Organizational behavior

498 PART 3 The Group Exhibit 14-1 Conflict and unit Performance (High) Unit Performance AB C (Low) Level of Conflict (High) Situation Level of Type of Unit’s Internal Unit Performance A Conflict Conflict Characteristics Outcome Low or Dysfunctional Apathetic Low none Stagnant Nonresponsive to change Lack of new ideas B Optimal Functional Viable High Self-critical Innovative Disruptive C High Dysfunctional Chaotic Low Uncooperative 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 func- tional. 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, there were factors of the conflict that could create a relationship between conflict and performance.4 One such factor was whether the conflict included top management or occurred lower in the organization. Task conflict among top management teams was positively associated with performance, whereas conflict lower in the orga- nization 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 con- flict were occurring at the same time. If task and relationship conflict occurred together, task conflict was more likely negative, whereas if task conflict occurred by itself, it more likely was positive. Also, some scholars have argued that the

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 499 dyadic conflict Conflict that occurs strength of conflict is important—if task conflict is very low, people aren’t really between two people. engaged or addressing the important issues. If task conflict is too high, however, infighting will quickly degenerate into relationship conflict. Moderate levels intragroup conflict Conflict that occurs of task conflict may thus be optimal. Supporting this argument, one study in within a group or team. China found that moderate levels of task conflict in the early development stage increased creativity in groups, but high levels decreased team performance.5 intergroup conflict Conflict between different groups or teams. Finally, the personalities of the teams appear to matter. One study demon- strated 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.6 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. What about process conflict? Researchers found that process conflicts are about delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around the perception of some members as shirking, and conflicts over roles can leave some group 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 task, relationship, and process conflict 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 nec- essarily 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 Under the leadership of George Zimmer as the founder and CEO of Men’s Warehouse and its advertising spokesman, the retailer grew into a multi-million-dollar firm with 1,143 stores. After retiring as CEO, Zimmer served as executive chairman of MW’s board until an intragroup conflict between him and other members resulted in his removal from the board. Source: Patrick Fallon/Bloomberg /Getty Images

500 PART 3 The Group influence performance within the team, it is important that the team has a supportive climate in which mistakes aren’t penalized and every team mem- ber “[has] the other’s back.”7 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 sup- ported members from another team? Probably not. In fact, if groups are com- peting with one another so that only one team can “win,” interteam 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.8 It may surprise you that individuals become most important in intergroup conflicts. One study that focused on intergroup conflict found an interplay between an individual’s position within a group and the way that individ- ual 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 group.9 Thus, being at the core of your workgroup does not necessarily make you the best person to manage conflict with other groups. Another intriguing question about loci is whether conflicts interact with or buffer one another. Assume, for example, that Jia and Marcus are on the same team. What happens if they don’t get along interpersonally (dyadic conflict) and their team also has high task conflict? Progress might be halted. What happens to their team if two other team members, Shawna and Justin, do get along well? The team might still be dysfunctional, or the positive relationship might prevail. Thus, 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 task, relationship, and process conflict 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. 14-2 Outline the conflict The Conflict Process process. The conflict process has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibil- conflict process A process that has five ity, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes (see stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, Exhibit 14-2). cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes. 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 con- ditions into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables. Communication Susan had worked in supply chain management at Bristol- Myers Squibb for three years. She enjoyed her work largely because her manager, Harry, was a great boss. Then Harry was promoted and Chuck took his place. Six months later, Susan says her job is frustrating. “Harry and I were

