downside to resis-tance to change. It hinders

adaptation and progress. People often resist change due to individual reasons, where resistance to

change resides in basic human characteristics such as perceptions, personalities, and needs.

Perhaps the most obvious individual sources of resistance is habit. Every day, when you go to

work or school, do you continually use the same route and streets? Probably. If you’re like most

people, you find a single route and use it regularly. As human beings, we’re creatures of habit.

Life is complex enough, we don’t need to consider the full range of options for the hundreds of

decisions we have to make every day. To cope with this complexity, we all rely on habits, or

programmed responses. When we are confronted with change, this tendency to respond in our

accustomed ways becomes a source of resistance. So when your department is moved to a new

office building across town, it means you’re likely to have to change many habits waking up 10

minutes earlier, taking a new set of streets to work, finding a new parking place, adjusting to the

new office layout, developing a new lunchtime routine, and so on.

Another individual factor that often leads to resistance to change is security. By its very nature,

change leads people into the unknown. So, change often threatens our security. When GM

announces another major layoff or when Davis Controls, an Ontario-based manufacturer of

process-control instrumentation, introduces a new software system, many employees feel

insecure that they may lose their jobs or be unable to learn new skills.

Organizational factors also lead to resistance to change. One major organizational source of

resistance is structural inertia. Organizations have built-in mechanisms

to produce stability:

■ The selection process systematically selects certain people in and certain people out.

■ Training and other socialization techniques reinforce specific role requirements and skills.

■ Formalization provides job descriptions, rules, and procedures for employees to follow.

Third- Party Negotiation:

Individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve their differences

through direct negotiations. In such cases, they may turn to a third party to help them find a

solution. To this point, we’ve discussed bargaining in terms of direct negotiations. Occasionally,

however, individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve their

differences thorough direct negotiations. In such cases, they may turn to a third party to help

them find a solution.

There are four basic third party roles:

1. Mediator

2. Arbitrator

3. Conciliator

4. Consultant.

Mediator

A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and

persuasion, suggesting alternatives and the like. Mediators are widely used in labor-management

negotiations and in civil court disputes.

The overall effectiveness of mediated negotiations is fairly impressive. The settlement rate is

approximately 60%, with negotiator satisfaction at about 75%. But the situation is the key to

whether or not mediation will succeed; the conflicting parties must be motivated to bargain and

resolve their conflict. In addition, conflict intensity can’t be too high; mediation is most effective

under moderate levels of conflict. Finally, perceptions of the mediator are important; to be

effective the mediator must be perceived as neutral and non-coercive.

A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and

persuasion. Suggestion alternatives and the like. Mediators are widely used in labor-

management negotiations and in civil court disputes.

So we can say that “A neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using

reasoning, persuasion and suggestions for alternatives.

Using mediator in negotiation

In most cases, a mediator will encourage both parties to focus on the important issues, and defer

discussion of non-vital parts of the agreement until later in the negotiation process. In the same

way, the parties involved are encouraged to focus developing ways in which both parties’ core

interests can be met. A mediator cannot force an outcome, but can be very effective in finding a

solution. “They do this by helping the parties determine the facts, they show empathy and

impartiality with the parties, and help generate new ideas. Mediators can also use persuasion to

get people to soften hard line positions”

If a mediator had been used in the negotiation between unilever time could have been because

the core issues would have been discussed more quickly, and alternative options would have

been discussed initially rather than having parties defer each new issue to another meeting. This

would have allowed Pacific to be more prepared during each meeting, rather than surprised with

each new request. It also may have helped unilever view a better perspective of the situation so

they could be more aware of the full scope of unilever Manufacturing’s demands. Still, unilever

used unilever lack of preparedness, and was able to negotiate a much more favorable contract

without the assistance of a mediator. Unfortunately, unilever not feel that they have entered a

win-win solution, and the future business relationship between the two companies may be

compromised.

