What are the two types of personal power?
Personal power comes from unique characteristics (not formal power).
Expert power comes from one’s experiences, skills or knowledge. As we gain experience in particular areas, and become thought leaders in those areas, we begin to gather expert power that can be utilized to get others to help us meet our goals. For example, the Project Manager who is an expert at solving particularly challenging problems to ensure a project stays on track.
- Expert Power - is influence wielded as a result of expertise, special skill or knowledge. As jobs become specialized, we become increasingly dependent on experts to achieve goals.
- Examples: Doctors, computer techs
- So what? Can hoard power, knowledge translation, irreplaceable
- Referent Power is based on identification with a person who has desirable resources or personal traits. Referent power develops out of admiration and a desire to be like that person.
- Examples: Celebrities in commercials
- So what? Interpersonal skills, people who will vouch for you
- Referent power comes from being trusted and respected. We can gain referent power when others trust what we do and respect us for how we handle situations. For example, the Human Resource Associate who is known for ensuring employees are treated fairly and coming to the rescue of those who are not.
What are the three types of formal power?
Formal power is based on an individual's position in the organization. It can come from the ability to coerce, reward or from formal authority.
depends on fear of the negative results from failing to comply. It rests on the application, or the threat of application of physical sanctions such as the infliction of pain, frustration thought restriction of movement or the controlling of force of basic physiological or safety needs.
At the organizational level, A has coercive power over B if A can dismiss, suspend, or demote B, assuming B values his or her job. If A can assign B work activities B finds unpleasant, or treat B in a manner B finds embarrassing, A possesses coercive power over B. Coercive power can also come from withholding key information. People in an organization who have data or knowledge others need can make those others dependent on them.
Coercive power is conveyed through fear of losing one’s job, being demoted, receiving a poor performance review, having prime projects taken away, etc. This power is gotten through threatening others. For example, the VP of Sales who threatens sales folks to meet their goals or get replaced.
Reward power is conveyed through rewarding individuals for compliance with one’s wishes. This may be done through giving bonuses, raises, a promotion, extra time off from work, etc. For example, the supervisor who provides employees comp time when they meet an objective she sets for a project.
- Reward Power The opposite of coercive power is reward power, with which people comply because it produces positive benefits; someone who can distribute rewards others view as valuable will have power over them. These rewards can be either financial—such as controlling pay rates, raises, and bonuses—or nonfinancial, including recognition, promotions, interesting work assignments,
- friendly colleagues, and preferred work shifts or sales territories.7
- Legitimate Power In formal groups and organizations, probably the most common access to one or more of the power bases is through legitimate power. It represents the formal authority to control and use organizational resources
- based on structural position in the organization.
Legitimate power is broader than the power to coerce and reward. Specifically, it includes members’ acceptance of the authority of a position. We associate power so closely with the concept of hierarchy that just drawing longer lines in an organization chart leads people to infer the leaders are especially powerful, and when a powerful executive is described, people tend to put the person at a higher position when drawing an organization chart.8 When school principals, bank presidents, or army captains speak (assuming their directives are viewed as within the authority of their positions), teachers, tellers, and first lieutenants listen and usually comply.
Legitimate power comes from having a position of power in an organization, such as being the boss or a key member of a leadership team. This power comes when employees in the organization recognize the authority of the individual. For example, the CEO who determines the overall direction of the company and the resource needs of the company.
Which bases of power are most effective?
Research suggests pretty clearly that the personal sources of power are most effective. Both expert and referent power are positively related to employees’ satisfaction with supervision, their organizational commitment, and their performance, whereas reward and legitimate power seem to be unrelated to these outcomes. One source of formal power—coercive power—actually can backfire in that it is negatively related to employee satisfaction and commitment.9
Consider Steve Stoute’s company, Translation, which matches pop-star spokespersons with corporations that want to promote their brands. Stoute has paired Gwen Stefani with HP, Justin Timberlake with McDonald’s, Beyoncé Knowles with Tommy Hilfiger, and Jay-Z with Reebok. Stoute’s business seems to be all about referent power. His firm’s work aims to use the credibility of these artists and performers to reach youth culture.10 In other words, people buy products associated with cool figures because they wish to identify with and emulate them.
Explain the importance of the different power bases (the "so what" question).
COERCIVE POWER.Coercive power rests in the ability of a manager to force an employee to comply with an order through the threat of punishment. Coercive power typically leads to short-term compliance, but in the long-run produces dysfunctional behavior.
