Summary and response

User Generated

fnqcbsnq

Writing

Description

Select two topics from Chapter 14 and summarize these two topics in one page. Next page of paper, based on the overall chapter's topic(s), how does your personality as discussed with the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) help or hinder you regarding the chapter topics.

my type is ESTJ

Unformatted Attachment Preview

14 Conflict and Negotiation MyManagementLab ® Improve Your Grade! When you see this icon , visit mymanagementlab.com for activities that are applied, personalized, and offer immediate feedback. Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Describe the three types of conflict and the three loci of conflict. 2. Outline the conflict process. 3. Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining. 4. Apply the five steps of the negotiation process. 5. Show how individual differences influence negotiations. 6. Describe the social factors that influence negotiations. 7. Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiations. Chapter Warm-up If your professor has chosen to assign this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com to complete the chapter warm-up. A Definition of Conflict Conflict 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. There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict,1 but common to most is the idea that conflict is a perception of differences or opposition. If no one is aware of a conflict, then it is generally agreed no conflict exists. Opposition or incompatibility, as well as interaction, are also needed to begin the conflict process. We define conflict broadly as a process that begins when one party perceives another party has affected or is about to negatively affect something the first party cares about. Conflict describes the point in ongoing activity when interaction becomes disagreement. People experience a wide range of conflicts in organizations over an incompatibility of 226 M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 226 16/09/16 2:15 PM Chapter 14   • Conflict and Negotiation 227 goals, differences in interpretations of facts, disagreements over behavioral expectations, and the like. Our definition covers the full range of conflict levels, from overt and violent acts to subtle forms of disagreement. Contemporary perspectives differentiate types of conflict based on their effects. Functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves its performance, and is thus a constructive form of conflict. For example, a debate among members of a work team about the most efficient way to improve production can be functional if unique points of view are discussed and compared openly. Conflict that hinders group performance is destructive or dysfunctional conflict. A highly personal struggle for control that distracts from the task at hand in a team is dysfunctional. Exhibit 14-1 provides an overview depicting the effect of levels of conflict. To understand different types of conflict, we will discuss next the types of conflict and the loci of conflict. Functional conflict Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance. Dysfunctional conflict Conflict that hinders group performance. Unit Performance (High) B A (Low) C Level of Conflict Situation Level of Conflict Type of Conflict Unit’s Internal Characteristics Unit Performance Outcome Apathetic Stagnant Nonresponsive to change Lack of new ideas Low Viable Self-critical Innovative High Disruptive Chaotic Uncooperative Low A Low or none Dysfunctional B Optimal Functional C High Dysfunctional M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 227 (High) Exhibit 14-1 The Effect of Levels of Conflict 16/09/16 2:15 PM 228 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics Types of Conflict Relationship conflict Conflict based on interpersonal relationships. Task conflict Conflict over content and goals of the work. Process conflict Conflict over how work gets done. One means of understanding conflict is to identify the type of disagreement, or what the conflict is about. Is it a disagreement about goals? Is it about people who just rub one another the wrong way? Or is it about the best way to get things done? Although each conflict is unique, researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: relationship, task, or process. Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships. Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work. Process conflict is about how the work gets done. Relationship Conflict Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional. Why? It appears that the friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks. Of the three types, relationship conflicts also appear to be the most psychologically exhausting to individuals. Because they tend to revolve around personalities, you can see how relationship conflicts can become destructive. After all, we can’t expect to change our coworkers’ personalities, and we would generally take offense at criticisms directed at who we are as opposed to how we behave. While scholars agree that relationship conflict is dysfunctional, there is considerably less agreement about whether task and process conflicts are functional. Early research suggested that task conflict within groups correlated to higher group performance, but a review of 116 studies found that generalized task conflict was essentially unrelated to group performance. However, close examination revealed that task conflict among top management teams was positively associated with performance, whereas conflict lower in the organization was negatively associated with group performance, perhaps because people in top positions may not feel as threatened in their organizational roles by conflict. This review also found that it mattered whether other types of conflict were occurring at the same time. If task and relationship conflict occurred together, task conflict more likely was negative, whereas if task conflict occurred by itself, it more likely was positive. Other scholars have argued that the strength of conflict is important: if task conflict is very low, people aren’t really engaged or addressing the important issues; if task conflict is too high, infighting will quickly degenerate into relationship conflict. Moderate levels of task conflict may thus be optimal. Supporting this argument, one study in China found that moderate levels of task conflict in the early development stage increased creativity in groups, but high levels decreased team performance.2 Finally, the personalities of the teams appear to matter. One study demonstrated that teams of individuals who are, on average, high in openness and emotional stability are better able to turn task conflict into increased group performance. The reason may be that open and emotionally stable teams can put task conflict in perspective and focus on how the variance in ideas can help solve the problem, rather than letting it degenerate into relationship conflicts. Task Conflict Process Conflict What about process conflict? Researchers found that process conflicts are about delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around the perception that some members as shirking, and conflicts over roles can leave some group M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 228 16/09/16 2:15 PM Chapter 14   • Conflict and Negotiation 229 members feeling marginalized. Thus, process conflicts often become highly personalized and quickly devolve into relationship conflicts. It’s also true, of course, that arguing about how to do something takes time away from actually doing it. We’ve all been part of groups in which the arguments and debates about roles and responsibilities seem to go nowhere. Loci of Conflict Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or the framework within which the conflict occurs. Here, too, there are three basic types. Dyadic conflict is conflict between two people. Intragroup conflict occurs within a group or team. Intergroup conflict is conflict between groups or teams. Nearly all the literature on relationship, task, and process conflicts considers intragroup conflict (within the group). That makes sense given that groups and teams often exist only to perform a particular task. However, it doesn’t necessarily tell us all we need to know about the context and outcomes of conflict. For example, research has found that for intragroup task conflict to positively influence performance within the team, it is important that the team has a supportive climate in which mistakes aren’t penalized and every team member “[has] the other’s back.”3 But is this concept applicable to the effects of intergroup conflict? Think about, say, NFL football. As we said, for a team to adapt and improve, perhaps a certain amount of intragroup conflict (but not too much) is good for team performance, especially when the team members support one another. But would we care whether members from one team supported members from another team? Probably not. In fact, if groups are competing with one another so that only one team can “win,” conflict seems almost inevitable. Still, it must be managed. Intense intergroup conflict can be quite stressful to group members and might well affect the way they interact. One study found, for example, that high levels of conflict between teams caused individuals to focus on complying with norms within their teams.4 It may surprise you how certain individuals become most important during intergroup conflicts. One study that focused on intergroup conflict found an interplay between an individual’s position within a group and the way that individual managed conflict between groups. Group members who were relatively peripheral in their own group were better at resolving conflicts between their group and another one. But this happened only when those peripheral members were still accountable to their groups, and the effect can be confounded by dyadic conflicts.5 Thus, being at the core of your work group does not necessarily make you the best person to manage conflict with other groups. Altogether, understanding functional and dysfunctional conflict requires not only that we identify the type of conflict; we also need to know where it occurs. It’s possible that while the concepts of relationship, task, and process conflicts are useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conflict, they are less useful in explaining the effects of intergroup conflict. But how do we make conflict as productive as possible? A better understanding of the conflict process, discussed next, will provide insight about potential controllable variables. The Conflict Process The conflict process has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes (see Exhibit 14-2). M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 229 Dyadic conflict Conflict that occurs between two people. Intragroup conflict Conflict that occurs within a group or team. Intergroup conflict Conflict between different groups or teams. Conflict process A process that has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes. 16/09/16 2:15 PM 230 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics Exhibit 14-2 The Conflict Process Stage I Stage II Potential opposition Cognition and or incompatibility personalization Antecedent conditions • Communication • Structure • Personal variables Perceived conflict Felt conflict Stage III Stage IV Stage V Intentions Behavior Outcomes Conflict-handling intentions • Competing • Collaborating • Compromising • Avoiding • Accommodating Overt conflict • Party’s behavior • Other’s reaction Increased group performance Decreased group performance Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility The first stage of conflict is the appearance of conditions—causes or sources—that create opportunities for it to arise. These conditions need not lead directly to conflict, but one of them is necessary if it is to surface. We group the conditions into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables. Communication Communication can be a source of conflict.6 There are opposing forces that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the