ton

CONFLICT

SITUATION IN WHICH PARTIES PURSUE INCOMPATIBLE GOALS

NEGOTIATION

social-> conflict

political-> dispute

emotional, financial relational, logistical--> resolution

strategies

CONTENDING

YIELDING

PROBLEM SOLVING

AVOIDING

TRYING TO IMPOSE A SOLUTION ON THE OTHER PARTY

DEPENDS ON:

*POWER LEVEL

*CONSENSIOUS

LOWERING ONES ASPIRATIONS AND SETTLING FOR LESS THAN ONE WOULD HAVE LIKED

EX: sell a house cheaper than expected

PURSUING AN ALTERNATIVE THAT SATISFIES BOTH SIDES

NOT ENGAGE IN THE CONFLICT

COMPROMISING

CREATE A WIN WIN SITUATION, look for expand the pie; create more benefits

zero sum thinking: fixed pie

DUAL CONCERN MODEL

CONCERN ABOUT OWN OUTCOMES

CONCERN ABOUT OTHERS OUTCOMES

YIELDING

PROBLEM SOLVING

COMPROMISING

AVOIDING

CONTENDING

GOOD

BAD

1) Create social change

-> innovation creativity

2) discourage premature group decision making

3) Reconciliation of peoples legitimate interest

4) Intragroup solidarity

5) group solidarity

1) overconfrontation that society can take

2) takes time and energy from other pursuits

3) heavy contetion tactics (destructions)

4) Psycological and physical health issues (PTDS-> Post-traumatic demoralization syndrome)

5) Wuonded societuy

6) Violence, legitimized by society

7) revenge feelings

EFFECTS

GOOD NEGOTIATOR FOCUS ON INTERESTS NOT POSITIONS

ASPIRATIONS

INTEREST

CLASH WITH OTHERS ASPIRATIONS AND BECAME

*TANGIBLE: $$, territory

*INTANGIBLE: honor, recognition pride

*UNIVERSAL: peace, environment

*SPECIFIC: ISIS

*HIGH PRIORITY: us-> national security

CONFLICT

CONDITIONS THAT ENCOURAGE CONFLICT

FEATURES OF

SITUATION

PARTIES

BROARDER COMMUNITY

*SCARCITY AND DEPRAVATION

*RAPIDLY EXPANDING ACHIEVEMNT

*ZERO SUM THINKING

*RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES:

-AMBIGUITY ABOUT RELATIVE POWER

- INVIDIOUS COMPARISONS

-STATUS INCONSISTENCY

-DISTRUST

*THE SECURITY DILEMMA : 3RD PARTIES INTEVENE BALANCE OF POWER

* LACK OF NORMATIVE CONSENSUS: LAW =/ BEHAVIOR

MANAGING CONFLICT

*NOT USE STRATEGY

*INFORMAL

*COMPETITIVE HAGGLING OVER $-> WIN LOSE TACTIC

*PARTIES TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION MUTUAL ACCEPTABLE TO COMPLEX LEVEL SITUATIONS

*CRATE SMTH NEW

*WIN WIN TACTIC

BARGAING

NEGOTIATE

CHARACTERISTICS

*interests

*give and take

*agreement

*influence effects

* 2+ parties

WHY?

1) REPRESENT INSTITUTION IS NOT A SINGLE RATIONAL ACTOR

2)INTERNAL NEGOTITIONS HAVE MAJOR IMPACT THAN EXTERNAL

3) AN AGREEMENT I BETTER.. LETS TALK

4)INTERDEPPENDENCE.. CANT AVOID THIS

5)RESOLVE AND CREATE SMTH NEW

ELEMENTS

1) INTERESTS: needs, wnts, hope, fears

2) THE LEGITIMACY: law fairness

3) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES AND NEGOTIATORS

4) THE BATNAS: the best each can do. Best alternative to a negotiated agreement first expectations

5) THE OPTIONS: smth better than BATNA ,

6)COMMITMENTS: what will/not do

7) COMMUNICATION: effective, efficient

LEVELS OF CONFLICT

*INTRAPERSONAL: CRAZY ME

*INTERPERSONAL/ DYADIC DUAL: 2 MEMBERS

*INTRAGROUP: AMOUNG MEMBERS OF AGROUP

*INTERGROUP: 2 OR MORE GROUPS

SIZE

INSTABILITY

DEPENDS ON THE DIVERGENCE OF INTEREST: anulation of aspirations

*important interests

*strongly felt principles

*contengious tactics= size

*response: conflict spiral

biggest = most unstable

*tendency to overreact

*reduce imhibitions against agressive behavior

*reduced capacity to conflict management

CAUSES

*AFFECTIVE: Feeling/emotios incompatible.. interpersonal conflict

*SUBSTANTIVE: Disagree on their task or content issue.. TASK CONFLICT--> BUSINESS