Coercion reduces employees' satisfaction with their jobs, leading to lack of commitment and general employee withdrawal. In the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, coercive power has seen a decline in the last 50 years. Several reasons contribute to this, ranging from the legal erosion of employment-at-will and the awareness of employee violence or other forms of retaliatory behavior.Equally important as an effect on the receding popularity of coercion as a basis of power has been the influence of quality management theorists, such as Philip Crosby and W. Edwards Deming. They suggested that there is a decline in productivity and creativity when coercive power is employed. The use of coercive power results in an atmosphere of insecurity or fear. In spite of this insight, coercion as a base of power continues to play a role even in those organizations influenced by theories of quality management.In times of economic crisis or threats to the survival of the organization at large, coercion may come to the forefront. Coercive power may also materialize as organizations attempt to streamline their operations for maximum efficiency. If employees must be fired, those who fail to conform to the organizational goals for survival will be the most likely candidates for termination. The threat of termination for failure to comply, in turn, is coercive power.
LEGITIMATE POWER.Legitimate power rests in the belief among employees that their manager has the right to give orders based on his or her position. For example, at the scene of a crime, people usually comply with the orders of a uniformed police officer based simply on their shared belief that he or she has the predetermined authority to give such orders. In a corporate setting, employees comply with the orders of a manager who relies on legitimate power based on the position in the organizational hierarchy that the manager holds. Yet, although employees may comply based on legitimate power, they may not feel a sense of commitment or cooperation.
REWARD POWER.Reward power, as the name implies, rests on the ability of a manager to give some sort of reward to employees. These rewards can range from monetary compensation to improved work schedules. Reward power often does not need monetary or other tangible compensation to work when managers can convey various intangible benefits as rewards.Huey describes Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as an active user of reward power. Walton relies heavily on these intangible awards, indicating that "nothing else can quite substitute for a few well-chosen, well-timed, sincere words of praise. They are absolutely free-and worth a fortune".When reward power is used in a flexible manner, it can prove to be a strong motivator, as Crosby, Deming, and others have shown. Still, when organizations rely too rigidly on rewards, the system can backfire. Employees may be tempted to unethically or even illegally meet the quotas to which overly rigid reward systems may be tied.Another problem associated with rewards as a base for power is the possibility that the rewards will divert employees' attention from their jobs and focus their attention instead on the rewards dangled before them.
REFERENT POWER.Referent power derives from employees' respect for a manager and their desire to identify with or emulate him or her. In referent power, the manager leads by example. Referent power rests heavily on trust. It often influences employees who may not be particularly aware that they are modeling their behavior on that of the manager and using what they presume he or she would do in such a situation as a point of reference.The concept of empowerment in large part rests on referent power. Referent power may take considerable time to develop and thus may not prove particularly effective in a workforce with a rapid turnover of personnel.One common error in applying referent power in cross-cultural situations, however, comes in misunderstanding the ways in which employees identify with their superiors. Since identification with one's superior in the United States is hampered by symbols of legitimate power (for example, titles or dress), those who advocate its use encourage managers to dress down to the level of their employees and use terms such as "facilitator" and "coach" coupled with "associates" and "group members" rather than "boss" and "subordinates."In societies such as Argentina or Mexico, symbols of legitimate power may not readily hamper identification, whereas American-style egalitarianism may diminish the respect employees feel for the manager. In short, U.S. employees are likely to identify with managers by personally liking them and feeling liked in return, whereas Argentine and Mexican employees are likely to identify with managers by respecting them and feeling respected in return. Thus, referent power may be more cross-culturally variable than the other four bases of power laid out by French and Raven.Imberman describes how specialized training is now used in the grocery industry to train Latino immigrants in the democratic supervisory techniques of U.S. managers. In the past, when these men and women were promoted to supervisory positions, they tended to rely heavily on the Latino model of authoritarianism under which they were raised. The managerial style hindered their ability to effectively supervise employees or to garner the respect they were seeking. To remedy this situation, specialized training programs are now utilized. The end result is effective and confident supervisors, motivated workers, higher productivity, less waste, and better customer service.
EXPERT POWER.Expert power rests on the belief of employees that an individual has a particularly high level of knowledge or highly specialized skill set. Managers may be accorded authority based on the perception of their greater knowledge of the tasks at hand than their employees.Interestingly, in expert power, the superior may not rank higher than the other persons in a formal sense. Thus, when an equipment repair person comes to the CEO's office to fix a malfunctioning piece of machinery, no question exists that the CEO outranks the repair person; yet regarding the specific task of getting the machine operational, the CEO is likely to follow the orders of the repair person.Expert power has within it a built-in point of weakness: as a point of power, expertise diminishes as knowledge is shared. If a manager shares knowledge or skill instruction with his or her employees, in time they will acquire a similar knowledge base or skill set. As the employees grow to equal the manager's knowledge or skills, their respect for the superiority of his expertise diminishes.The result is either that the manager's authority diminishes or that the manager intentionally chooses not to share his or her knowledge base or skill set with the employees. The former choice weakens the manager's authority over time, while the latter weakens the organization's effectiveness over time.