communication channel (see Chapter 11). These factors, along with jargon and insufficient information, can be barriers to communication and potential antecedent conditions to conflict. The potential for conflict has also been found to increase with too little or too much communication. Communication is functional up to a point, after which it is possible to overcommunicate, increasing the potential for conflict. Structure The term structure in this context includes variables such as size of group, degree of specialization in tasks assigned to group members, jurisdictional clarity, member–goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and degree of dependence between groups. The larger the group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict. Tenure and conflict are inversely related, meaning that the longer a person stays with an organization, the less likely conflict becomes. Therefore, the potential for conflict is greatest when group members are newer to the organization and when turnover is high. Personal Variables Our last category of potential sources of conflict is personal variables, which include personality, emotions, and values. People high in the personality traits of disagreeableness, neuroticism, or self-monitoring (see Chapter 5) are prone to tangle with other people more often—and to react poorly when conflicts occur.7 Emotions can cause conflict even when they are not directed at others. For example, an employee who shows up to work irate from her hectic morning commute may carry that anger into her workday, which can result in a tension-filled meeting.8 Furthermore, differences in preferences and values can generate increased levels of conflict. For example, a study in Korea found that when group members didn’t agree about their desired achievement levels, there was more task conflict; when group members didn’t agree about their desired M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 230 16/09/16 2:15 PM Chapter 14   • Conflict and Negotiation 231 interpersonal closeness levels, there was more relationship conflict; and when group members didn’t have similar desires for power, there was more conflict over status.9 Stage II: Cognition and Personalization If the conditions cited in Stage I negatively affect something one party cares about, then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage. As we noted in our definition of conflict, one or more of the parties must be aware that antecedent conditions exist. However, just because a disagreement is a perceived conflict does not mean it is personalized. It is at the felt conflict level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that they experience anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility. Stage II is important because it’s where conflict issues tend to be defined, where the parties decide what the conflict is about.10 The definition of conflict is important because it delineates the set of possible settlements. Most evidence suggests that people tend to default to cooperative strategies in interpersonal interactions unless there is a clear signal that they are faced with a competitive person. However, if our disagreement regarding, say, your salary is a zero-sum situation (the increase in pay you want means there will be that much less in the raise pool for me), I am going to be far less willing to compromise than if I can frame the conflict as a potential win–win situation (the dollars in the salary pool might be increased so both of us could get the added pay we want). Second, emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions.11 Negative emotions allow us to oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpretations on the other party’s behavior.12 In contrast, positive feelings increase our tendency to see potential relationships among elements of a problem, take a broader view of the situation, and develop innovative solutions.13 Perceived conflict Awareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. Felt conflict Emotional involvement in a conflict that creates anxiety, tenseness, frustration, or hostility. Stage III: Intentions Intentions intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions, and their overt behavior. They are decisions to act in a given way.14 There is slippage between intentions and behavior, so behavior does not always accurately reflect a person’s intentions. Using two dimensions—assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns) and cooperativeness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s concerns)—we can identify five conflicthandling intentions: competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (mid-range on both assertiveness and cooperativeness).15 Intentions are not always fixed. During the course of a conflict, intentions might change if a party is able to see the other’s point of view or to respond emotionally to the other’s behavior. People generally have preferences among the five conflict-handling intentions. We can predict a person’s intentions rather well from a combination of intellectual and personality characteristics. Competing When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests regardless of the impact on the other parties in the conflict, that person is competing. We are more apt to compete when resources are scarce. M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 231 Intentions Decisions to act in a given way. Competing A desire to satisfy one’s interests, regardless of the impact on the other party to the conflict. 16/09/16 2:15 PM 232 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics Collaborating When parties in conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns Collaborating A situation in which the parties to a conflict each desire to satisfy fully the concerns of all parties. Avoiding The desire to withdraw from or suppress a conflict. Accommodating The willingness of one party in a conflict to place the opponent’s interests above his or her own. Compromising A situation in which each party to a conflict is willing to give up something. of all parties, there is cooperation and a search for a mutually beneficial outcome. In collaborating, parties intend to solve a problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating various points of view. If you attempt to find a win–win solution that allows both parties’ goals to be completely achieved, that’s collaborating. Avoiding A person may recognize a conflict exists and want to withdraw from or suppress it. Examples of avoiding include trying to ignore a conflict and keeping away from others with whom you disagree. Accommodating A party who seeks to appease an opponent may be willing to place the opponent’s interests above his or her own, sacrificing to maintain the relationship. We refer to this intention as accommodating. Supporting someone else’s opinion despite your reservations about it, for example, is accommodating. Compromising In compromising, there is no winner or loser. Rather, there is a willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a solution with incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns. The distinguishing characteristic of compromising, therefore, is that each party intends to give up something. A review that examined the effects of the four sets of behaviors across multiple studies found that openness and collaborating were both associated with superior group performance, whereas avoiding and competing strategies were associated with significantly worse group performance.16 These effects were nearly as large as the effects of relationship conflict. This further demonstrates that it is not just the existence of conflict or even the type of conflict that creates problems, but rather the ways people respond to conflict and manage the process once conflicts arise. Stage IV: Behavior Stage IV is 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. Exhibit 14-3 provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. Each behavioral stage in a conflict is built upon a foundation. At the lowest point are perceptions, misunderstandings, and differences of opinions. These may grow to subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms Overt attacks Verbal disputes, negative moods, protective behaviors Differing perceptions Exhibit 14-3 Dynamic Escalation of Conflict Sources: P. T. Coleman, R. R. Vallacher, A. Nowak, and L. Bui-Wrzosinska, “Intractable Conflict as an Attractor: A Dynamical Systems Approach to Conflict Escalation and Intractability,” The American Behavioral Scientist 50, no. 11 (2007): 1545–75; K. K. Petersen, “Conflict Escalation in Dyads with a History of Territorial Disputes,” International Journal of Conflict Management 21, no. 4 (2010): 415–33. M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 232 16/09/16 2:15 PM Chapter 14   • Conflict and Negotiation 233 of tension, such as a student challenging a point the instructor has made. Conflict can intensify until it becomes highly destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this upper range. Conflicts that reach the upper ranges of the continuum are almost always dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower levels. In conflict, intentions are translated into certain likely behaviors. Competing brings out active attempts to contend with team members, and greater individual effort to achieve ends without working together. Collaborating efforts create an investigation of multiple solutions with other members of the team and trying to find a solution that satisfies all parties as much as possible. Avoidance is seen in behavior like refusals to discuss issues and reductions in effort toward group goals. People who accommodate put their relationships ahead of the issues in the conflict, deferring to others’ opinions and sometimes acting as a subgroup with them. Finally, when people compromise, they both expect to (and do) sacrifice parts of their interests, hoping that if everyone does the same, an agreement will sift out. If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what options exist if conflict is too low to be functional and needs to be increased? This brings us to techniques of conflict management. We have already described several techniques in terms of conflict-handling intentions. Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into comparable behaviors. Stage V: Outcomes Conflict management The use of resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict. The action–reaction interplay between conflicting parties creates consequences. As our model demonstrates (see Exhibit 14-1), these outcomes may be functional if the conflict improves the group’s performance, or dysfunctional if it hinders performance. Functional Outcomes Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of decisions, stimulates creativity and innovation, encourages interest and curiosity among group members, provides the medium for problems to be aired and tensions released, and fosters self-evaluation and change. Mild conflicts also may generate energizing emotions so members of groups become more active and engaged in their work.17 Conflict is an antidote for groupthink (see Chapter 9). Conflict doesn’t allow the group to 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 furthers the creation of new ideas, promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group will respond to change. An open discussion focused on higher-order goals can make functional outcomes more likely. Groups that are extremely polarized do not manage their underlying disagreements effectively and tend to accept suboptimal solutions, or they avoid making decisions altogether rather than work out the conflict.18 Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of active discussion. Team members with greater differences in work styles and experience tend to share more information with one another.19 Dysfunctional Outcomes The destructive consequences of conflict on the performance of a group or an organization are generally well known: Uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. A substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional conflicts can reduce group effectiveness.20 Among the undesirable consequences are poor communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 233 16/09/16 2:15 PM 234 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics the primacy of infighting among members. All forms of conflict—even the functional varieties—appear to reduce group member satisfaction and trust.21 When active discussions turn into open conflicts between members, information sharing between members decreases significantly.22 At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and threaten the group’s survival. Managing Conflict One of the keys to minimizing counterproductive conflicts is recognizing when there really is a disagreement. Many apparent conflicts are due to people using different verbiage to discuss the same general course of action. For example, someone in marketing might focus on “distribution problems,” while someone from operations talks about “supply chain management” to describe essentially the same issue. Successful conflict management recognizes these different approaches and attempts to resolve them by encouraging open, frank discussions focused on interests rather than issues. Another approach is to have opposing groups pick parts of the solution that are most important to them and then focus on how each side can get its top needs satisfied. Neither side may get exactly what it wants, but each side will achieve the most important parts of its agenda.23 Third, groups that resolve conflicts successfully discuss differences of opinion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises.24 An open discussion makes it much easier to develop a shared perception of the problems at hand; it also allows groups to work toward a mutually acceptable solution. Fourth, managers need to emphasize shared interests in resolving conflicts, so groups that disagree with one another don’t become too entrenched in their points of view and start to take the conflicts personally. Groups with cooperative conflict styles and a strong underlying identification with the overall group goals are more effective than groups with a competitive style.25 Cultural Influences Differences across countries in conflict resolution strategies may be based on collectivistic versus individualistic (see Chapter 4) tendencies and motives. Collectivistic cultures see people as deeply embedded in social situations, whereas individualistic cultures see them as autonomous. As a result, collectivists are more likely to seek to preserve relationships and promote the good of the group as a whole, and they prefer indirect methods for resolving differences of opinion. One study suggests that top management teams in Chinese high-technology firms prefer collaboration even more than compromising and avoiding. Collectivists may also be more interested in demonstrations of concern and working through third parties to resolve disputes, whereas individualists will be more likely to confront differences of opinion directly and openly. Cross-cultural negotiations can create issues of trust.26 One study of Indian and U.S. negotiators found that respondents reported having less trust in their cross-culture negotiation counterparts. The lower level of trust was associated with less discovery of common interests between parties, which occurred because cross-culture negotiators were less willing to disclose and solicit information. Another study found that both U.S. and Chinese negotiators tended to have an ingroup bias, which led them to favor negotiating partners from their own cultures. For Chinese negotiators, this was particularly true when accountability requirements were high. Having considered conflict—its nature, causes, and consequences—we now turn to negotiation, which often resolves conflict. M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 234 16/09/16 2:15 PM Chapter 14   • Conflict and Negotiation 235 Watch It If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com to complete the video exercise titled Gordon Law Group: Conflict and Negotiation. 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. Then there’s the subtle: an employee agrees to cover for a colleague for a few minutes in exchange for a future favor. In today’s loosely structured organizations, in which members often work with colleagues over whom they have no direct authority and with whom they may not even share a common boss, negotiation skills are critical. We can define negotiation as a process that occurs when two or more parties decide how to allocate scarce resources.27 Although we commonly think of the outcomes of negotiation in one-shot economic terms, like negotiating over the price of a car, every negotiation in organizations also affects the relationship between negotiators and the way negotiators feel about themselves.28 Depending on how much the parties are going to interact with one another, sometimes maintaining the social relationship and behaving ethically will be just as important as achieving an immediate outcome of bargaining. Note that we use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably. Negotiation A process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them. Bargaining Strategies There are two general approaches to negotiation—distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining.29 As Exhibit 14-4 shows, they differ in their goals and motivation, focus, interests, information sharing, and duration of relationship. Let’s define each and illustrate the differences. Bargaining Characteristic Distributive Bargaining Integrative Bargaining Goal Get as much of the pie as possible Expand the pie so that both parties are satisfied Motivation Win–lose Win–win Focus Positions (“I can’t go beyond this point on this issue.”) Interests (“Can you explain why this issue is so important to you?”) Interests Opposed Congruent Information sharing Low (Sharing information will only allow other party to take advantage) High (Sharing information will allow each party to find ways to satisfy interests of each party) Duration of relationship Short term Long term M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 235 Exhibit 14-4 Distributive Versus Integrative Bargaining 16/09/16 2:15 PM 236 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics Distributive Bargaining You see a used car advertised for sale online that looks Distributive bargaining Negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources; a win–lose situation. Fixed pie The belief that there is only a set amount of goods or services to be divvied up between the parties. Integrative bargaining Negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win–win solution. great. You go see the car. It’s perfect, and you want it. The owner tells you the asking price. You don’t want to pay that much. The two of you negotiate. The negotiating strategy you’re engaging in is called distributive bargaining. Its identifying feature is that it operates under zero-sum conditions—that is, any gain I make is at your expense, and vice versa (see Chapter 13). Every dollar you can get the seller to cut from the car’s price is a dollar you save, and every dollar the seller can get from you comes at your expense. The essence of distributive bargaining is negotiating over who gets what share of a fixed pie. By fixed pie, we mean a set amount of goods or services to be divvied up. When the pie is fixed, or the parties believe it is, they tend to bargain distributively. The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14-5. Parties A and B represent two negotiators. Each has a target point that defines what he or she would like to achieve. Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest acceptable outcome— the point beyond which the party would break off negotiations rather than accept a less favorable settlement. The area between these two points makes up each party’s aspiration range. As long as there is some overlap between A’s and B’s aspiration ranges, there exists a settlement range in which each one’s aspirations can be met. When you are engaged in distributive bargaining, one of the best things you can do is make the first offer and make it an aggressive one. Making the first offer shows power; individuals in power are much more likely to make initial offers, speak first at meetings, and thereby gain the advantage. Another reason this is a good strategy is the anchoring bias, mentioned in Chapter 6. People tend to fixate on initial information. Once that anchoring point has been set, they fail to adequately adjust it based on subsequent information. A savvy negotiator sets an anchor with the initial offer, and scores of negotiation studies show that such anchors greatly favor the person who sets them.30 Integrative Bargaining Jake was a Chicago luxury boutique owned by Jim Wetzel and Lance Lawson. In the early days of the business, Wetzel and Lawson moved millions of dollars of merchandise from many up-and-coming designers. They developed such a good rapport that many designers would send allotments to Jake without requiring advance payment. When the economy soured in 2008, Jake had trouble selling inventory, and designers were not being paid for what they had shipped to the store. Despite the fact that many designers were willing to work with the store on a delayed payment plan, Wetzel and Lawson stopped returning their calls. Lamented one designer, Doo-Ri Chung, “You kind of feel this familiarity with people who supported you for so long. When they have cash-flow issues, you want to make sure you are there for them as well.”31 Chung’s attitude shows the promise of integrative bargaining. In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining assumes that one or more of Party A’s aspiration range Settlement range Exhibit 14-5 Staking Out the Bargaining Zone M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 236 Party A’s target point Party B’s resistance point Party B’s aspiration range Party A’s resistance point Party B’s target point 16/09/16 2:15 PM Chapter 14   • Conflict and Negotiation 237 the possible settlements can create a win–win solution. Of course, as the Jake example shows, both parties must be engaged for integrative bargaining to work. Choosing Bargaining Methods In terms of intraorganizational behavior, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining because the former builds long-term relationships. Integrative bargaining bonds negotiators and allows them to leave the bargaining table feeling they have achieved a victory. Distributive bargaining, however, leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosity and deepen divisions when people have to work together on an ongoing basis. Research shows that over repeated bargaining episodes, a losing party who feels positively about the negotiation outcome is much more likely to bargain cooperatively in subsequent negotiations. Why, then, don’t we see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answer lies in the conditions necessary for it to succeed. These include opposing parties who are open with information and candid about concerns, are sensitive to the other’s needs and trust, and maintain flexibility. Because these conditions seldom exist in organizations, negotiations often take a win-at-any-cost dynamic. Compromise and accommodation may be your worst enemy in negotiating a win– win agreement. Both reduce the pressure to bargain integratively. After all, if you or your opponent caves in easily, no one needs to be creative to reach a settlement. Consider a classic example in which two siblings are arguing over who gets an orange. Unknown to them, one sibling wants the orange to drink the juice, whereas the other wants the orange peel to bake a cake. If one capitulates and gives the other the orange, they will not be forced to explore their reasons for wanting the orange, and thus they will never find the win–win solution: They could each have the orange because they want different parts. The Negotiation Process Exhibit 14-6 provides 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, Preparation and planning Definition of ground rules Clarification and justification Bargaining and problem solving Closure and implementation M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 237 Exhibit 14-6 The Negotiation Process 16/09/16 2:15 PM 238 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics (3) clarification and justification, (4) bargaining and problem solving, and (5) closure and implementation.32 This may be the most important part of the process. Before you start negotiating, 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? Then consider your goals, in writing, with a range of outcomes from “most helpful” to “minimally acceptable.” If you’re a supply manager at Dell Computer, for instance, and your goal is to get a significant cost reduction from your keyboard supplier, make sure this goal stays paramount in discussions and doesn’t get overshadowed by other issues. Next, assess what you think are the other party’s goals. What intangible or hidden interests may be important to them? On what might they be willing to settle? Think carefully about what the other side might be willing to give up. People who underestimate their opponent’s willingness to give on key issues before the negotiation even starts end up with lower outcomes.33 Once you’ve gathered your information, develop a strategy. You should determine your and the other side’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA. Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement. 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. In nearly all cases, the party with superior alternatives will do better in a negotiation, so experts advise negotiators to solidify their BATNA prior to any interaction.34 Therefore, be equipped to counter arguments with facts and figures that support your position. There is an interesting exception to this general rule—negotiators with absolutely no alternative to a negotiated agreement sometimes “go for broke” since they don’t even consider what would happen if the negotiation falls through.35 Preparation and Planning BATNA The best alternative to a negotiated agreement; the least the individual should accept. Definition of Ground Rules Once you’ve done your planning and developed a strategy, you’re ready to define with the other party the ground rules and procedures of 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 you follow a specific procedure if an impasse is reached? During this phase, the parties will exchange their initial proposals or demands. Clarification and Justification When you have exchanged initial positions, you and the other party will explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify your original demands. This step needn’t be confrontational. Rather, it’s an opportunity for educating each other on the issues, why they are important, and how you arrived at your initial demands. Provide the other party with any documentation that supports your position. The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give-and-take in trying to hash out an agreement. This is where both parties need to make concessions. Relationships change as a result of negotiation, so take that into consideration. If you could “win” a negotiation but push the other side into Bargaining and Problem Solving M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 238 16/09/16 2:15 PM Chapter 14   • Conflict and Negotiation 239 resentment or animosity, it might be wiser to pursue a more compromising style. If preserving the relationship will make you seem easily exploited, you may consider a more aggressive style. As an example of how the tone of a relationship in negotiations matters, people who feel good about the process of a job offer negotiation are more satisfied with their jobs and less likely to turn over a year later regardless of their actual outcomes from these negotiations.36 Closure and Implementation The final step in the negotiation process is formalizing your agreement and developing procedures necessary for implementing and monitoring it. For major negotiations—from labor–management negotiations to bargaining over lease terms—this requires hammering out the specifics in a formal contract. For other cases, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake. Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness Are some people better negotiators than others? The answer is complex. Four factors influence how effectively individuals negotiate: personality, mood/emotions, culture, and gender. Personality Traits in Negotiations Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating tactics if you know something about his or her personality? Because personality and negotiation outcomes are related but only weakly, the answer is, at best, “sort of.”37 Most research has focused on the Big Five traits of agreeableness, for obvious reasons— agreeable individuals are cooperative, compliant, kind, and conflict-averse. We might think such characteristics make agreeable individuals easy prey in negotiations, especially distributive ones. The evidence suggests, however, that overall agreeableness is weakly related to negotiation outcomes. Self-efficacy (see Chapter 7) is one individual-difference variable that consistently seems to relate to negotiation outcomes.38 This is a fairly intuitive finding—it isn’t too surprising to hear that those who believe they will be more successful in negotiation situations tend to perform more effectively. It may be that individuals who are more confident stake out stronger claims, are less likely to back down from their positions, and exhibit confidence that intimidates others. Although the exact mechanism is not yet clear, it does seem that negotiators may benefit from trying to get a boost in confidence before going to the bargaining table. Moods/Emotions in Negotiations Do moods and emotions influence negotiation? They do, but the way they work depends on the emotion as well as the context. A negotiator who shows anger can induce concessions, for instance, because the other negotiator believes no further concessions from the angry party are possible. One factor that governs this outcome, however, is power—you should show anger in negotiations only if you have at least as much power as your counterpart. If you have less, showing anger actually seems to provoke “hardball” reactions from the other side.39 “Faked” anger, or anger produced from surface acting, is not effective, but showing anger that is genuine (deep acting) is (see Chapter 4).40 Having a history of showing anger, rather than sowing the seeds of revenge, actually induces more concessions because the other party perceives the M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 239 16/09/16 2:15 PM 240 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics negotiator as “tough.”41 Anger has a cultural context. For instance, one study found that when East Asian participants showed anger, it induced more concessions than when the negotiator expressing anger was from the United States or Europe, perhaps because of the stereotype of East Asians as refusing to show anger.42 Another relevant emotion is disappointment. Generally, a negotiator who perceives disappointment from his or her counterpart concedes more. Anxiety also may impact negotiation. For example, one study found that individuals who experienced more anxiety about a negotiation used more deceptions in dealing with others.43 Another study found that anxious negotiators expect lower outcomes, respond to offers more quickly, and exit the bargaining process more quickly, leading them to obtain worse outcomes.44 Even emotional unpredictability affects outcomes; researchers have found that negotiators who express positive and negative emotions in an unpredictable way extract more concessions because this behavior makes the other party feel less in control.45 As one negotiator put it, “Out of the blue, you may have to react to something you have been working on in one way, and then something entirely new is introduced, and you have to veer off and refocus.”46 Culture in Negotiations Do people from different cultures negotiate differently? The simple answer is the obvious one: Yes, they do. In general, people negotiate more effectively within cultures than between them. For example, a Colombian is apt to do better negotiating with a Colombian than with a Sri Lankan. It appears that for successful cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially important that the negotiators be high in openness. This suggests a good strategy is to choose crosscultural negotiators who are high on openness, and it helps to avoid factors such as time pressure that tend to inhibit learning about the other party.47 Second, because emotions are culturally sensitive, negotiators need to be especially aware of the emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiation. For example, individuals from East Asian cultures may feel that using anger to get their way in a negotiation is not a legitimate tactic, so they refuse to cooperate when their opponents become upset.48 Gender in Negotiations There are many areas of organizational behavior (OB) in which men and women are not that different. Negotiation is not one of them. It seems fairly clear that men and women negotiate differently, that men and women are treated differently by negotiation partners, and that these differences affect outcomes. A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative and pleasant in negotiations than men. Though this is controversial, there is some merit to it. Men tend to place a higher value on status, power, and recognition, whereas women tend to place a higher value on compassion and altruism. Moreover, women tend to value relationship outcomes more than men, and men tend to value economic outcomes more than women.49 These differences affect both negotiation behavior and negotiation outcomes. Compared to men, women tend to behave in a less assertive, less self-interested, and more accommodating manner. As one review concluded, women “are more reluctant to initiate negotiations, and when they do initiate negotiations, they ask for less, are more willing to accept [the] offer, and make more generous offers to their negotiation partners M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 240 16/09/16 2:15 PM Chapter 14   • Conflict and Negotiation 241 than men do.”50 A study of MBA students at Carnegie-Mellon University found that the male students took the step of negotiating their first offer 57 percent of the time, compared to 4 percent for the female students. The net result? A $4,000 difference in starting salaries.51 One comprehensive literature review suggested that the tendency for men to receive better negotiation outcomes in some situations did not cover all situations. Indeed, the evidence suggested women and men bargain more equally in certain situations, women sometimes outperform men, and both men and women obtain more nearly equal outcomes when negotiating on behalf of someone else.52 In other words, everyone is better at advocating for others than they are at advocating for themselves. Factors that increased the predictability of negotiations also tended to reduce gender differences. When the range of negotiation settlements was well defined, men and women were more equal in outcomes. When more experienced negotiators were at the table, men and women were also nearly equivalent. The study authors proposed that when situations are more ambiguous, with less well-defined terms and less experienced negotiators, stereotypes may have stronger effects, leading to larger gender differences in outcomes. Negotiating in a Social Context We have mostly been discussing negotiations that occur among parties that meet only once, and in isolation from other individuals. However, in organizations, many negotiations are open-ended and public. When you are trying to figure out who in a work group should do a tedious task, negotiating with your boss to get a chance to travel internationally, or asking for more money for a project; there’s a social component to the negotiation. You are probably negotiating with someone you already know and will work with again, and the negotiation