*OF INTEREST: Inconsistency in the allocation scarce source

*OF VALUES: Ideological conflict

*GOAL CONFLICT: zero sum thinking-> desired end status

*REALISTIC: rational content, based on a goal

-real (intrinsic)

-induced (extrinsic)

*NON REALISTIC: need to release tension

*INSTITUTIONALIZED: follow rules, predictable behavior, continuity relationship

*NON INTITUTIONALIZED: not follow rules, unpredictable behavior, ended relationship

*RETRIBUTIVE: parties feel the need to punish opponent-- spiral

*MISATTRIBUTED: incorrect assigment of causes

*DISPLACED: direct frustration to other is not involved

STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT

CONCERN FOR SELF

INTEGRATING: win win

solution, complexity, need time and comitment, resources

COMPROMISING: no win no lose

concern about sel and others

DOMINATING: win lose

trivial situations, speed, overcome subordinates, team lack of expertise important to you

OBLIGING: win-lose

you may be wrong, other need it more, willing to give up, preserve relationship

AVOIDING: lose lose

trivial, cool situation

CONCERN FOR OTHERS

INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE

1)LAW: norms and regulations (legitimacy of conflict)

2)PSYCOLOGY: perceptions emotions, meaning

3)ETHICS: right wrong

4) ECONOMIST: formal analytics

5)ANTHROPOLOGIST: history and social behavior

6) POLITICS: policy disputes

7)THEOLOGIANS religion approach

STAGES

ESCALATION

DE-ESCALATION

CONTENDER- DEFENDER:

1ST CREATE CHANGE ACTUAL STATUS, 2ND DEFENDS

TAKE SMTH FROM OTHERS AT THEIR EXPENSENSES

CONFLICT SPIRAL:

VICIOUS CIRCLE OF ACTION REACTION (REVENGE)

ENTRAPMENT: Expending more resources than justifiable to achieve a goal

pick stage: parts perceive it can not take further progress at an acceptable risk

stability through threats

balance of terror: mutually assume destruction

balance of power theory

stages

1)Overhelming

2)unilateral adv.

3)avoidance

4)imposition

5)negotiation of a settlement

strategies

cooperation: subordinate goals

contact and communication

unilateral conciliatory initiative

INTRACTABLE

conflicts that exist and persist cos' they seem to be impossible to solve

*Moral identity differences

*high stakes resources

*strugles of power and self determination

CHARACTERISTICS

context: legacy of dominance and injustice, unstable

issues: human and social polarities, symbolism and ideology

relationships: exclusive and inescapable, oppositional group, intence internal dynamics

process: strong emotionally, malignant social process, perversiveness, complexity and flux

outcome: protracted trauma, normalization of hostilities, trauma

PARADIGMS

HUMAN RELATIONS

*Human: mix evil good

*obstacles: fear, distrust, misunderstanding and hostilities

*promotes HOPE

*integrative negotiation

MEDICAL

*conflict= medical condition

*intractable conflicts= cancer (diseases and infections

*" patients have to be analyzed an treated properly"

​​​​​POST-MODERN

CONFLICT= STORY MITH

*conflicts come from the way parties defiene situation

*assumptions about what is unquestionably right

THE SYSTEMS

* intrac. conflict: cell-byological metaphor-

* living entity have to analyze each part

REALISTIC

*scarce resource

*all humans produce evil

*opponent agressive

*real conflict.. interest/power

*need for strong actions

COOPERATION (BILATERAL)

*effective communication

*less obstructed: friendlyness

*agreement: similarity ideas

*recognize, respect

*willing to enhance

*defining conflicting interest mutual problem

PROCESS

*unwiting commitments

*self fullfiling prophecies

*autistic hostilities

DISTRIBUTIVE DIMENSION: SATISFACTION RECEIVED BY ONE PARTY (WIN-LOSE). INDIVIDUAL GAIN, SHORT TERM RELATIONSHIP, ONE SINGLE ISSUE INVOLVED

INTEGRATIVE DIMENSION: SATISFACTION RECEIVED BY BOTH PARTIES (WIN-WIN). JOINT GAIN, LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP, MULTIPLE ISSUES INVOLVED

80% PREPARATION

15% NEGOTIATE

5% AGREEMENT

DIMENSIONS OF INTERDEPENDENCE