What are the different situational leadership styles?
S1: Telling - is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, why, when and where to do the task;
S2: Selling - while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socio-emotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process;
S3: Participating - this is how shared decision-making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing fewer task behaviours while maintaining high relationship behavior;
S4: Delegating - the leader is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress
What are the maturity levels of teams, in situational leadership?
M1 -Unable and Insecure. They still lack the specific skills required for the job in hand and are unable and unwilling to do or to take responsibility for this job or task. (According to Ken Blanchard "The honeymoon is over")
M2 - Unable but willing. They are unable to take on responsibility for the task being done; however, they are willing to work at the task. They are novice but enthusiastic.
M3 Capable but unwilling- They are experienced and able to do the task but lack the confidence or the willingness to take on responsibility.
M4 - Capable and willing. They are experienced at the task, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. They are able and willing to not only do the task, but to take responsibility for the task.
If a team is M1 - Unable and Insecure, which leadership style should be used?
- is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, why, when and where to do the task;
- This leadership approach is most appropriate when the followers have low willingness and low ability for the task at hand. When the followers cannot do the job and
- are unwilling or afraid to try, then the leader must take a highly directive role. Directing requires those in charge to define the roles and tasks of the followers, and supervise them closely. Decisions are made by those in charge and communication is one-way. If the leader focused more on the relationship in this situation, the followers would become confused about what must be
- done and what is optional. Directing is often used when the issue is serious or comes with drastic consequences if not successful. The leader maintains a directive position to ensure all required actions are completed.
If a team is M2 - Unable but Willing, which leadership style should be used?
- while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socio-emotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process;
- This leadership approach is most appropriate when the followers have high willingness but low ability for the task at hand. Like Directing, Coaching still requires leaders to define roles and tasks clearly, but the leader seeks ideas and suggestions from the follower. Decisions remain the leader's prerogative, but communication is much more two-way. Followers needing coaching require direction and supervision because they are still relatively
- inexperienced, but they also need support and praise to build their self-esteem, and involvement in decision-making to restore their commitment. While Coaching, the leader spends time listening, advising, and helping the follower gain necessary skills in order to do the task autonomously
- next time.
If a team is M3 - Capable but Unwilling, which leadership style should be used?
- this is how shared decision-making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing fewer task behaviours while maintaining high relationship behavior;
- This leadership approach is most appropriate when the followers have low willingness but high ability for the task at hand. Supportive leadership works when the follower can do the job, but is refusing to do it or showing a lack of commitment. The leader need not worry about showing them what to do, but instead should be concerned with finding out why the followers are refusing and work to persuade them to cooperate. The key to supportive leadership is motivating and building confidence in people! Clarification on the details of the process won’t matter, as the follower already knows what to do but lacks the motivation to act. Supportive leadership involves listening, giving praise and making the followers feel good when
- they show the necessary commitments for success.
If a team is M4 - Capable and willing, which leadership style should be used?
S4: Delegating - the leader is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.
Leaders should rely on delegating when the follower can do the job and is motivated to do it. There is a high amount of trust that the follower will do well, and the follower requires little supervision or support.
Delegating still keeps the leader involved in the decisions and problem-solving, but execution is mostly in the hands of the followers. Because the follower has the most control, he is responsible for communicating information back up to the leader. Followers at this level have less need for support or frequent praise, although as with anyone, occasional recognition is always encouraged.
Why is it important to match the correct leadership style to the team's maturity level?
A good leader develops "the competence and commitment of their people so they’re self-motivated rather than dependent on others for direction and guidance." According to Hersey's book, a leader’s high, realistic expectation causes high performance of followers; a leader’s low expectations lead to low performance of followers. According to Ken Blanchard, "Four combinations of competence and commitment make up what we call 'development level.'"
Since the number one reason good talent leaves is her or she is not growing, and number two is the boss, it is better to delegate whenever possible. Raise the bar, raise the results. The more people grow, the more engaged they become. They more engaged they become, the more you can delegate. It’s a nice, self-feeding circle.Different situations call for flexibility. Whether it’s hands off, hands on, or situational engagement, the willingness of the leader to adapt his or her style to the needs of the situation and propulsion of the people is paramount.