and its outcome are likely to be topics people will talk about. To really understand negotiations in practice, then, we must consider the social factors of reputation and relationships. Reputation Your reputation is the way other people think and talk about you. When it comes to negotiation, having a reputation for being trustworthy matters. In short, trust in a negotiation process opens the door to many forms of integrative negotiation strategies that benefit both parties.53 The most effective way to build trust is to behave in an honest way across repeated interactions. Then, others feel more comfortable making open-ended offers with many different outcomes. This helps to achieve win–win outcomes, since both parties can work to achieve what is most important to themselves while still benefiting the other party. Sometimes we either trust or distrust people based on word-of-mouth about a person’s characteristics. What characteristics help a person develop a trustworthy reputation? A combination of competence and integrity.54 Negotiators higher in self-confidence and cognitive ability are seen as more competent by negotiation partners.55 They are also considered better able to accurately describe a situation and their own resources, and are more credible when they make suggestions for creative solutions to impasses. Individuals M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 241 16/09/16 2:15 PM 242 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics who have a reputation for integrity can also be more effective in negotiations.56 They are seen as more likely to keep their promises and present information accurately, so others are more willing to accept their promises as part of a bargain. This opens many options for the negotiator that wouldn’t be available to someone who is not seen as trustworthy. Finally, individuals who have higher reputations are better liked and have more friends and allies—in other words, they have more social resources, which may give them more understood power in negotiations. Relationships There is more to repeated negotiations than just reputation. The social, interpersonal component of relationships with repeated negotiations means that individuals go beyond valuing what is simply good for themselves and instead start to think about what is best for the other party and the relationship as a whole.57 Repeated negotiations built on a foundation of trust also broaden the range of options, since a favor or concession today can be offered in return for some repayment further down the road.58 Repeated negotiations also facilitate integrative problem solving. This occurs partly because people begin to see their negotiation partners in a more personal way over time and come to share emotional bonds.59 Repeated negotiations also make integrative approaches more workable because a sense of trust and reliability has been built up.60 Third-Party Negotiations mediator A neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning, persuasion, and suggestions for alternatives. Arbitrator A third party to a negotiation who has the authority to dictate an agreement. M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 242 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 through direct negotiations. In such cases, they may turn to a third party to help them find a solution. There are three basic third-party roles: mediator, arbitrator, and conciliator. 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. Their overall effectiveness is fairly impressive. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported a settlement rate through mediation at 72.1 percent.61 But the situation is the key to whether 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 noncoercive. An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. Arbitration can be voluntary (requested by the parties) or compulsory (forced on the parties by law or contract). The big plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a settlement. Whether there is a downside depends on how heavy-handed the arbitrator appears. If one party is left feeling overwhelmingly defeated, that party is certain to be dissatisfied and the conflict may resurface at a later time. 16/09/16 2:15 PM Chapter 14   • Conflict and Negotiation 243 A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent. This role was made famous by Robert Duval in the first Godfather film. As Don Corleone’s adopted son and a lawyer by training, Duval acted as an intermediary between the Corleones and the other Mafioso families. Comparing conciliation to mediation in terms of effectiveness 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. Conciliator A trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent. Summary While many people assume conflict lowers group and organizational performance, this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. Levels of conflict can be either too high or too low to be constructive. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released, and initiates the seeds of change without being disruptive or preventing the coordination of activities. Implications for Managers • Choose an authoritarian management style in emergencies, when unpopular actions need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, and discipline), and when the issue is vital to the organization’s welfare. Be certain to communicate your logic when possible to make certain others remain engaged and productive. • Seek integrative solutions when your objective is to learn, when you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives, when you need to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus, and when you need to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship. • You can build trust by accommodating others when you find you’re wrong, when you need to demonstrate reasonableness, when other positions need to be heard, when issues are more important to others than to yourself, when you want to satisfy others and maintain cooperation, when you can build social credits for later issues, to minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing, and when others should learn from their own mistakes. • Consider compromising when goals are important but not worth potential disruption, when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals, and when you need temporary settlements to complex issues. • Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but it often reduces the satisfaction of one or more negotiators because it is confrontational and focused on the short term. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties and build lasting relationships. M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 243 16/09/16 2:15 PM 244 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics P I Personal Inventory Assessments A PERSONAL INVENTORY ASSESSMENTS Strategies for Handling Conflict We all handle conflict, but few of us may have actual strategies in place. Take this PIA to further explore ways to handle conflict. MyManagementLab ® Go to mymanagementlab.com for Auto-graded writing questions as well as the following Assisted-graded writing questions: 14-1. Do you think employee conflicts are, in general, bad? Why? In what ways do you think they might be constructive? 14-2. MyManagementLab Only—comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter. M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 244 16/09/16 2:15 PM 5 Personality and Values MyManagementLab ® Improve Your Grade! When you see this icon , visit mymanagementlab.com for activities that are applied, personalized, and offer immediate feedback. Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Describe personality, the way it is measured, and the factors that shape it. 2. Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality framework and the Big Five Model. 3. Discuss how the concepts of core self-evaluation (CSE), self-monitoring, and proactive personality contribute to the understanding of personality. 4. Describe how the situation affects whether personality predicts behavior. 5. Contrast terminal and instrumental values. 6. Describe the differences between person–job fit and person–organization fit. 7. Compare Hofstede’s five value dimensions and the GLOBE framework. Chapter Warm-up If your professor has chosen to assign this, go to the Assignments section of www.mymanagementlab.com to complete the chapter warm-up. Personality Why are some people quiet and passive, while others are loud and aggressive? Are certain personality types better adapted than others for certain jobs? Before we can answer these questions, we need to address a more basic one: what is personality? 64 M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 64 16/09/16 11:25 AM Chapter 5   • Personality and Values 65 What Is Personality? When we speak of someone’s personality, we use many adjectives to describe how they act and seem to think; in fact, research participants used 624 distinct adjectives to describe people they knew.1 As organizational behaviorists, however, we organize characteristics by overall traits describing the growth and development of a person’s personality. Defining Personality For our purposes, think of personality as the sum of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others. We most often describe personality in terms of the measurable traits a person exhibits. Early work on personality tried to identify and label enduring characteristics that describe an individual’s behavior including shy, aggressive, submissive, lazy, ambitious, loyal, and timid. When someone exhibits these characteristics in a large number of situations and they are relatively enduring over time, we call them personality traits.2 The more consistent the characteristic over time and the more frequently it occurs in diverse situations, the more important the trait is in describing the individual. Assessing Personality Personality assessments have been increasingly used Personality The sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others. Personality traits Enduring characteristics that describe an individual’s behavior. in diverse organizational settings. In fact, 8 of the top 10 U.S. private companies and 57 percent of all large U.S. companies use them,3 including Xerox, McDonald’s, and Lowe’s.4 Schools such as DePaul University have also begun to use personality tests in their admissions process.5 Personality tests are useful in hiring decisions and help managers forecast who is best for a job.6 Measuring Results The most common means of measuring personality is through self-report surveys in which individuals evaluate themselves on a series of factors, such as “I worry a lot about the future.” In general, when people know their personality scores are going to be used for hiring decisions, they rate themselves as about half a standard deviation more conscientious and emotionally stable than if they are taking the test to learn more about themselves.7 Another problem is accuracy; for example, a candidate who is in a bad mood when taking a survey may very well receive inaccurate scores. Culture and Ratings Research indicates our culture influences the way we rate ourselves. People in individualistic countries (see Chapter 4) like the United States and Australia trend toward self-enhancement, while people in collectivistic countries (see Chapter 4) like Taiwan, China, and South Korea trend toward self-diminishment. Selfenhancement does not appear to harm a person’s career in individualistic countries, but it does in collectivist countries, where humility is valued. Interestingly, underrating (self-diminishment) may harm a person’s career in both collectivistic and individualistic communities.8 Self-Reports and Observer-Ratings Observer-ratings surveys provide an independent assessment of personality. Here, a coworker or another observer does the rating. Though the results of self-reports and observer-ratings surveys are strongly correlated, research suggests observer-ratings surveys predict job success more than self-ratings alone.9 However, each can tell us something unique about an individual’s behavior, so a combination