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 501 Exhibit 14-2 The Conflict Process Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V Intentions Behavior Outcomes Potential opposition Cognition and or incompatibility personalization Overt conflict Increased • Party’s group Antecedent conditions Perceived Conflict-handling • Communication conflict intentions behavior performance • Structure • Competing • Other’s • Personal variables Felt • Collaborating Decreased conflict • Compromising reaction group • Avoiding • Accommodating performance on the same wavelength. It’s not that way with Chuck. He tells me something, and I do it. Then he tells me I did it wrong. I think he means one thing but says something else. It’s been like this since the day he arrived. I don’t think a day goes by when he isn’t yelling at me for something. You know, there are some people you just find it easy to communicate with. Well, Chuck isn’t one of those!” Susan’s comments illustrate that communication can be a source of con- flict.10 Her experience represents the opposing forces that arise from seman- tic 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 con- flict. 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 Charlotte is a salesperson and Mercedes is the company credit man- ager at Portland Furniture Mart, a large discount furniture retailer. The women have known each other for years and have much in common: They live two blocks apart, and their oldest daughters attend the same middle school and are best friends. If Charlotte and Mercedes had different jobs, they might be friends, but at work they constantly disagree. Charlotte’s job is to sell furniture, and she does it well. Most of her sales are made on credit. Because Mercedes’s job is to minimize credit losses, she regularly has to turn down the credit appli- cations of Charlotte’s customers. It’s nothing personal between the women; the requirements of their jobs just bring them into conflict. The conflicts between Charlotte and Mercedes are structural in nature. 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 younger and when turnover is high. Personal Variables Have you ever met someone you immediately dis- liked? Perhaps you disagreed with most of his opinions. Even insignificant

502 PART 3 The Group characteristics—his voice, facial expressions, or word choice—may have an- noyed you. Sometimes our impressions are negative. When you have to work with people you don’t like, the potential for conflict arises. 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.11 Emotions can cause conflict even when they are not directed at oth- ers. An employee who shows up to work irate from her hectic morning com- mute may carry that anger into her workday, which can result in a tension-filled meeting.12 Furthermore, differences in preferences and values can generate higher 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 interper- sonal closeness, there was more relationship conflict; and when group members didn’t have similar desires for power, there was more conflict over status.13 perceived conflict Awareness by one or Stage II: Cognition and Personalization more parties of the existence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. If the conditions cited in Stage I negatively affect something one party cares about, then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized felt conflict Emotional involvement in in the second stage. a conflict that creates anxiety, tenseness, frustration, or hostility. 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 disagree- ment is a perceived conflict does not mean it is personalized. It is at the felt conflict level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that they experi- ence 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.14 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 competi- tive person. However, if our salary disagreement 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.15 Negative emotions allow us to oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpreta- tions on the other party’s behavior.16 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.17 intentions Decisions to act in a given way. Stage III: Intentions Intentions intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions, and their overt behavior. They are decisions to act in a given way.18 Intentions are a distinct stage because we have to infer the other’s intent to know how to respond to behavior. Many conflicts escalate simply because one party attributes the wrong intentions to the other. There is slippage between intentions and behavior, so behavior does not always accurately reflect a per- son’s intentions. Exhibit 14-3 represents one way to identify the primary conflict-handling intentions. Using two dimensions—assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns) and cooperativeness (the degree to

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 503 Exhibit 14-3 Dimensions of Conflict-handling Intentions Assertive Competing Collaborating Assertiveness Compromising Unassertive Avoiding Accommodating Uncooperative Cooperative Cooperativeness Source: Figure from “Conflict and Negotiation Processes in Organizations” by K. Thomas in M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2/e, vol. 3 (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1992), 668. Used with permission. which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s concerns)—we can iden- tify five conflict-handling intentions: competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncoopera- tive), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (midrange on both assertiveness and cooperativeness).19 competing A desire to satisfy one’s Competing When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests regardless interests, regardless of the impact on the of the impact on the other parties in the conflict, that person is competing. We other party to the conflict. are more apt to compete when resources are scarce. Collaborating When parties in conflict each desire to fully satisfy the con- collaborating A situation in which the cerns of all parties, there is cooperation and a search for a mutually beneficial parties to a conflict each desire to satisfy fully outcome. In collaborating, parties intend to solve a problem by clarifying differ- the concerns of all parties. ences 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 The desire to withdraw from or Avoiding A person may recognize a conflict exists and want to withdraw from suppress a conflict. or suppress it. Examples of avoiding include trying to ignore a conflict and keeping away from others with whom you disagree. accommodating The willingness of one Accommodating A party who seeks to appease an opponent may be willing to party in a conflict to place the opponent’s place the opponent’s interests above his or her own, sacrificing to maintain the relationship. We refer to this intention as accommodating. Supporting interests above his or her own. someone else’s opinion despite your reservations about it, for example, is accommodating. compromising A situation in which Compromising In compromising, there is no winner or loser. Rather, there each party to a conflict is willing to give is a willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a solution with incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns. The distinguishing char- up something. acteristic of compromising, therefore, is that each party intends to give up something.