Situational Leadership has all the more relevance when teams work together especially across functions or locations. In these cases the team members might be physically separated from the leaders and the work situations might rapidly change, in such cases, maintaining the involvement and motivation level of team members becomes important. To create a high performance team that works effectively, the style that the leader would have to choose may be unique for each team.Apart from this, a leader has to provide a vision to the people; it is the visions which help them direct and redirect their efforts towards it. In the recent times where changes are rapid in the organizations, the leaders have to be fully sensitized to what style would work the best, sometimes they might have to use a combination of styles to address issues effectively. For e.g. for a new change that is being introduced, the initial approach has to be Selling, where people are educated about the change, the next step becomes Telling, where the people have to be instructed as to how the change would be carried out. When the change starts settling in and people adopt it, they style can become Participating, where the people get an opportunity to partner in the change and take it ahead. The last change would then become delegating when the change can now be carried on by the others. The ultimate aim of any leader is to smoothly arrive at a stage where he/she can easily delegate tasks without worrying about its completion or effectiveness.
How can you assess a team's able and willingness?
- -Review targets - did they achieve their goal?
- -Was there conflict in the project?
- -Informal conversations/engagements
- -Look at absence/employee turnover (indicator of unhappy employees)
- - Regular office walk-abouts
- -Is this a new project, or have they done something similar before?
- Potential tools to identify team willingness and ability:- Lesson Learned meetings after project completions to identify weak areas/lessons for next time
- -Performance reviews or monthly 1:1 where employees can bring up issues/ability for manager to assess capability/areas for growth
- -Look at targets - For projects/etc
- -Look at stage of team - Forming, Storming, norming and performing.
What are some examples of Expert Power and Referent Power in your life?
-At work... Being a Learning Consultant - when I'm consulting on a project, people rely on me and listen to me as I have the knowledge and experience with learning methodology. Executives listen and follow recommendations and rely on this knowledge. This is because of my credentials, track record and training.
-At work... Technical troubleshooting. Currently, I am the only one in my department with an IMIT background. If something breaks, people call me and I provide advice and expertise based on what to do next.
At work... Selling a lot of tickets for IMIT fundraising. I was selected to be an elf for IMIT which means I would go around and ask people to buy tickets for a raffle. I would always pull in a lot more than others, even from people who declined to buy tickets from other people.
Telehealth recruitment - I was able to recruit a lot of physicians and nurses and administrative staff to take on Telehealth. For example, at VGH or at RJH clinic, both which had no requirement to embrace Telehealth. Similar to HW109A. They just did it because I formed a relationship with them.
What are some examples of coercive power, reward power and legitimate power in your life?
Coercive Power... at home... spanking my dogs if they rip up their bed.
Coercive Power... at Drew's work (military)... Necessary for strict employee discipline - demotion, being "charged" if someone doesn't listen to orders - the chain of command is extremely important. This is important for maintaining employee discipline. People need to listen and follow orders.
Reward Power ... at home... Giving $$ for chores to little ones, or treats to dogs when they do a trick correctly.
Reward Power... at work... I am given a raise if my performance review shows growth and "compliance" to organizational values, I am given a scholarship if managers think I deserve it, same with educational events and opportunities.
Legitimate Power... at work... I am in a senior role, and have task to manage several employees. I have the legitimate power to ask them to do things a certain way (e.g. start/end times, tasks, performance).
Legitimate Power... at home... I am currently a landlord and home owner, and have the legitimate power to make decisions about the household operations (e.g. renting, construction, if pets are allowed, etc).
What are the nine influence tactics?
Rational persuasion... Presenting Logical Arguments and factual evidence to demonstrate a request is reasonable. Rational Persuasion includes using facts, data, and logical arguments to try to convince others that your point of view is the best alternative. This is the most commonly applied influence tactic. One experiment illustrates the power of reason. People were lined up at a copy machine and another person, after joining the line asked, “May I go to the head of the line?” Amazingly, 63% of the people in the line agreed to let the requester jump ahead. When the line jumper makes a slight change in the request by asking, “May I go to the head of the line because I have copies to make?” the number of people who agreed jumped to over 90%. The word because was the only difference. Effective rational persuasion includes the presentation of factual information that is clear and specific, relevant, and timely. Across studies summarized in a meta-analysis, rationality was related to positive work outcomes.