Arbitrator

An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. Arbitration can be

0voluntary (requested) or compulsory (forced on the parties by law or contract).

The authority of the arbitrator varies according to the rules set by the negotiators. For instance,

the arbitrator might be limited to choosing one of the negotiator’s last offers or to suggesting an

agreement point that is non-binding, or free to choose and make any judgment he or she wishes.

The big plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a settlement. Whether or not

there is a negative side depends on how “heavy handed” the arbitrator appears. If one party is left

feeling overwhelmingly defeated, that party is certain to be dissatisfied and unlikely to

graciously accept the arbitrator’s decision. Therefore, the conflict may resurface at a later time.

So we can easily say that “A third party a negotiation who has the authority to dictate an

agreement.”

Using Arbitrator in Negotiation

An arbitrator will allow both parties to tell their side of the story. The arbitrator is a neutral party

that has extensive training handling complex business negotiations. The Arbitrator will have the

power to decide a fair and equitable resolution to the negotiations. This prevents the perception

that one side has gotten the better end of the agreement. This will enable the companies to pursue

future business opportunities at the conclusion of the negotiation. An arbitrator will often

conclude the negotiations more quickly than a mediator can. The best interest for both companies

is to conclude the negotiation so that strategic planning can be mapped out and implemented for

future enterprises.

Conciliator

A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the

negotiator and the opponent. Conciliation is used extensively in international, labor, family and

community disputes. Comparing its effectiveness to mediation has proven difficult because the

two overlap a great deal. In practice, conciliators typically act as more than mere communication

conduits. They also engage in fact finding, interpreting messages and persuading disputants to

develop agreements.

In summary “a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the

negotiator and the opponent”.

Consultant

A consultant is a skilled and impartial third party who attempts to facilitate problem solving through communication and analysis, aided by his or her knowledge of conflict management. In contrast to the previous roles, the consultant’s role is not to settle the issues but, rather to

improve relations between the conflicting parties so that they can reach a settlement themselves. Instead of putting forward specific solutions, the consultant tries to help the parties learn to understand and work with each other. Therefore, this approach has a longer term focus: to build new and positive perceptions and attitudes between the conflicting parties.

In conclusion “An impartial third party, skilled in conflict management, who attempts to facilitate creative problem solving through communication and analysis.

Present & Beyond

An optimal level is one at which there is enough conflict to prevent stagnation, stimulate creativity, allow tensions to be released, and initiate the seeds for change, yet not so much as to be disruptive or to deter coordination of activities. Don’t assume that one conflict-handling intention will always be best. Unilever should select an intention appropriate for the situation. From our perception Unilever should follow the following guidelines:

They must use competition when quick, decisive action is vital, on important issues, where unpopular actions need to be implemented, on issues vital to the organization’s welfare when Unilever know they’re right.

They must use collaboration to find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised.

Again they must use avoidance when an issue is trivial or when more important issue are pressing, when you perceive no chance of satisfying their concerns, when potential disruption outweighs the benefits of resolution.

Using accommodation when they find that they’re wrong and to allow a better position to be heard, to learn, and to show there reasonableness, when issues are more important to others than to their self and to satisfy other and maintain cooperation, to build social credits for later issues.

Using compromise can also be important but not worth the effort of potential disruption of more assertive approaches, when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals.

Suggestions and comments:

Workplaces are naturally stressful environments, and personal conflicts between co-workers can be both a cause and product of this stress. Yet allowing them to build and intensify will only further impair the work environment, Different people have different perceptions, and solving workplace conflicts requires finding a common ground, not waiting until one person caves to the other.

Whether conflict in Unilever and with their staff, peers, or management, here we the group members suggest them some tips for effectively handling conflict and negotiation:

Accept conflict. Since conflict is unavoidable we must learn to manage it. Conflict is a sign of a need for change and an opportunity for growth, new understanding, and improved communication. Conflict can’t be resolved unless it is addressed with the appropriate individual(s).