504 PART 3 The Group Stage IV: Behavior When most people think of conflict, they tend to focus on Stage IV because this is where conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes statements, actions, and reactions made by conflicting parties, usually as overt attempts to implement their own intentions. As a result of miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviors sometimes deviate from original intentions.20 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 14-4 provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. All con- flicts exist somewhere along this continuum. At the lower end are conflicts characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension, such as a student challenging a point the instructor has made. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become 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 range of the continuum. Intentions that are brought into a conflict are eventually translated into behaviors. Competing brings out active attempts to contend with team members, and more individual effort to achieve ends without working together. Collaborat- ing creates investigation of multiple solutions with other members of the team and trying to find a solution that satisfies all parties as much as possible. Avoid- ance 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. A review that examined the effects of the four sets of behaviors across mul- tiple 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.21 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. 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 Exhibit 14-4 Conflict-Intensity Continuum Annihilatory Overt efforts to destroy the other party conflict Aggressive physical attacks Threats and ultimatums No conflict Assertive verbal attacks Overt questioning or challenging of others Minor disagreements or misunderstandings Sources: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), 93–97; and F. Glasi, “The Process of Conflict Escalation and the Roles of Third Parties,” in G. B. J. Bomers and R. Peterson (eds.), Conflict Management and Industrial Relations (Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1982), 119–40.

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 505 Exhibit 14-5 Conflict Management Techniques Conflict-Resolution Techniques Meeting face to face for the purpose of identifying the problem and resolving it Problem solving through open discussion. Creating a shared goal that cannot be attained without the cooperation of each of the Superordinate goals conflicting parties. Expanding the supply of a scarce resource (for example, money, promotion, opportunities, Expansion of resources office space). Withdrawing from or suppressing the conflict. Avoidance Playing down differences while emphasizing common interests between the conflicting parties. Smoothing Having each party to the conflict give up something of value. Compromise Letting management use its formal authority to resolve the conflict and then communicating Authoritative command its desires to the parties involved. Using behavioral change techniques such as human relations training to alter attitudes and Altering the human variable behaviors that cause conflict. Changing the formal organization structure and the interaction patterns of conflicting parties Altering the structural variables through job redesign, transfers, creation of coordinating positions, and the like. Conflict-Stimulation Techniques Using ambiguous or threatening messages to increase conflict levels. Communication Adding employees to a group whose backgrounds, values, attitudes, or managerial styles Bringing in outsiders differ from those of present members. Realigning work groups, altering rules and regulations, increasing interdependence, and Restructuring the organization making similar structural changes to disrupt the status quo. Designating a critic to purposely argue against the majority positions held by the group. Appointing a devil’s advocate Source: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), 59–89. conflict management The use of needs to be increased? This brings us to techniques of conflict management. resolution and stimulation techniques Exhibit 14-5 lists the major resolution and stimulation techniques that allow managers to control conflict levels. We have already described several as con- to achieve the desired level of conflict. flict-handling intentions. Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into comparable behaviors. Stage V: outcomes 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 How might conflict act as a force to increase group performance? It is hard to visualize a situation in which open or violent aggres- sion could be functional. But it’s possible to see how low or moderate levels of conflict could improve group effectiveness. Note that all our examples focus on task and process conflicts and exclude the relationship variety. 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 ener- gizing emotions so members of groups become more active, energized, and engaged in their work.22