Inspirational appeals - Developing emotional commitment by appealing to a target's values, needs, hopes and aspirations. seek to tap into our values, emotions, and beliefs to gain support for a request or course of action. When President John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” he appealed to the higher selves of an entire nation. Effective inspirational appeals are authentic, personal, big-thinking, and enthusiastic.
Consultation - Increasing the target's support by involving him or her and deciding how you will accomplish your plan. refers to the influence agent’s asking others for help in directly influencing or planning to influence another person or group. Consultation is most effective in organizations and cultures that value democratic decision making.
Ingratiation - Using flattery, praise or friendly behaviour prior to a request. Ingratiation refers to different forms of making others feel good about themselves. Ingratiation includes any form of flattery done either before or during the influence attempt. Research shows that ingratiation can affect individuals. For example, in a study of résumés, those résumés that were accompanied with a cover letter containing ingratiating information were rated higher than résumés without this information. Other than the cover letter accompanying them, the résumés were identical. Effective ingratiation is honest, infrequent, and well intended.Personal appeal refers to helping another person because you like them and they asked for your help. We enjoy saying yes to people we know and like. A famous psychological experiment showed that in dorms, the most well-liked people were those who lived by the stairwell—they were the most often seen by others who entered and left the hallway. The repeated contact brought a level of familiarity and comfort. Therefore, personal appeals are most effective with people who know and like you.
Exchange - Rewarding the target with benefits or favors in exchange for following a request. Exchange refers to give-and-take in which someone does something for you, and you do something for them in return. The rule of reciprocation says that “we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us.” The application of the rule obliges us and makes us indebted to the giver. One experiment illustrates how a small initial gift can open people to a substantially larger request at a later time. One group of subjects was given a bottle of Coke. Later, all subjects were asked to buy raffle tickets. On the average, people who had been given the drink bought twice as many raffle tickets as those who had not been given the unsolicited drinks.
Coalition tactics - Enlisting the aid or suport of others to persuade the target to agree. Coalition tactics refer to a group of individuals working together toward a common goal to influence others. Common examples of coalitions within organizations are unions that may threaten to strike if their demands are not met. Coalitions also take advantage of peer pressure. The influencer tries to build a case by bringing in the unseen as allies to convince someone to think, feel, or do something. A well-known psychology experiment draws upon this tactic. The experimenters stare at the top of a building in the middle of a busy street. Within moments, people who were walking by in a hurry stop and also look at the top of the building, trying to figure out what the others are looking at. When the experimenters leave, the pattern continues, often for hours. This tactic is also extremely popular among advertisers and businesses that use client lists to promote their goods and services. The fact that a client bought from the company is a silent testimonial.Pressure refers to exerting undue influence on someone to do what you want or else something undesirable will occur. This often includes threats and frequent interactions until the target agrees. Research shows that managers with low referent power tend to use pressure tactics more frequently than those with higher referent power.
Pressure - Using warnings, repeated demands and threats. Pressure tactics are most effective when used in a crisis situation and when they come from someone who has the other’s best interests in mind, such as getting an employee to an employee assistance program to deal with a substance abuse problem.
Legitimating tactics - Relying on your authority position or saying a requests accords with organizational policies or rules. Legitimating tactics occur when the appeal is based on legitimate or position power. “By the power vested in me…”: This tactic relies upon compliance with rules, laws, and regulations. It is not intended to motivate people but to align them behind a direction. Obedience to authority is filled with both positive and negative images. Position, title, knowledge, experience, and demeanor grant authority, and it is easy to see how it can be abused. If someone hides behind people’s rightful authority to assert themselves, it can seem heavy-handed and without choice. You must come across as an authority figure by the way you act, speak, and look. Think about the number of commercials with doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who look and sound the part, even if they are actors. People want to be convinced that the person is an authority worth heeding. Authority is often used as a last resort. If it does not work, you will not have much else to draw from in your goal to persuade someone.
Personal appeals. Asking for compliance based on friendship or loyalty.
What preferred power tactics have a downward influence?
- Rational Persuasion
- Inspirational appeals
As Exhibit 13-1 shows, rational persuasion is the only tactic effective across organizational levels. Inspirational appeals work best as a downward-influencing tactic with subordinates. When pressure works, it’s generally downward only. Personal appeals and coalitions are most effective as lateral influence. Other factors that affect the effectiveness of influence include the sequencing of tactics, a person’s skill in using the tactic, and the organizational culture.