Be a calming agent. To be calming, provide an objective or neutral point of view. Help plan how you are going to work with the other party to achieve resolution.

Listen actively. Work through how an employee feel, what the specific problem is and what

impact it is having on you. Use employee -based statements to help do this (see formula below).

worker feel (strongest feeling)

When worker (objective description of the behavior)

Because (specific impact or consequences)

Employees would like (what you want the person to do in the future to prevent the

problem)

Analyze the conflict. Analyze the conflict to help clarify the specific problem. Some

questions that you may ask are:

What triggered the conflict?

Who are you angry with?

What are you not getting that you want?

Model neutral language. When people are in conflict they use inflammatory language such

as profanity, name calling, and exaggerations that escalate the conflict.

Separate the person from the problem. View the problem as a specific behavior or set

of circumstances rather than attributing negative feelings to the whole person. This approach

makes the problem more manageable and hopeful than deciding you "can’t stand" this person

any longer.

Work together. This requires that each person stop placing blame and take ownership of the

problem. Make a commitment to work together and listen to each other to solve the conflict.

Agree to disagree. Each person has a unique point of view and rarely agrees on every detail.

Being right is not what is important. When managing conflict, seeking the "truth" can trap you

rather than set you free. For example, consider the differing testimony of witnesses that all see

the same car accident. Truth is relative to the person’s point of view.

Focus on the future. In conflict we tend to remember every single thing that ever bothered

us about that person. People in conflict need to vent about the past but they often dwell on the

past.

"Move past positions". A position is the desired outcome of a conflict. Often the position is

"I need a new roommate" or "This person is impossible to live with". Positions are not negotiable

and result in impasse. To resolve conflict, each person has to "move past positions".

Share your interests. To solve interpersonal conflict, all parties must talk about their

interests or the WHYs behind their positions. They must share their true interests and work

together to find a solution that satisfies those interests. Common interests for students are to

sleep, study, entertain and relax in a comfortable atmosphere.

Be creative. Finding a resolution to the problem that satisfies everyone requires creativity and

hard work. Be careful not to give in simply to avoid conflict or maintain harmony. Agreements

reached too early usually do not last. Generate silly options to begin thinking "outside of the

box" of original positions.

Be specific. When problem solving be very specific. For example if you are using a employee

agreement to facilitate the discussion make sure that everyone fully understands each point that

is written down. Clarify ambiguous terms that each person may interpret differently.

Maintain confidentiality. Encourage others who are in conflict to deal directly with the

person they are in conflict with. Avoiding the conflict and venting to others tends to escalate the

conflict and fuels the rumor mill. If rumors are already part of the conflict, encourage them to

work out a plan to put an end to the gossip. Do your part to quell rumors.

Don't be afraid to ask for what you want. Successful negotiators are assertive and

challenge everything – they know that everything is negotiable. we call this negotiation

consciousness. It was Number One on our previous list and it stays at the helm in 2013. Being

assertive means asking for what you want and refusing to take NO for an answer. Practice

expressing your feelings without anxiety or anger. Let employees know what you want in a non-

threateningway.

Always be willing to walk away. We call this Brodow's Law. In other words, never

negotiate without options. If you depend too much on the positive outcome of a negotiation, you

lose your ability to say NO. When you say to yourself, "I will walk if I can't conclude a deal that

is satisfactory," the other side can tell that you mean business. Your resolve will force them to

make concessions.

Don't be in a hurry. Being patient is very difficult for Americans. We want to get it over

with. Anyone who has negotiated in Asia, South America, or the Middle East will tell you that

people in those cultures look at time differently than we do in North America and Europe. They

know that if you rush, you are more likely to make mistakes and leave money on the table.

Aim high and expect the best outcome. Successful negotiators are optimists. If you

expect more, you'll get more. A proven strategy for achieving higher results is opening with an

extreme position. Sellers should ask for more than they expect to receive, and buyers should

offer less than they are prepared to pay.