506 PART 3 The Group IBM encourages employees to engage in functional conflict that results in innovations, such as the Watson supercomputer designed to learn through the same process human brains use. For innovation to flourish, IBM relies on the creative tension from employees’ different ideas and skills and provides a work environment that promotes risk taking and outside-the-box thinking. Source: Jon Simon/Feature Photo Service/Newscom Dysfunctional outcomes The destructive consequences of conflict on the performance of a group or an organization are generally well known: Uncon- trolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. And, of course, a substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional conflicts can reduce group effectiveness.23 Among the undesirable consequences are poor communica- tion, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting among members. All forms of conflict—even the functional varieties—appear to reduce group member satisfaction and trust.24 When active discussions turn into open conflicts between members, information sharing between members decreases significantly.25 At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and threaten the group’s survival. Managing functional Conflict If managers recognize that in some situations conflict can be beneficial, what can they do to manage conflict effectively in their organizations? In addition to knowing the principles of conflict motivation we just discussed, there are some practical guidelines for managers. First, one of the keys to minimizing counterproductive conflicts is recogniz- ing 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 will talk 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 discussion focused on interests rather than issues. Another approach is

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 507 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.26 Third, groups that resolve conflicts successfully discuss differences of opin- ion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises.27 The most dis- ruptive conflicts are those that are never addressed directly. 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, man- agers 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.28 Differences across countries in conflict resolution strategies may be based on collectivistic tendencies and motives.29 Collectivist cultures see people as deeply embedded in social situations, whereas individualist cultures see them as autonomous. As a result, collectivists are more likely to seek to preserve relation- ships and promote the good of the group as a whole. They will avoid the direct expression of conflict, preferring indirect methods for resolving differences of opinion. 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. Some research supports this theory. Compared to collectivist Japanese negotiators, their more individualist U.S. counterparts are more likely to see offers as unfair and to reject them. Another study revealed that whereas U.S. managers were more likely to use competing tactics in the face of conflicts, compromising and avoiding were the most preferred methods of conflict man- agement in China.30 Interview data, however, suggest that top management teams in Chinese high-technology firms prefer collaboration even more than compromising and avoiding.31 Cross-cultural negotiations can also create issues of trust.32 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 asso- ciated with less discovery of common interests between parties, which occurred because cross-culture negotiators were less willing to disclose and solicit infor- mation. 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 account- ability requirements were high. Having considered conflict—its nature, causes, and consequences—we now turn to negotiation, which often resolves conflict. 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. 14-3 Contrast distributive Negotiation and integrative bargaining. 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;

508 PART 3 The Group negotiation A process in which two or salespeople negotiate with customers; purchasing agents negotiate with suppli- more parties exchange goods or services ers. And there’s the subtle: An employee agrees to cover for a colleague for a few minutes in exchange for a future benefit. In today’s loosely structured organiza- and attempt to agree on the exchange rate tions, in which members work with colleagues over whom they have no direct authority and with whom they may not even share a common boss, negotiation for them. skills are critical. We can define negotiation as a process that occurs when two or more parties decide how to allocate scarce resources.33 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.34 Depending on how much the parties are going to inter- act with one another,  sometimes maintaining the social relationship and behaving ethically will be just as important as achieving an immediate out- come of bargaining. Note that we use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably. Bargaining Strategies There are two general approaches to negotiation—distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining.35 As Exhibit 14-6 shows, they differ in their goal and moti- vation, focus, interests, information sharing, and duration of relationship. Let’s define each and illustrate the differences. distributive bargaining Negotiation Distributive Bargaining You see a used car advertised for sale online that looks that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of great. You go see the car. It’s perfect, and you want it. The owner tells you the resources; a win–lose situation. 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 fixed pie The belief that there is only a set identifying feature is that it operates under zero-sum conditions—that is, any amount of goods or services to be divvied up gain I make is at your expense, and vice versa. Every dollar you can get the seller between the parties. 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 par- ties believe it is, they tend to bargain distributively. Exhibit 14-6 Distributive versus Integrative Bargaining Bargaining Distributive Integrative Characteristic Bargaining Bargaining Goal Get as much of the pie as Expand the pie so that both Motivation possible parties are satisfied Focus Win–lose Win–win Positions (“I can’t go Interests (“Can you explain why Interests beyond this point on this this issue is so important to you?”) Information sharing issue.”) Opposed Congruent Duration of relationship Low (Sharing information High (Sharing information will will only allow other party allow each party to find ways to to take advantage) satisfy interests of each party) Short term Long term