- You’re more likely to be effective if you begin with “softer” tactics that rely on personal power, such as personal and inspirational appeals, rational persuasion, and consultation. If these fail, you can move to “harder” tactics, such as exchange, coalitions, and pressure, which emphasize formal power and incur greater costs and risks.23 Interestingly, a single soft tactic is more effective
- than a single hard tactic, and combining two soft tactics or a soft tactic and rational persuasion is more effective than any single tactic or combination of
- hard tactics.24 The effectiveness of tactics depends on the audience.25 People especially likely to comply with soft power tactics tend to be more reflective and
- intrinsically motivated; they have high self-esteem and greater desire for control. Those likely to comply with hard power tactics are more action-oriented
- and extrinsically motivated and are more focused on getting along with others than on getting their own way.
What power tactics have lateral influence?
- Rational Persuasion
- Personal Appeals
As Exhibit 13-1 shows, rational persuasion is the only tactic effective across organizational levels. Inspirational appeals work best as a downward-influencing tactic with subordinates. When pressure works, it’s generally downward only. Personal appeals and coalitions are most effective as lateral influence. Other factors that affect the effectiveness of influence include the sequencing of tactics, a person’s skill in using the tactic, and the organizational culture.You’re more likely to be effective if you begin with “softer” tactics that rely on personal power, such as personal and inspirational appeals, rational persuasion, and consultation. If these fail, you can move to “harder” tactics, such as exchange, coalitions, and pressure, which emphasize formal power and incur greater costs and risks.23 Interestingly, a single soft tactic is more effectivethan a single hard tactic, and combining two soft tactics or a soft tactic and rational persuasion is more effective than any single tactic or combination ofhard tactics.24 The effectiveness of tactics depends on the audience.25 People especially likely to comply with soft power tactics tend to be more reflective and intrinsically motivated; they have high self-esteem and greater desire for control. Those likely to comply with hard power tactics are more action-orientedand extrinsically motivated and are more focused on getting along with others than on getting their own way.
What are the five conflict management styles?
Accommodating – This is when you cooperate to a high-degree, and it may be at your own expense, and actually work against your own goals, objectives, and desired outcomes. This approach is effective when the other party is the expert or has a better solution. It can also be effective for preserving future relations with the other party.
The accommodating approach emphasizes cooperation instead of assertiveness. A person places his interests last and allows the other party to further her interests. The accommodating approach often occurs when a party is not significantly invested in securing a victory, because he does not perceive the alternative option as a significant threat.
Avoiding – This is when you simply avoid the issue. You aren’t helping the other party reach their goals, and you aren’t assertively pursuing your own. This works when the issue is trivial or when you have no chance of winning. It can also be effective when the issue would be very costly. It’s also very effective when the atmosphere is emotionally charged and you need to create some space. Sometimes issues will resolve themselves, but “hope is not a strategy”, and, in general, avoiding is not a good long term strategy.Collaborating – This is where you partner or pair up with the other party to achieve both of your goals. This is how you break free of the “win-lose” paradigm and seek the “win-win.” This can be effective for complex scenarios where you need to find a novel solution. This can also mean re-framing the challenge to create a bigger space and room for everybody’s ideas. The downside is that it requires a high-degree of trust and reaching a consensus can require a lot of time and effort to get everybody on board and to synthesize all the ideas.
Avoiding conflict involves one of the conflicted parties avoiding communicating about or confronting the problem, hoping it will go away. By not participating in the problem-solving process, she is effectively removing herself from it. When employing this approach, the conflict might go away if the other party doesn't press for a resolution. The underlying differences between the parties are never resolved.
Competing – This is the “win-lose” approach. You act in a very assertive way to achieve your goals, without seeking to cooperate with the other party, and it may be at the expense of the other party. This approach may be appropriate for emergencies when time is of the essence, or when you need quick, decisive action, and people are aware of and support the approach.
The confrontation style to conflict resolution entails the party placing his desires above those of all others involved in the conflict. Assertiveness is the hallmark of this approach, and those employing this style of negotiation aim to address the conflict head-on. It might involve high levels of emotions as the parties establish positions in what can sometimes evolve into hostile communications.
Compromising – This is the “lose-lose” scenario where neither party really achieves what they want. This requires a moderate level of assertiveness and cooperation. It may be appropriate for scenarios where you need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important goals. The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out, when collaborating would produce a better solution.By knowing your own default patterns you improve your self-awareness. Once you are aware of your own patterns, you can pay attention to whether they are working for you and you can explore alternatives.
Bargaining is the hallmark of the compromise approach to conflict resolution. The conflicting parties can identify some interests they are willing to compromise on to bring about a resolution. While the emotional level might still be high, the compromise style sometimes results in interim solutions when a full resolution is not immediately possible. Parties might reach a settlement to prevent further escalation of the conflict.