of self-reports and observer-ratings predicts performance M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 65 16/09/16 11:25 AM 66 Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others better than any one type of information. The implication is clear: Use both self-reports and observers-ratings (per SS) of personality when making important employment decisions. Personality Determinants An early debate centered on whether an individual’s Heredity Factors determined at conception; one’s biological, physiological, and inherent psychological makeup. personality is the result of heredity or environment. Personality appears to be a result of both; however, research tends to support the importance of heredity over environment. Heredity refers to factors determined at conception. Physical stature, facial features, gender, temperament, muscle composition and reflexes, energy level, and biological rhythms are either completely or substantially influenced by parentage—by your biological parents’ genetic, physiological, and inherent psychological makeup. The heredity approach argues that the ultimate explanation of an individual’s personality is the molecular structure of the genes, located on the chromosomes. This is not to suggest that personality never changes. For example, people’s scores on dependability tend to increase over time, as when young adults start families and establish careers. Personality is also more changeable in adolescence and more stable among adults.10 However, strong individual differences in dependability remain; everyone tends to change by about the same amount, so their rank order stays roughly the same.11 Personality Frameworks Throughout history, people have sought to understand what makes individuals behave in myriad ways. Many of our behaviors stem from our personalities, so understanding the components of personality helps us predict behavior. Important theoretical frameworks and assessment tools, discussed next, help us categorize and study the dimensions of personality. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) A personality test that taps 4 characteristics and classifies people into 1 of 16 personality types. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is the most widely used personalityassessment instrument in the world.12 It is a 100-question personality test that asks people how they usually feel or act in situations. Respondents are classified as extraverted or introverted (E or I), sensing or intuitive (S or N), thinking or feeling (T or F), and judging or perceiving (J or P): • Extraverted (E) versus Introverted (I). Extraverted individuals are outgoing, sociable, and assertive. Introverts are quiet and shy. • Sensing (s) versus Intuitive (N). Sensing types are practical and prefer routine and order, and they focus on details. Intuitives rely on unconscious processes and look at the “big picture.” • Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F). Thinking types use reason and logic to handle problems. Feeling types rely on their personal values and emotions. • Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). Judging types want control and prefer order and structure. Perceiving types are flexible and spontaneous. The MBTI describes personality types by identifying one trait from each of the four pairs. For example, Introverted/Intuitive/Thinking/Judging people (INTJs) are visionaries with original minds and great drive. They are skeptical, critical, independent, determined, and often stubborn. ENFJs are natural teachers and leaders. They are M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 66 16/09/16 11:25 AM Chapter 5   • Personality and Values 67 relational, motivational, intuitive, idealistic, ethical, and kind. ESTJs are organizers. They are realistic, logical, analytical, and decisive, perfect for business or mechanics. The ENTP type is innovative, individualistic, versatile, and attracted to entrepreneurial ideas. This person tends to be resourceful in solving challenging problems but may neglect routine assignments. One problem with the MBTI is that the model forces a person into one type or another; that is, you’re either introverted or extraverted. There is no in-between. Another problem is with the reliability of the measure: When people retake the assessment, they often receive different results. An additional problem is in the difficulty of interpretation. There are levels of importance for each of the MBTI facets, and separate meanings for certain combinations of facets, all of which require trained interpretation that can leave room for error. Finally, results from the MBTI tend to be unrelated to job performance. The Big Five Personality Model The MBTI may lack strong supporting evidence, but an impressive body of research supports the Big Five Model, which proposes that five basic dimensions underlie all others and encompass most of the significant variation in human personality.13 Test scores of these traits do a very good job of predicting how people behave in a variety of reallife situations14 and remain relatively stable for an individual over time, with some daily variations.15 These are the Big Five factors: • Conscientiousness. The conscientiousness dimension is a measure of reliability. A highly conscientious person is responsible, organized, dependable, and persistent. Those who score low on this dimension are easily distracted, disorganized, and unreliable. • Emotional stability. The emotional stability dimension taps a person’s ability to withstand stress. People with emotional stability tend to be calm, self-confident, and secure. High scorers are more likely to be positive and optimistic; they are generally happier than low scorers. Emotional stability is sometimes discussed as its converse, neuroticism. Low scorers (those with high neuroticism) are hypervigilant and vulnerable to the physical and psychological effects of stress. Those with high neuroticism tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and insecure. • Extraversion. The extraversion dimension captures our comfort level with relationships. Extraverts tend to be gregarious, assertive, and sociable. They are generally happier and are often ambitious.16 On the other hand, introverts (low extraversion) tend to be more thoughtful, reserved, timid, and quiet. • Openness to experience. The openness to experience dimension addresses the range of a person’s interests and their fascination with novelty. Open people are creative, curious, and artistically sensitive. Those at the low end of the category are conventional and find comfort in the familiar. • Agreeableness. The agreeableness dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to defer to others. Agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting. You might expect agreeable people to be happier than disagreeable people. They are, but only slightly. When people choose organizational team members, agreeable individuals are usually their first choice. In contrast, people who score low on agreeableness can be cold and antagonistic. M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 67 Big Five Model A personality assessment model that taps five basic dimensions. Conscientiousness A personality dimension that describes someone who is responsible, dependable, persistent, and organized. Emotional stability A personality dimension that characterizes someone as calm, self-confident, and secure (positive) versus nervous, depressed, and insecure (negative). Extraversion A personality dimension describing someone who is sociable, gregarious, and assertive. Openness to experience A personality dimension that characterizes someone in terms of imagination, sensitivity, and curiosity. Agreeableness A personality dimension that describes someone who is good natured, cooperative, and trusting. 16/09/16 11:25 AM 68 Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others How Do the Big Five Traits Predict Behavior at Work? There are many relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance,17 and we are learning more about them every day. Let’s explore one trait at a time, beginning with the strongest predictor of job performance—conscientiousness. Conscientiousness at Work Conscientiousness is key. As researchers recently stated, “Personal attributes related to conscientiousness and agreeableness are important for success across many jobs, spanning across low to high levels of job complexity, training, and experience.”18 Employees who score higher in conscientiousness develop higher levels of job knowledge, probably because highly conscientious people learn more (conscientiousness may be related to GPA),19 and these levels correspond with higher levels of job performance. Conscientious people are also more able to maintain their job performance when faced with abusive supervision, according to a study in India.20 Like any trait, conscientiousness has its pitfalls. Highly conscientious individuals can prioritize work over family, resulting in more conflict between their work and family roles (termed work-family conflict).21 They may also become too focused on their own work to help others in the organization,22 and they don’t adapt well to changing contexts. Furthermore, conscientious people may have trouble learning complex skills early in a training process because their focus is on performing well rather than on learning. Finally, they are often less creative, especially artistically.23 Despite pitfalls, conscientiousness is the best overall predictor of job performance. However, the other Big Five traits are also related to aspects of performance and have other implications for work and for life. Exhibit 5-1 summarizes these other relations. BIG FIVE TRAITS WHY IS IT RELEVANT? Emotional stability • Less negative thinking and fewer negative emotions • Less hypervigilant • Higher job and life satisfaction • Lower stress levels Extraversion • Better interpersonal skills • Greater social dominance • More emotionally expressive • Higher performance • Enhanced leadership • Higher job and life satisfaction Openness • Increased learning • More creative • More flexible and autonomous • Training performance • Enhanced leadership • More adaptable to change • Better liked • More compliant and conforming • Higher performance • Lower levels of deviant behavior • Greater effort and persistence • More drive and discipline • Better organized and planning • Higher performance • Enhanced leadership • Greater longevity Agreeableness Exhibit 5-1 Model of How Big Five Traits Influence OB Criteria M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 68 Conscientiousness WHAT DOES IT AFFECT? 