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 509 Exhibit 14-7 Staking out the Bargaining Zone Party A’s aspiration range Party B’s aspiration range Settlement range Party A’s Party B’s Party A’s Party B’s target resistance resistance target point point point point The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14-7. 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 anchor- ing 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.36 Say you have a job offer, and your prospective employer asks you what sort of starting salary you want. You’ve just been given a gift—you have a chance to set the anchor, meaning you should ask for the highest salary you think the employer could reasonably offer. Asking for a million dollars is only going to make most of us look ridiculous, which is why we suggest being on the high end of what you think is reasonable. Too often, we err on the side of caution, afraid of scaring off the employer and thus settling for far too little. It is possible to scare off an employer, and it’s true employers don’t like candidates to be assertive in salary negotiations, but liking isn’t the same as doing what it takes to hire or retain someone.37 What happens much more often is that we ask for less than we could have obtained. 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 econ- omy 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

510 PART 3 The Group Officials of General Motors and United Auto Workers participate in the ceremonial handshake that opens new contract negotiations. They are committed to integrative bargaining and work toward negotiating win–win settlements that boost GM’s competitiveness. From left are GM CEO Mary Barra, UAW president Dennis Williams, GM VP Cathy Clegg, and UAW VP Cindy Estrada. Source: Paul Sancya/AP Images integrative bargaining Negotiation that are there for them as well.”38 Chung’s attitude shows the promise of integra- seeks one or more settlements that can tive bargaining. In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining assumes that one or more of the possible settlements can create a win–win create a win–win solution. solution. Of course, as the Jake example shows, both parties must be engaged for integrative bargaining to work. 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 bargain- ing 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 nego- tiation 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.39 Because these conditions seldom exist in organizations, negotiations often take a win-at-any-cost dynamic. Compromise may be your worst enemy in negotiating a win–win agree- ment. Compromising reduces 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. People then settle for less than they could have obtained if they had been forced to consider the other party’s interests, trade off issues, and be creative.40 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.

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 511 teams negotiate better than individuals Myth or Science? in collectivistic cultures According to a recent study, this ing two-person teams with individual is individualistic, solo negotiators may fo- statement appears to be false. negotiators. They defined negotiating cus on their own interests, which makes In general, the literature has effectiveness as the degree to which reaching integrative solutions more dif- suggested that teams negotiate more the negotiation produced an optimal ficult. When Americans negotiate in effectively than individuals negotiat- outcome for both sides. U.S. teams teams, they become less inclined to fo- ing alone. Some evidence indicates did better than solo individuals in both cus on individual interests and therefore that team negotiations create more studies. In Taiwan, solo individuals did can reach solutions. ambitious goals, and that teams com- better than teams. municate more with each other than Overall, these findings suggest that individual negotiators do. Why did this happen? The research- negotiating individually works best in ers determined that in Taiwan norms collectivistic cultures, and negotiating Common sense suggests that if this respecting harmony already exist, and in teams works best in individualistic is indeed the case, it is especially true negotiating in teams only amplifies that cultures. in collectivistic cultures, where individu- tendency. This poses a problem because als are more likely to think of collective when norms for cooperation are excep- Sources: Based on M. J. Gelfand et al., “To- goals and be more comfortable work- tionally high, teams “satisfice” (settle for ward a Culture-by-Context Perspective on ing in teams. A study of the negotia- a satisfactory, but less than optimal, so- Negotiation: Negotiating Teams in the Unit- tion of teams in the United States and lution) to avoid conflict. When Taiwanese ed States and Taiwan,” Journal of Applied in Taiwan, however, suggests that this individuals negotiate solo, at least they Psychology 98 (2013): 504–13; and A. Graf, common sense is wrong. The research- can clearly represent their own interests. S. T. Koeszegi, and E.-M. Pesendorfer, “Elec- ers conducted two studies compar- In contrast, because the United States tronic Negotiations in Intercultural Interfirm Relationships,” Journal of Managerial Psy- chology 25 (2010): 495–512. 14-4 Apply the five steps of The Negotiation Process the negotiation process. Exhibit 14-8 provides a simplified model of the negotiation process. It views ne- gotiation as made up of five steps: (1) preparation and planning, (2) definition of ground rules, (3) clarification and justification, (4) bargaining and problem solving, and (5) closure and implementation.41 Preparation and Planning Before you start negotiating, do your homework. What’s the nature of the conflict? What’s the history leading up to this negotia- tion? Who’s involved and what are their perceptions of the conflict? What do you want from the negotiation? What are your goals? If you’re a supply manager at Dell Computer, for instance, and your goal is to get a significant cost reduc- tion from your keyboard supplier, make sure this goal stays paramount in discus- sions and doesn’t get overshadowed by other issues. It helps to put your goals in writing and develop a range of outcomes—from “most hopeful” to “minimally acceptable”—to keep your attention focused. You should also assess what you think are the other party’s goals. What are they likely to ask? How entrenched is their position likely to be? What intan- gible or hidden interests may be important to them? On what might they be willing to settle? When you can anticipate your opponent’s position, you are better equipped to counter arguments with facts and figures that support your position. Relationships change as a result of negotiation, so take that into consider- ation. If you could “win” a negotiation but push the other side into resentment

