MGMT20001 · Organisational Behaviour
Conflict and Negotiation
Conflict is a process that begins when one party perceives another has frustrated, or is about to frustrate, something it cares about — and the unit's core nuance is that it cannot be eliminated, only managed. The flagship distinction is Jehn & Mannix’s (2001) three types: moderate task conflict can help decisions early; process conflict helps only in small doses; relationship conflict almost always harms. Conflict escalates through a process (sources → perception/emotion → manifest → outcomes), and the Thomas–Kilmann model maps five handling styles on assertiveness × cooperativeness — matched to the situation, not a favourite. Negotiation splits into distributive (claim a fixed pie) and integrative (expand it), with BATNA the key preparation concept, and third parties vary by who controls process vs outcome.
What this chapter covers
- 01Conflict defined — competing interests; managed, not eliminated
- 02Jehn & Mannix (2001): task / process / relationship conflict
- 03Sources of conflict & the four-stage conflict process
- 04Thomas–Kilmann: five handling styles on two axes
- 05Negotiation: distributive (claiming) vs integrative (creating) value
- 06BATNA, ZOPA, anchoring & concessions
- 07Third-party resolution: mediation (process) vs arbitration (outcome)
Worked example: pick the conflict-handling style
- +1Type: a disagreement about the content of the work (the range plan) is task conflict — useful if it stays impersonal.
- +1Locate on the axes: the issue matters to both and the relationship matters — high assertiveness, high cooperativeness.
- +1Choose collaborating: high–high points to collaborating / problem-solving — the only style that genuinely creates value.
- +1Why not forcing/avoiding: forcing (competing) makes buyers comply but disengage; avoiding lets the range plan drift — both leave value on the table.
- +1Reframe the interests: a signature capsule line (design) inside a fast, costed core range (buying) turns a win–lose fight into a shared problem.
Key terms
- Jehn & Mannix (2001) conflict types
- Task conflict (disagreement about the content of the work) can help decisions if moderate and early; process conflict (about how work gets done) helps only in small doses; relationship conflict (personal, emotional friction) almost always harms.
- Conflict process
- Sources (structural conditions) → perception & emotion → manifest behaviour → outcomes that loop back. Intervening early, at the source, is far cheaper than fighting a blown-up relationship.
- Thomas–Kilmann styles
- Five conflict-handling styles on assertiveness (my outcome) × cooperativeness (their outcome): competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, accommodating. Match the style to the situation, not a favourite.
- Distributive vs integrative negotiation
- Distributive divides a fixed pie (win–lose, positional, guard information); integrative trades across issues to enlarge the pie (win–win, interest-based, share information). Integrative suits ongoing, multi-issue relationships.
- BATNA
- Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement — your walk-away power. The better your BATNA, the stronger you bargain and the firmer the resistance point you can hold.
Conflict and Negotiation FAQ
Is all conflict bad?
No — that's the wrong answer the Module-1 myth quiz probes. It depends on the type and level: a team with zero task conflict often suffers groupthink, while moderate, depersonalised debate about the work improves decisions. What you defuse is relationship conflict, not disagreement itself.
When should I use each Thomas–Kilmann style?
Locate the scenario on two axes — how much you care about your outcome (assertiveness) and theirs/the relationship (cooperativeness). High–high → collaborate; high–low → compete; low–high → accommodate; low–low → avoid; mid–mid → compromise. Then justify with the situation.
Why isn't 'collaborating' always the best style?
It's the highest-value style but it costs time and goodwill and needs trust. For a trivial issue, avoiding is efficient; under severe time pressure with equal power, compromising is realistic; in a genuine emergency or on a non-negotiable ethical line, competing/forcing is correct. The exam rewards matching style to situation.
What is BATNA and why does it matter?
Your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement — the walk-away option. It sets your real bargaining power: a credible alternative (e.g. another supplier) lets you hold a firm resistance point. Pair it with ZOPA (the overlap of resistance points) and anchoring.
Exam move
Master the clean distinctions this topic is built on: Jehn & Mannix's three types (relationship harms; moderate task conflict helps early) and the rule that conflict is managed, not eliminated. For handling, locate the scenario on the assertiveness × cooperativeness axes and pick the Thomas–Kilmann style — then justify with the situation, never naming a favourite. For negotiation, tell distributive from integrative and define BATNA (plus ZOPA, anchoring, concessions). Run the define → apply → recommend spine on a scenario every time.