16/09/16 11:25 AM 69 Chapter 5   • Personality and Values Emotional Stability at Work Of the Big Five traits, emotional stability is most strongly related to life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and low stress levels. People with high emotional stability can adapt to unexpected or changing demands in the workplace.24 At the other end of the spectrum, neurotic individuals who are unable to cope with these demands may experience burnout.25 These people also tend to experience work-family conflict, which can affect work outcomes.26 Extraversion at Work Extraverts perform better in jobs with significant interpersonal interaction. They are socially dominant, “take charge” people.27 Extraversion is a relatively strong predictor of leadership emergence in groups. Some negatives are that extraverts are more impulsive than introverts, are more likely to be absent from work, and may be more likely than introverts to lie during job interviews.28 Openness at Work Open people are more likely to be effective leaders—and more comfortable with ambiguity. They cope better with organizational change and are more adaptable. While openness isn’t related to initial performance on a job, individuals higher in openness are less susceptible to a decline in performance over a longer time period.29 Open people also experience less work-family conflict.30 Agreeableness at Work Agreeable individuals are better liked than disagreeable people; they tend to do better in interpersonally oriented jobs such as customer service. They’re more compliant and rule abiding, less likely to get into accidents, and more satisfied in their jobs. They also contribute to organizational performance by engaging in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; see Chapter 1).31 Disagreeable people, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in counterproductive work behavior (CWB; see Chapter 3), as are people low in conscientiousness.32 Low agreeableness also predicts involvement in work accidents.33 Lastly, agreeableness is associated with lower levels of career success (especially earnings), perhaps because highly agreeable people consider themselves less marketable and are less willing to assert themselves.34 In general, the Big Five personality factors appear in almost all cross-cultural studies,35 including China, Israel, Germany, Japan, Spain, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, and the United States. However, a study of illiterate indigenous people in Bolivia suggested the Big Five framework may be less applicable when studying the personalities of small, remote groups.36 The Dark Triad With the exception of neuroticism, the Big Five traits are what we call socially desirable, meaning we would be glad to score high on them. They also have the most verifiable links to important organizational outcomes. Researchers have identified three other socially undesirable traits, which we all have in varying degrees and which are also relevant to organizational behavior (OB): Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. Owing to their negative nature, researchers have labeled these the Dark Triad—though they do not always occur together.37 The Dark Triad may sound sinister, but these traits are not clinical pathologies hindering everyday functioning. They might be expressed particularly strongly when an individual is under stress and unable to moderate any inappropriate responses. Sustained M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 69 Dark Triad A constellation of negative personality traits consisting of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. 16/09/16 11:25 AM 70 Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others high levels of dark personality traits can cause individuals to derail their careers and personal lives.38 Machiavellianism Hao is a young bank manager in Shanghai. He’s received three Machiavellianism The degree to which an individual is pragmatic, maintains emotional distance, and believes that ends can justify means. Narcissism The tendency to be arrogant, have a grandiose sense of selfimportance, require excessive admiration, and have a sense of entitlement. M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 70 promotions in the past four years and makes no apologies for the aggressive tactics he’s used. “My name means clever, and that’s what I am—I do whatever I have to do to get ahead,” he says. Hao would be termed Machiavellian. The personality characteristic of Machiavellianism (often abbreviated Mach) is named after Niccolo Machiavelli, who wrote in the sixteenth century on how to gain and use power. An individual high in Machiavellianism is pragmatic, maintains emotional distance, and believes that ends can justify means. “If it works, use it” is consistent with a high-Mach perspective. High Machs manipulate more, win more, are persuaded less by others, but persuade others more than do low Machs.39 They are more likely to act aggressively and engage in CWBs as well. Surprisingly, Machiavellianism does not significantly predict overall job performance.40 High-Mach employees, by manipulating others to their advantage, win in the short term at a job, but lose those gains in the long term because they are not well liked. Machiavellian tendencies may have ethical implications. One study showed highMach job seekers were less positively affected by the knowledge that an organization engaged in a high level of corporate social responsibility (CSR; see Chapter 3),41 suggesting that high-Mach people may care less about sustainability issues. Another study found Machs’ ethical leadership behaviors were less likely to translate into followers’ work engagement because followers see through these behaviors and realize they are cases of surface acting.42 Sabrina likes to be the center of attention. She often looks at herself in the mirror, has extravagant dreams about her future, and considers herself a person of many talents. Sabrina is a narcissist. The trait is named for the Greek myth of Narcissus, a youth so vain and proud he fell in love with his own image. In psychology, narcissism describes a person who has a grandiose sense of self-importance, requires excessive admiration, and is arrogant. Narcissists often have fantasies of grand success, a tendency to exploit situations and people, a sense of entitlement, and a lack of empathy.43 However, narcissists can be hypersensitive and fragile people.44 They also may experience more anger.45 While narcissism seems to have little relationship to job effectiveness or OCB,46 it is one of the largest predictors of increased CWB in individualistic cultures—but not in collectivist cultures that discourage self-promotion.47 Narcissists commonly think they are overqualified for their positions.48 When they receive feedback about their performance, they often tune out information that conflicts with their positive self-perception, but they will work harder if rewards are offered.49 On the bright side, narcissists may be more charismatic than others.50 They also might be found in business more often than in other fields. They are more likely to be chosen for leadership positions, and medium ratings of narcissism (neither extremely high nor extremely low) are positively correlated with leadership effectiveness.51 Some evidence suggests that narcissists are more adaptable and make better business decisions than others when the issue is complex.52 Furthermore, a study of Norwegian bank employees found those scoring high on narcissism enjoyed their work more.53 Narcissism 16/09/16 11:25 AM Chapter 5   • Personality and Values 71 Psychopathy Psychopathy is part of the Dark Triad, but in OB, it does not connote clinical mental illness. In the OB context, psychopathy is defined as a lack of concern for others, and a lack of guilt or remorse when actions cause harm.54 Measures of psychopathy attempt to assess motivation to comply with social norms, impulsivity, willingness to use deceit to obtain desired ends, and disregard, that is, the lack of empathic concern for others. The literature is not consistent about whether psychopathy is important to work behavior. One review found little correlation between measures of psychopathy and job performance or CWB. Another found antisocial personality, which is closely related to psychopathy, was positively related to advancement in the organization but unrelated to other aspects of career success and effectiveness.55 Still other research suggests psychopathy is related to the use of hard influence tactics (threats, manipulation) and bullying work behavior (physical or verbal threatening).56 The cunning displayed by people who score high on psychopathy may thus help them gain power in an organization but keep them from using it toward healthy ends for themselves or their organizations. Psychopathy The tendency for a lack of concern for others and a lack of guilt or remorse when actions cause harm. The Dark Triad is a helpful framework for studying the three dominant dark-side traits in current personality research, and researchers are exploring other traits as well. One emerging framework incorporates five additional aberrant compound traits based on the Big Five. First, antisocial people are indifferent and callous toward others. They use their extraversion to charm people, but they may be prone to violent CWBs and risky decision making. Second, borderline people have low self-esteem and high uncertainty. They are unpredictable in their interactions at work, are inefficient, and may have low job satisfaction.57 Third, schizotypal individuals are eccentric and disorganized. In the workplace, they can be highly creative, although they are susceptible to work stress. Fourth, obsessive-compulsive people are perfectionists and can be stubborn, yet they attend to details, carry a strong work ethic, and may be motivated by achievement. Fifth, avoidant individuals feel inadequate and hate criticism. They can function only in environments requiring little interaction.58 Other Traits Other Personality Attributes Relevant to OB As we’ve discussed, studies of traits have much to offer the field of OB. Now we’ll look at other attributes that are powerful predictors of behavior in organizations: core selfevaluations, self-monitoring, and proactive personality. Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) As discussed in Chapter 3, core self-evaluations (CSEs) are bottom-line conclusions individuals have about their capabilities, competence, and worth as a person. People with positive CSEs like themselves and see themselves as effective and in control of their environment. Those with negative CSEs tend to dislike themselves, question their capabilities, and view themselves as powerless over their environment.59 Recall that CSEs relate to job satisfaction, because people who are positive on this trait see more challenge in their jobs and actually attain more complex jobs. People with positive CSEs perform better than others because they set more ambitious goals, are more committed to their goals, and persist longer in attempting to reach them. People who have high CSEs provide better customer service, are more popular M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 71 16/09/16 11:25 AM 72 Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others coworkers, and may have careers that begin on better footing and ascend more rapidly over time.60 They perform especially well if they feel their work provides meaning and is helpful to others.61 Therefore, people with high CSEs may thrive in organizations with high CSR. Self-Monitoring Self-monitoring A personality trait that measures an individual’s ability to adjust his or her behavior to external, situational factors. Zoe is always in trouble at work. Although she’s competent, hardworking, and productive, she receives average ratings in performance reviews, and seems to have made a career out of irritating her bosses. Zoe’s problem is that she’s politically inept and unable to adjust her behavior to fit changing situations. As she says, “I’m true to myself. I don’t remake myself to please others.” Zoe is a low self-monitor. Self-monitoring describes an individual’s ability to adjust behavior to external, situational factors.62 High self-monitors show considerable adaptability in adjusting their behavior to external situational factors. They are highly sensitive to external cues and can behave differently in varying situations, sometimes presenting striking contradictions between their public personae and their private selves. Evidence indicates high self-monitors pay closer attention to the behavior of others and are more capable of conforming than are low self-monitors.63 Low self-monitors like Zoe can’t disguise themselves in that way. They tend to display their true dispositions and attitudes in every situation; hence, there is high behavioral consistency between who they are and what they do. Proactive Personality Proactive personality People who identify opportunities, show initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful change occurs. Did you ever notice that some people actively take the initiative to improve their current circumstances or create new ones? These are proactive personalities.64 Those with a proactive personality identify opportunities, show initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful change occurs, compared to others who generally react to situations. Proactive individuals have many desirable behaviors that organizations covet. They have higher levels of job performance65 and do not need much oversight.66 They are receptive to changes in job demands and