512 PART 3 The Group Exhibit 14-8 The negotiation Preparation and planning Definition of ground rules Clarification and justification Bargaining and problem solving Closure and implementation BatNa The best alternative to a negotiated or animosity, it might be wiser to pursue a more compromising style. If preserv- agreement; the least the individual should ing the relationship will make you seem easily exploited, you may consider a accept. more aggressive style. As an example of how the tone of a relationship in nego- tiations matters, people who feel good about the process of a job offer negotia- tion are more satisfied with their jobs and less likely to turn over a year later regardless of their actual outcomes from these negotiations.42 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. 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.43 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.44 Think carefully about what the other side is 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.45 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. 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 pro- cedures 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

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 513 14-5 Show how individual educating each other on the issues, why they are important, and how you ar- differences influence rived at your initial demands. Provide the other party with any documentation negotiations. that supports your position. Bargaining and Problem Solving The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give-and-take in trying to hash out an agreement. This is where both par- ties need to make concessions. Closure and Implementation The final step in the negotiation process is formal- izing your agreement and developing procedures necessary for implementing and monitoring it. For major negotiations—from labor–management negotia- tions 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 personal- ity and negotiation outcomes are related but only weakly, the answer is, at best, “sort of.”46 Most research has focused on the Big Five trait 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. Why is this the case? It appears that the degree to which agreeableness, and personality more generally, affects negotiation outcomes depends on the situation. The importance of being extraverted in negotiations, for example, will very much depend on how the other party reacts to someone who is assertive and enthusiastic. One complicating factor for agreeableness is that it has two facets: The tendency to be cooperative and compliant is one, but so is the tendency to be warm and empathetic.47 It may be that while the former is a hindrance to negotiating favorable outcomes, the latter helps. Empathy, after all, is the ability to take the perspective of another person and gain insight/ understanding of him or her. We know perspective-taking benefits integra- tive negotiations, so perhaps the null effect for agreeableness is due to the two tendencies pulling against one another. If this is the case, then the best negotiator is a competitive but empathetic one, and the worst is a gentle but empathetic one. The type of negotiations may matter as well. In one study, agreeable indi- viduals reacted more positively and felt less stress (measured by their cortisol levels) in integrative negotiations than in distributive ones. Low levels of stress, in turn, made for more effective negotiation outcomes.48 Similarly, in “hard- edged” distributive negotiations, where giving away information leads to a dis- advantage, extraverted negotiators do less well because they tend to share more information than they should.49