Focus on the other side's pressure, not yours. We have a tendency to focus on our own

pressure, on the reasons why we need to make a deal. It's the old story about the grass being

greener in the other person's backyard. If you fall into this trap, you are working against yourself.

The other side will appear more powerful. When you focus on your own limitations, you miss

the big picture.

Show the other person how their needs will be met. Successful negotiators always

look at the situation from the other side's perspective. Everyone looks at the world differently, so

you are way ahead of the game if you can figure out their perception of the deal. Instead of trying

to win the negotiation, seek to understand the other negotiator and show them ways to feel

satisfied. My philosophy of negotiation includes the firm belief that one hand washes the other.

If you help the other side to feel satisfied, they will be more inclined to help you satisfy your

needs

Don't give anything away without getting something in return. Unilateral

concessions are self-defeating. Whenever you give something away, get something in return.

Always tie a string: "I'll do this if you do that." Otherwise you are inviting the other negotiator to

ask you for additional concessions.

Don't take the issues or the other person's behavior personally. All too often

negotiations fail because one or both of the parties get sidetracked by personal issues unrelated to

the deal at hand. Successful negotiators focus on solving the problem, which is: How can we

conclude an agreement that respects the needs of both parties? Obsessing over the other

negotiator's personality, or over issues that are not directly pertinent to making a deal, can

sabotage a negotiation. If someone is rude or difficult to deal with, try to understand their

behavior and don't take it personally.

Conclusion

The problem is not conflict (and it’s associated high costs) but its residue – unresolved conflict. The solution lies in resolving conflict which, properly managed, proves highly beneficial to both people and organizations. People who skillfully resolve conflict should be highly prized because

they propel individuals and teams to succeed thereby adding enormous value to their organization like Unilever. Unilever must establish a solid relationship with their employers and there other links. They need unambiguous understanding of their expectations. They all need a positive relationship because all of them are going to come back with something that is not exactly what was desired. Organization must build trust with your ratified. A part of this will be keeping the ratified informed as negotiations progress.

This chapter has only begun to explore the intricacies of strategic negotiations, an extraordinarily important part of our professional leadership and personal lives. With our negotiating skills, we protect our critical interests, make agreements that reduce conflict about expectations, encourage collective effort, and establish the foundations for long-lasting partnerships. Negotiation is not a war, nor is it a cause for antipathy. Properly principled, negotiation is a problem solving process in which initially opposing viewpoints can be brought into the fortunate circumstance of mutual gain-creating a bigger pie which then can be shared by all.

Bibliography:

Organizational behavior, 10th edition, Fred Luthans

Organizational behavior, 13th edition, Stephen P Robbins, Trimothy A. Judge.

Wayne F. Cascio(1995,4th Ed), Organizational Behavior Resources; UK: Library of

congress cataloguing in publication data.

Gary,Dessler(2002,2nd Ed),A Framework for Organizational Behavior ;India:Pearson

Education.

Cynthia,D.Fisher, Lyle, F.Schoenfeldt, James, B. Shaw(2003,5th Ed), Organizational

Behavior; USA: Houngton Mifflin Company

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Str-Ti/negotiation and conflict.html

http://professionalpractice.asme.org/Mgmtconflict/negotiation/Types.cfm

http://www.negotiation-with-you.com/types-of-conflict.html

James Ware and Louis B. Barnes, "Managing Interpersonal Conflict," HBR, 1978.

Fisher, Roger and William Ury, "Getting to Yes"

Gourlay, R. "Negotiations and Bargaining," Management Decision 25(3)(1987):23.

Pruitt, D. G. "Strategic Choice in Negotiation," American Behavioral Scientist 27

(November-Decemer 1983): 167-194.

Lax, D. A. and J. K. Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator, (New York: Free Press,

1986).