What are some important variables to picking the appropriate conflict management style?
is an important variable--if there were never any time pressures, collaboration might always be the best approach to use.
If time is precious and if you have enough power to impose your will, forcing is more appropriate.
Realize that you might need to repair the relationship after using a forcing strategy if the other party feels that you did not show adequate consideration for their concerns. Again, collaborating is normally the best strategy for handling conflicts over important issues.
Issue importance - the
extent to which important priorities, principles or values are involved in the conflict.
When you find yourself in conflict over very important issues, you should normally try to collaborate with the other party. When dealing with moderately important issues, compromising can often lead to quick solutions. However, compromise does not completely satisfy either party, and compromise does not foster innovation the way that taking the time to collaborate can. So, collaborating is a better approach to dealing with very important issues.
- When you find yourself in conflict over a fairly unimportant issue, using an accommodating strategy is a quick way to resolve the conflict without straining your relationship with the other party. Collaborating is also an option, but it might not be worth the time.
- Avoiding should normally be reserved for situations where there is a clear advantage to waiting to resolve the conflict. Too often, interpersonal conflicts persist and even worsen if there is no attempt to resolve them. Avoiding is appropriate if you are too busy with more important concerns and if your relationship with the other party is unimportant.
- how important it is that you maintain a close, mutually supportive relationship with the other party.
Relative power -
how much power you have compared to how much power other party has.
When should you avoid conflict?
- • When an issue is unimportant or when other, more important issues are pressing
- • When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns—for example, when you have low power
- or you are frustrated by something that would be very difficult to change
- • When the potential costs of confronting a conflict outweigh the benefits of its resolution
- • When you need to let people cool down—to reduce tensions to a productive level and to regain
- perspective and composure
- • When gathering more information outweighs the advantages of an immediate decision
- • When others can resolve the issue more effectively
- • When the issue seems tangential or symptomatic of another, more basic issue
Avoiding should normally be reserved for situations where there is a clear advantage to waiting to resolve the conflict
. Too often, interpersonal conflicts persist and even worsen if there is no attempt to resolve them. Avoiding is appropriate if you are too busy with more important concerns and if your relationship with the other party is unimportant.
Avoiding or withdrawing from a conflict requires no courage or consideration for the other party. By avoiding the conflict, you essentially pretend that it never happened or doesn’t exist. Some examples of avoidance or withdrawal include pretending there is nothing wrong, stonewalling or completely shutting down.
When should you use the accomodating conflict management style?
- When you realize that you are wrong—to allow a better solution to be considered, to learn from
- others, and to show that you are reasonable
- • When the issue is much more important to the other person than it is to you—to satisfy the needs
- of others and as a goodwill gesture to help maintain a cooperative relationship
- • When you want to build up social credits for later issues that are important to you
- • When you are outmatched and losing and more competition would only damage your cause
- • When preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important
- • When you want to help your employees develop by allowing them to experiment and learn from
- their mistakes
When you find yourself in conflict over a fairly unimportant issue, using an accommodating strategy is a quick way to resolve the conflict without straining your relationship with the other party. Collaborating is also an option, but it might not be worth the time.
Giving in or accommodating the other party requires a lot of cooperation and little courage. Basically, you agree to accommodate the other party by acknowledging and accepting his point of view or suggestion. This style might be viewed as letting the other party have his way. While this style can lead to making peace and moving forward, it can also lead to the accommodator feeling resentment toward the other party
When should you use the collaborating conflict managements style?
When you find yourself in conflict over very important issues, you should normally try to collaborate with the other party. But, if time is precious and if you have enough power to impose your will, forcing is more appropriate. Realize that you might need to repair the relationship after using a forcing strategy if the other party feels that you did not show adequate consideration for their concerns. Again, collaborating is normally the best strategy for handling conflicts over important issues.
Collaboration plays a major role within conflict resolution and requires great courage and much consideration. Collaborating with the other party involves listening to their side, discussing areas of agreement and goals, and ensuring that all parties understand each other. Collaboration requires thinking creatively to resolve the problem without concessions. Collaborators are usually admired and well-respected.
What are some goals of the Conflict Management Style (Thomas + Killman) assessment?
- To know your personal profile - so you are aware of your personal tendencies and to know what you tend to use the most. This is important because it will allow you to see it, name it, and make a decision about if if you keep doing it.
- To know the profile of others. This helps you understand others and help you manage it.
- Helps you develop all 5 styles and learn which style to use in which situation
When should you use the competing conflict management style?