thrive when they can informally tailor their jobs to their strengths. Proactive individuals often achieve career success.67 Proactive personality may be important for work teams. One study of 95 R&D teams in 33 Chinese companies revealed that teams with high average levels of proactive personality were more innovative.68 Proactive individuals are also more likely to exchange information with others in a team, which builds trust relationships.69 Like other traits, proactive personality is affected by the context. One study of bank branch teams in China found that if a team’s leader was not proactive, the potential benefits of the team’s proactivity became dormant, or worse, their proactivity was suppressed by the leader.70 In terms of pitfalls, one study of 231 Flemish unemployed individuals found that proactive individuals abandoned their job searches sooner. It may be that proactivity includes stepping back in the face of failure.71 Personality and Situations Earlier we discussed how research shows heredity is more important than the environment in developing our personalities. The environment is not irrelevant, though. Some personality traits, such as the Big Five, tend to be effective in almost any environment or M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 72 16/09/16 11:25 AM Chapter 5   • Personality and Values 73 situation. However, we are learning that the effect of particular traits on behavior depends on the situation. Two theoretical frameworks, situation strength and trait activation, help explain how this works. Situation Strength Theory Imagine you are in a meeting with your department. How likely are you to walk out, shout at a colleague, or turn your back on everyone? Probably highly unlikely. Now imagine working from home. You might work in your pajamas, listen to loud music, or take a catnap. Situation strength theory proposes that the way personality translates into behavior depends on the strength of the situation. By situation strength, we mean the degree to which norms, cues, or standards dictate appropriate behavior. Strong situations show us what the right behavior is, pressure us to exhibit it, and discourage the wrong behavior. In weak situations, conversely, “anything goes,” and thus we are freer to express our personality in behavior. Personality traits better predict behavior in weak situations than in strong ones. Situation strength theory A theory indicating that the way personality translates into behavior depends on the strength of the situation. Components of Situation Strength Researchers have analyzed situation strength in organizations in terms of four elements:72 1. Clarity, or the degree to which cues about work duties and responsibilities are available and clear—jobs high in clarity produce strong situations because individuals can readily determine what to do. For example, the job of janitor probably provides higher clarity about each task than the job of nanny. 2. Consistency, or the extent to which cues regarding work duties and responsibilities are compatible with one another—jobs with high consistency represent strong situations because all the cues point toward the same desired behavior. The job of acute care nurse, for example, probably has higher consistency than the job of manager. 3. Constraints, or the extent to which individuals’ freedom to decide or act is limited by forces outside their control—jobs with many constraints represent strong situations because an individual has limited discretion. Bank examiner, for example, is probably a job with stronger constraints than forest ranger. 4. Consequences, or the degree to which decisions or actions have important implications for the organization or its members, clients, supplies, and so on—jobs with important consequences represent strong situations because the environment is probably heavily structured to guard against mistakes. A surgeon’s job, for example, has higher consequences than a foreign-language teacher’s. Organizational Situations Some researchers have speculated that organizations are, by definition, strong situations because they impose rules, norms, and standards that govern behavior. These constraints are usually appropriate. For example, we would not want an employee to feel free to engage in sexual harassment, follow questionable accounting procedures, or come to work only when the mood strikes. The elements of situation strength are often determined by organizational rules and guidelines, which adds some objectivity to them. However, the perception of these rules influences how the person will respond to the situation’s strength. For instance, a person who is usually self-directed may view step-by-step instructions (high clarity) for a simple task as a lack M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 73 16/09/16 11:25 AM 74 Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others of faith in his ability. Another person who is a rule follower might appreciate the detailed instructions. Their responses (and work attitudes) will reflect their perception of the situation.73 Creating strong rules to govern diverse systems might be not only difficult but also unwise. In sum, managers need to recognize the role of situation strength in the workplace and find the appropriate balance. Trait Activation Theory Trait Activation Theory (TAT) A theory that predicts that some situations, events, or interventions “activate” a trait more than others. Detail Orientation Required Another important theoretical framework toward understanding personality and situations is Trait Activation Theory (TAT). TAT predicts that some situations, events, or interventions “activate” a trait more than others. Using TAT, we can foresee which jobs suit certain personalities. For example, a commission-based compensation plan would likely activate individual differences because extraverts are more reward-sensitive, than, say, open people. Conversely, in jobs that encourage creativity, differences in openness may better predict desired behavior than differences in extraversion. See Exhibit 5-2 for specific examples. TAT also applies to personality tendencies. For example, a recent study found people learning online responded differently when their behavior was electronically monitored. Those who had a high fear of failure had higher apprehension from the monitoring than others, and consequently learned significantly less. In this case, a feature of the environment (electronic monitoring) activated a trait (fear of failing), and the combination of the two meant lowered job performance.74 TAT can also work in a positive way. One study found that, in a supportive environment, everyone behaved prosocially, but in a harsh environment, only people with prosocial tendencies exhibited them.75 Together, situation strength and trait activation theories show that the debate over nature versus nurture might best be framed as nature and nurture. Not only do both affect behavior, but they interact with one another. Put another way, personality and the situation both affect work behavior, but when the situation is right, the power of personality to predict behavior is even higher. Social Skills Required Competitive Work Innovation Required Dealing with Angry People Time Pressure (Deadlines) Jobs scoring high (the traits listed here should predict behavior in these jobs) Air traffic controller Clergy Coach/scout Actor Correctional officer Accountant Therapist Financial manager Systems analyst Telemarketer Broadcast news analyst Legal secretary Concierge Sales representative Advertising writer Flight attendant Editor Airline pilot Jobs scoring low (the traits listed here should not predict behavior in these jobs) Forester Software engineer Postal clerk Court reporter Composer Masseuse Pump operator Historian Archivist Biologist Skincare specialist Mathematician Model Broadcast technician Nuclear reactor operator Medical technician Statistician Fitness trainer Jobs that score high activate these traits (make them more relevant to predicting behavior) Conscientiousness (+) Extraversion (+) Agreeableness (+) Extraversion (+) Agreeableness (–) Openness (+) Extraversion (+) Agreeableness (+) Neuroticism (–) Conscientiousness (+) Neuroticism (–) Exhibit 5-2 Trait Activation Theory: Jobs in Which Certain Big Five Traits Are More Relevant Note: A plus (+) sign means individuals who score high on this trait should do better in this job. A minus (−) sign means individuals who score low on this trait should do better in this job. M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 74 16/09/16 11:25 AM Chapter 5   • Personality and Values 75 Values Having discussed personality traits, we now turn to values. Values are often very specific and describe belief systems rather than behavioral tendencies. Some beliefs or values reflect a person’s personality, but we don’t always act consistently with our values. Is capital punishment right or wrong? Is a desire for power good or bad? The answers to these questions are value-laden. Values represent basic convictions that “a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence.”76 Values contain a judgmental element because they carry an individual’s ideas about what is right, good, or desirable. They have both content and intensity attributes. The content attribute says a mode of conduct or end-state of existence is important. The intensity attribute specifies how important it is. When we rank values in terms of intensity, we obtain that person’s value system. We all have a hierarchy of values according to the relative importance we assign to values such as freedom, pleasure, self-respect, honesty, obedience, and equality. Values tend to be relatively stable and enduring.77 Values lay the foundation for understanding attitudes and motivation, and they influence our perceptions. We enter an organization with preconceived notions of what “ought” and “ought not” to be. These notions contain our interpretations of right and wrong and our preferences for certain behaviors or outcomes. Regardless of whether they clarify or bias our judgment, our values influence our attitudes and behaviors at work. While values can sometimes augment decision making, at times they can cloud objectivity and rationality.78 Suppose you enter an organization with the view that allocating pay on the basis of performance is right, while allocating pay on the basis of seniority is wrong. How will you react if you find the organization you’ve just joined rewards seniority and not performance? You’re likely to be disappointed—this can lead to job dissatisfaction and a decision not to exert a high level of effort because “It’s probably not going to lead to more money anyway.” Would your attitudes and behavior be different if your values aligned with the organization’s pay policies? Most likely. Values Basic convictions that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. Value system A hierarchy based on a ranking of an individual’s values in terms of their intensity. Watch It If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab .com to complete the video exercise titled Honest Tea: Ethics—Company Mission and Values. Terminal versus Instrumental Values How can we organize values? One researcher—Milton Rokeach—argued that we can sepa...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Conflict, Negotiation and Personality types
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
November 23, 2018

Conflict, Negotiation and Personality type
Summary
Conflict refers to the point in an ongoing activity when there is a disagreement during an
interaction. Conflict is divided into types according to their effects. The types include functional
conflict and dysfunctional conflict. Functional conflict supports the goals of the group hence
improving group performance. Dysfunctional conflict hinders the progress of the group. Conflict
can also be categorized into types depending on the cause of the conflict. These include
relationship conflict, task conflict and process conflict. Relationship conflict focuses on
interpersonal conflict. Rela...


Anonymous
Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags