People And Organizational Management: A Literature Review On Conflict Management And Negotiation

Conflict and Negotiation

Discuss about the People and Organizational Management for Literature Review.

Conflict is identified as the divergence in the mode of interest between different stakeholders associated with the fulfillment of expectations and aspirations in a simultaneous fashion. In the workplace conflict arises owing to the interests of parties for generating solutions to organizational problems in a coveted fashion (Shen, Chanda, & D’Netto, 2009). These people are interested in sharing of values and interest between each other for generation of common solutions  (Rozkwitalska, 2012). The above practice of finding common solutions however lead to disputes owing to the failure of matching interests and expectations such that a section of the organizational members feel that generation of a specific type of solution would potentially affect their position in the institution (Shi & Wang, 2011). Conflicts also arise when people disagree to the decisions undertaken in that the same tends to affect the fundamental values of the society and community (Podsiadlowski, Gröschke, & Kogler, 2013). Again, disputes tend to rise pertaining to the decisions taken when it tends to affect the value, rights and cultural aspects of individual members (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012). The above type of conflict is difficult to be resolved in that focusing on settling the disputes may tend to affect essential functions and dimensions of the organization.

Different types of conflict management styles are indicated in the following illustration.

(Khanaki & Hassanzadeh, 2010)

The Thomas-Kilmann Model of Conflict Management focuses on employing the five different styles of conflict management indicated as above with the level of assertiveness and cooperativeness as identified between the parties (Stevens & Ogunji, 2010). The same is reflected in the following illustration. 

(Khanaki & Hassanzadeh, 2010) 

The application of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Management model related to the aspect of nursing reflect that nurses focus on employing the conflict management style of avoiding and compromising to contribute in settlement of disputes (Ongori & Nzonzo, 2011). The above styles of conflict management associated with the nursing categories also duly imply the use of such styles by women as a whole (Shen et al., 2009). Nurses are thus observed to share reduced intentions in competing and rather focus on avoiding conflicting situations or in achieving needed compromises (Olsen & Martins, 2012). It was further inferred that nurses ideally focus firstly on arriving at compromises and then in employing avoidance. The application of Thomas-Kilmann model on other medical students and graduates reflect that they firstly chose avoidance and subsequently resorted to tactics associated with compromise and accommodation (Edewor & Aluko, 2007).

Types of Conflict Management

Negotiation is identified as dialogues and conversations carried out between a set of two or more parties that are intending to develop an understanding and also to resolve differences between each other and thereby to gain due advantage of the outcome generated in an unanimous fashion (Bhatia & Kaur, 2014). Similarly, discussions like collective bargaining carried out between two or more groups also aim at generation of common advantages and benefits for each other (Shi & Wang, 2011). The act of negotiation is thereby identified to encourage the parties involved in such for compromising with each other’s needs and expectations (Rozkwitalska, 2012). Negotiation as a process is carried out both related to business and non-business sectors (Nilson, 2010).

Different types of negotiations are pursued for pursuing a common goal  (Olsen & Martins, 2012). The model of distributive negotiation is identified as a negotiation type where the two sides involved in negotiation firstly observe that no common understanding would take place between them (Salas et al., 2012). Further, the parties involved employ different tactics associated with guile and bluffing and develop a win-loss situation such that one party gains at the cost of the other (Jehanzeb & Bashir, 2013). The act of distributive negotiation tends to involve parties that were not involved nor would be involved in future periods in any type of interactive discussions (Dartey-Baah, 2013).

In contrary to distributive negotiation the act of integrative negotiation potentially focuses on integrating different types of tactics that would potentially help in developing the level of interaction and understanding between the parties (Slavi? et al., 2014). Integrative negotiation practices thus focus on enhancing the quality of the agreement achieved between the parties (Edewor & Aluko, 2007). Further, where distributive negotiation tends to identify that a ‘common pie’ needs to be distributed among the parties; integrative negotiation on the other hand focuses on generating an expansion to the pie thereby aiming to generate a win-win situation for the different parties (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012).

Negotiation is also observed to be essentially comprised of four main elements like strategy, process, tools and finally tactics. Negotiation strategies mainly aim at development of the relationship between the parties involved and also the final outcome generated by them (Ongori & Nzonzo, 2011). Processes and tools relate to the different types of steps that are required to be pursued and also the roles of the different parties involved in the negotiation process  (Dartey-Baah, 2013). Further, tactics relate to the different types of actions and also the responses needed to be undertaken by one party based on the actionable statements rendered by the other party (Edewor & Aluko, 2007). In current day practices of negotiation, the act of influencing and pursuing is also identified as an integral element that contributes in actively accomplishing the negotiation process.

Different Types of Negotiation

Different types of negotiation styles identified are discussed as follows. The negotiation styles identified potentially match the Thomas-Kilmann model of conflict management. Accommodating style of negotiation is pursued by individuals that focus on generating effective solutions to disputes and problems faced by others and thereby aim in pursuing and enhancing relationships (Olsen & Martins, 2012). Individuals that are not interested in resolving conflicts through negotiation tend to take resort to the Avoidance style. Similarly, the collaborators are identified to be such individuals that ideally focus on the use of creative styles for resolving of problems and disputes (Jehanzeb & Bashir, 2013). Negotiators aimed at gaining or winning focus on taking resort to the competing style. These negotiators focus on employing strategies related to collective bargaining for resolving of disputes and also dominate the process for augmenting personal gains (Podsiadlowski, Gröschke, & Kogler, 2013). Finally, the compromising style of negotiation is pursued by such individuals that focus on conducting such activities that would help in generating fair and equal treatment to different parties negotiating with each other. Compromisers are however argued to generate quicker solutions in terms of rushing about the negotiation process (Slavi?, Berber, & Lekovi?, 2014).

Application of the Johari Window

The Johari Window is developed based on the integration of four quadrants like Open, Blind, Hidden and Unknown. The Open and Blind quadrants are based on the horizontal axis reflecting Known and ‘Not Known to Self’ while Hidden and Unknown quadrants are based along the vertical axis Known and ‘Not Known to Others’. The same is reflected in the following illustration.

(West & Turner, 2010)

For applying the Johari Window in conflict management Solicits Feedback is mapped along the horizontal axis along the top of the window while Willingness to Self-Disclose or the interest of giving feedback are mapped along the vertical line of the window. The evaluation of the scores along the two axes reflects that Solicits Feedback generates a score of 29 while the parameter of Self Disclosure tends to generate a score of 26.

The application of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Questionnaire reflects the following score for the different parameters like Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding and Accommodating as indicated in the Thomas-Kilmann Model (Shen, Chanda, & D’Netto, 2009). The scores gained related to the different parameters reflect 11 for Competing, 4 for Collaborating, 5 for Compromising and also 5 for Avoiding and Accommodating respectively. The scores gained against the different styles for conflict management as indicated in the model ideally reflect that I generally focus on taking resort to the Competing style in managing and resolving conflicts. The competing style thereby requires me to conduct needed bargaining for generating effective solutions to emerging disputes. Further analysis based on the Thomas-Kilmann scores reflect that my conflict management style is highly competing, low in collaboration, average in compromising and also average in level of avoidance and accommodating styles.

Negotiation Styles

The Belbin Team Roles effectively reflect on nine different types of team roles like Resource Investigator, Teamworker, Coordinator, Plant, Specialist, Monitor Evaluator, Shaper, Implementer and Completer Finisher (Rozkwitalska, 2012). The application of the nine team roles in evaluating my conflict management approach reflects as a resource investigator I work in an enthusiastic fashion in exploring new types of opportunities. As a Teamworker I essentially focus on operating in a cooperative and collaborative fashion in resolving different problems and future contingencies. Finally, operating as an effective coordinator I essentially focus on working in a matured and confident fashion in resolving the different types of conflicts that tend to emerge in the organization.

Different areas of improvement can be identified from the above analysis.