- • When quick, decisive action is vital—for example, in an emergency
- • On important issues when unpopular courses of action need implementing—for example, cost
- cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline
- • On issues vital to company welfare when you know you’re right
- • When you need to protect yourself from people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior
When should you use the compromising conflict management style?
- • When goals are moderately important but not worth the effort or the potential disruption involved
- in using more assertive modes
- • When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals—as in
- labor–management bargaining
- • When you want to achieve a temporary settlement of a complex issue
- • When you need to arrive at an expedient solution under time pressure
- • As a backup mode when collaboration or competition fails
When should you use the collaborating conflict management style?
- When you need to find an integrative solution and the concerns of both parties are too important to
- be compromised
- • When your objective is to learn and you wish to test your assumptions and understand others’
- • When you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem
- • When you want to gain commitment by incorporating others’ concerns into a consensual decision
- • When you need to work through hard feelings that have been interfering with a relationship
What are the two types of bargaining?
Distributive bargaining is the approach to bargaining or negotiation that is used when the parties are trying to divide something up--distribute something. It contrasts with integrative bargaining in which the parties are trying to make more of something. This is most commonly explained in terms of a pie.
Distributive bargaining is important because there are some disputes that cannot be solved in any other way -- they are inherently zero-sum. If the stakes are high, such conflicts can be very resistant to resolution. For example, if budgets in a government agency must be cut 30 percent, and people's jobs are at stake, a decision about what to cut is likely to be very difficult. If the cuts are small enough that the impact on employees will be minor, however, such distributive decisions can be made more easily.
Integrative BargainingIntegrative bargaining (also called "interest-based bargaining," "win-win bargaining") is a negotiation strategy in which parties collaborate to find a "win-win" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants.
- Integrative bargaining is important because it usually produces more satisfactory outcomes for the parties involved than does positional bargaining. Positional bargaining is based on fixed, opposing viewpoints (positions) and tends to result in compromise or no agreement at all. Oftentimes, compromises do not efficiently satisfy the true interests of the disputants. Instead, compromises simply split the difference between the two positions, giving each side half of what they want. Creative, integrative solutions, on the other hand, can potentially give everyone all of what they want.
What are some challenges that union and management might face in the bargaining zone?
Different agendas for bargaining - different expectations/hopes Expectations of collective bargaining....Collective bargaining is affected by different factors, such as political decentralisation, as well as innovation in products and processes; however, these factors have led to some confusion among the social partners. One of the main issues in collective bargaining is the choice between centralized and decentralised bargaining. In general, trade unions are more likely to favour centralisation as it tends to strengthen the position of workers. At the same time, the amplitude of the scale of bargaining promotes greater labour market coverage, employment and also equality in wages and working conditions. On the other hand, employer organisations tend to prefer company-level agreements, although the situation in Spain is more complicated as a whole.
Political/outside factors and influences (e.g. public perception
Emotions - decision making goes down/relationships go down... keeping relationships
Engaging everyone who needs to be engaged int eh conflict
Ensuring Collectivity...The primary challenges of collective bargaining lies in ensuring “collectivity." The collective bargaining takes place with a group of negotiators representing the management on one side, and another group representing the workers, usually the trade union, on the other side.
Resolving Core Issues...Even if a majority or all the workers accept the collective bargaining settlement, the underlying issues still need not be resolved. Collective bargaining is a “please all" settlement that aims to strike a compromise by identifying a common ground between two divergent positions. A settlement depends on acceptance by both parties, and neither party would agree to a settlement that requires them to give something with nothing in return, or agree to one-sided drastic changes, even when such an approach might the remedy to the issue.
Sustainability...Collective bargaining is a lengthy process and aims to effect a long-term agreement. This remains unsuited to the present day business environment, which remains in a constant state of flux. Businesses need to make frequent and fast changes in all aspects of their operations, including working conditions to respond to the challenges posed by such changes, and take advantage of emerging opportunities.
What are some problems and objectives of bargaining?
Negotiations appear to be highly fragmented, with a multiplicity of bargaining units. This makes it difficult to conclude agreements at different levels. The main problem in this case is usually the absence of bargaining at sectoral and state level.
Innovation in goods and services often leads to changes in productive activities, and to the emergence of new activities that replace the previous ones in a partial and misleading way. This sometimes gives rise to a diversification in collective bargaining, including overlaps and confusion.
The new productive context includes the emergence of new forms of business organisation and new relationships between companies – for example, in terms of networking and outsourcing. Work is often affected by different companies jointly or interdependently.
Sometimes, negotiations can be extended for an excessive period of time.