Areas of Improvement	Time Frame
The application of the Johari Window rightly reflects that I need to develop on my ability to encourage other team members for generating effective feedbacks. The shifting of the vertical axis to the right would potentially reflect the increase on my ability pertaining to encouraging team members for rendering potential feedbacks. Moreover, further endeavors are required to be undertaken for lowering the horizontal axis to thereby encourage team members in soliciting greater feedback. Thus, endeavors like generating more information regarding my nature and also in providing needed feedback to others would contribute in lowering down the horizontal axis. I require effectively monitoring and evaluating the manner in which the decisions undertaken are needed to be implemented. The same would contribute in the generation of effective judgments and feedbacks to the parties involved in the conflict.	I need a time pan of five months for addressing the needed improvement.
Analysis based on the use of Thomas-Kilmann Questionnaire tool reflects that along with competing I need to develop on my potentials associated with collaboration and compromising. In terms of collaboration, I require on effectively collaborating with different parties to conflict such that I tend to understand their concerns and expectations which would help me in deigning effective conflict management strategies. In terms of compromising, I require to understand the parameters that would ideally help in satisfying the expectations of the different parties to the conflict.	I need around 4 months for developing my inner aspects to rightly collaborate with the parties and also to learn compromising with the needs and concerns of the different stakeholders.

References

Bhatia, A., & Kaur, L. (2014). Global Training & Development trends & Practices: An Overview. International Journal of Emerging Research in Management &Technology , 3 (8), 75-78.

Dartey-Baah, K. (2013). The Cultural Approach to the Management of the International Human Resource: An Analysis of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. International Journal of Business Administration , 4 (2), 39-45.

Edewor, P. A., & Aluko, Y. A. (2007). Diversity Management, Challenges and Opportunities in Multicultural Organizations . International Journal of the Diversity , 6 (6), 189-195.

Ferdman, B. M., & Sagiv, L. (2012). Diversity in Organizations and Cross-Cultural Work Psychology: What If They Were More Connected? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice , 5 (3), 1-51.

Jehanzeb, K., & Bashir, N. A. (2013). Training and Development Program and its Benefits to Employee and Organization: A Conceptual Study. European Journal of Business and Management , 5 (2), 243-252.

Khanaki, H., & Hassanzadeh, N. (2010). Conflict Management Styles: The Iranian General Preference Compared to the Swedish. International Journal of Innovation , 1 (4), 419-426.

Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors. United Kingdom : John Wiley and Sons.

Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2012). Understanding organizational diversity management programs: A theoretical framework and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 33 (8), 1168-1187.

Ongori, H., & Nzonzo, J. C. (2011). Training And Development Practices In An Organisation: An Intervention To Enhance Organisational Effectiveness. International Journal of Engineering and Management Sciences , 2 (4), 187-198.

Podsiadlowski, A., Gröschke, D., & Kogler, M. (2013). Managing a culturally diverse workforce: Diversity perspectives in organizations . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 37, 159-175.

Rozkwitalska, M. (2012). Accepted and strong organisational culture in multinational corporations . Journal of Intercultural Management , 4 (3), 5-14.

Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kraiger, K. (2012). The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 13 (2), 74-101.

Shen, J., Chanda, A., & D’Netto, B. (2009). Managing diversity through human resource management: an international perspective and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 20 (2), 235-251.

Shi, X., & Wang, J. (2011). Interpreting Hofstede Model and Globe Model: Which Way to Go for Cross-Cultural Research . nternational Journal of Business and Management , 6 (5), 93-99.

Slavi?, A., Berber, N., & Lekovi?, B. (2014). performance management in international human resource management: evidence from the cee region. Serbian Journal of Management , 9 (1), 45-58.

Stevens, R. H., & Ogunji, E. (2010). Managing Diverse Organizational Environments for Strategic Advantage:Exploring the Value of Developing Business Diversity Curriculum in Higher Education. Journal of Management Policy and Practice , 11 (4), 72-85.

West, R., & Turner, L. (2010). Understanding Interpersonal Communication: Making Choices in Changing Times, Enhanced Edition. United States : Cengage Learning.