514 PART 3 The Group How can i get a better job? Career oBjectives I feel like my career is at a standstill, you emphasize a few points with your you and your negotiation partner and I want to talk to my boss about supervisor: can find novel solutions that neither getting a more developmental assign- would have imagined separately. ment. How can I negotiate effectively • When it comes to salary negotiations, for a better job position? either you get the money, or the com- Think strategically about your career, pany keeps the money. Given that, and you’ll likely find you can negotiate — Wei your interests and the interests of not just for a better paycheck tomorrow, Dear Wei: your managers are directly opposed. but for a paycheck that keeps increas- You’re certainly starting out on the On the other hand, negotiating for ing in the years to come. right foot. A lot of people focus on a developmental assignments usually salary as a way to achieve success and means finding ways to improve not Sources: Y. Rofcanin, T. Kiefer, and K. Strauss, negotiate for the best short-run offer. just your skills, but also your contri- “How I-Deals Build Resources to Facilitate There’s obviously an advantage to this bution to the company’s bottom line. Reciprocation: Mediating Role of Positive strategy in the short run, but sustained You can, in complete honesty, frame Affective States,” Academy of Management career growth has better payoffs in the the discussion around these mutual Proceedings, August, 2014, DOI: 10.5465/ long run. Developing skills can help put benefits. AMBPP.2014.16096abstract; C. Liao, S. J. you on track for multiple salary increas- Wayne, and D. M. Rousseau, “Idiosyn- es. A strong skill set from developmen- • Let your supervisor know that you are cratic Deals in Contemporary Organizations: tal assignments will also give you a interested in getting better at your job, A  Qualitative and Meta-Analytical Review,” better position for future negotiations and that you are motivated to improve Journal of Organizational Behavior, October because you will have more career through a developmental assignment. 16, 2014, DOI: 10.1002/job.1959; and options. Asking your supervisor for opportuni- V. Brenninkmeijer and M.  Hekkert-Koning, ties to grow is a clear sign that you “To Craft or Not to Craft,” Career Develop- Long-term career negotiations based are an employee worth investing in. ment International 20 (2015): 147–62. on developmental assignments also often are easier to bring up with a • Be open to creative solutions. It’s pos- The opinions provided here are of the man- supervisor. That’s because salary sible that there are some idiosyncrat- agers and authors only and do not necessar- negotiations are often a zero-sum situ- ic solutions (also called “I-deals”) for ily reflect those of their organizations. The ation, but career development nego- enhancing both your interests and authors or managers are not responsible for tiations can bring positive outcomes those of your supervisor. One of any errors or omissions, or for the results to both sides. When negotiating for a the best things about an integrative obtained from the use of this information. developmental assignment, make sure bargaining situation like this is that In no event will the authors or managers, or their related partnerships or corporations thereof, be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reli- ance on the opinions provided here. Self-efficacy is one individual-difference variable that consistently seems to relate to negotiation outcomes.50 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 indi- viduals who are more confident stake out stronger claims, are less likely to back down from their positions, and exhibit confidence that intimidates oth- ers. Although the exact mechanism is not yet clear, it does seem that negotia- tors may benefit from trying to get a boost in confidence before going to the bargaining table. Research suggests intelligence predicts negotiation effectiveness, but, as with personality, the effects aren’t especially strong.51 In a sense, these weak links mean you’re not severely disadvantaged, even if you’re an agreeable extra- vert, when it’s time to negotiate. We all can learn to be better negotiators.52 Moods/emotions in negotiations Do moods and emotions influence negotia- tion? They do, but the way they work depends on the emotion as well as the

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 515 Using empathy to negotiate More ethically An ethical Choice Y ou may have noticed that much behaviors like making false promises feeling guilty in a negotiation may of our advice for negotiating ef- and manipulating information and mean you are engaging in behavior fectively depends on understand- emotions. you’ll regret later. ing the perspective and goals of the 3. Beware of empathizing so much that person with whom you are negotiating. When considering how to improve you work against your own interests. Preparing checklists of your negotia- your ethical negotiation behavior, follow Just because you try to understand tion partner’s interests, likely tactics, these guidelines: the motives and emotional reactions and BATNA have all been shown to of the other side does not mean you improve negotiation outcomes. Can 1. Try to understand your negotiation have to assume the other person is these steps make you a more ethical partner’s perspective. This isn’t going to be honest and fair in return. negotiator as well? Studies suggest just by understanding cognitively So be on guard. that they might. what the other person wants, but by empathizing with the emotional Sources: Based on T. R. Cohen, “Moral Researchers asked respondents reaction he or she will likely have to Emotions and Unethical Bargaining: The to indicate how much they tended the possible outcomes. Differential Effects of Empathy and Perspec- to think about other people’s feel- tive Taking in Deterring Deceitful Negotia- ings and emotions and to describe 2. Be aware of your own emotions, tion,” Journal of Business Ethics 94, no. 4 the types of tactics they engaged in because many moral reactions are (2010): 569–79; and R. Volkema, D. Fleck, during a negotiation exercise. More fundamentally emotional. One study and A. Hofmeister, “Predicting Competitive- empathetic individuals consistently found that engaging in unethical Unethical Negotiating Behavior and Its Con- engaged in fewer unethical negotiation negotiation strategies increased sequences,” Negotiation Journal 26, no. 3 feelings of guilt, so by extension, (2010): 263–86. 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.53 Another factor is how genuine your anger is—“faked” anger, or anger pro- duced from surface acting (see Chapter 4), is not effective, but showing anger that is genuine (deep acting) is.54 It also appears that having a history of show- ing anger, rather than sowing the seeds of revenge, actually induces more con- cessions because the other party perceives the negotiator as “tough.”55 Finally, culture seems to matter. For instance, one study found that when East Asian participants showed anger, it induced more concessions than when the negotia- tor expressing anger was from the United States or Europe, perhaps because of the stereotype of East Asians as refusing to show anger.56 Another relevant emotion is disappointment. Generally, a negotiator who perceives disappointment from his or her counterpart concedes more. In one study, Dutch students were given 100 chips to bargain over. Negotiators who expressed disappointment were offered 14 more chips than those who didn’t. In a second study, showing disappointment yielded an average concession of 12 chips. Unlike a show of anger, the relative power of the negotiators made no difference in either study.57 Anxiety also appears to have an impact on negotiation. For example, one study found that individuals who experienced more anxiety about a negotiation used more deceptions in dealing with others.58 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.59

516 PART 3 The Group People generally negotiate more effectively within cultures than between them. Politeness and positivity characterize the typical conflict-avoidant negotiations in Japan, such as with labor union leader Hidekazu Kitagawa (right), shown here presenting wage and benefits demands to Ikuo Mori, president of Fuji Heavy Industries, which makes Subaru vehicles. Source: Kyodo/Newscom As you can see, emotions—especially negative ones—matter to negotiation. 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.60 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.”61 Culture in negotiations Do people from different cultures negotiate differently? The simple answer is the obvious one: Yes, they do. However, there are many nuances in the way this works. It isn’t as simple as “these negotiators are the best”; indeed, success in negotiations depends on the context. So what can we say about culture and negotiations? First, it appears that people generally 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. Second, it appears that in cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially important that the negotiators be high in openness. This suggests a good strategy is to choose cross-cultural negotiators who are high on openness to experience, and to avoid factors such as time pressure that tend to inhibit learning about the other party.62 Finally, because emotions are culturally sensitive, negotiators need to be espe- cially aware of the emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiation. One study, for example, explicitly compared how U.S. and Chinese negotiators reacted to an angry counterpart. Chinese negotiators increased their use of distributive negotiating tactics, whereas U.S. negotiators decreased their use of these tactics. That is, Chinese negotiators began to drive a harder bargain once they saw that their negotiation partner was becoming angry, whereas U.S. negotiators capitu- lated somewhat in the face of angry demands. Why the difference? It may be that individuals from East Asian cultures 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.63 gender Differences in negotiations There are many areas of organizational behavior (OB) in which men and women are not that different. Negotiation

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 517 Ob POLL Men ask More Do you always Yes No Yes negotiate for 30% 54% 46% salary following a job offer? No 70% Women Men Source: A. Gouveia, “Why Americans Are Too Scared to Negotiate Salary,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 3, 2013, downloaded May 30, 2013 from http:// www.sfgate.com/jobs/. is not one of them. It seems fairly clear that men and women negotiate differ- ently, men and women are treated differently by negotiation partners, and these differences affect outcomes (see OB Poll). 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 do tend to value relationship outcomes more than men, and men tend to value economic outcomes more than women.64 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 than men do.”65 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.66 One comprehensive literature review suggests that the tendency for men to receive better negotiation outcomes in some situations does not cover all situa- tions.67 Indeed, evidence suggested women and men bargained more equally in certain situations, women sometimes outperformed men, and men and women obtained more nearly equal outcomes when negotiating on behalf of someone else. In other words, everyone was better at advocating for others than they were 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 more nearly equiva- lent. 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. So what can be done to change this troublesome state of affairs? First, orga- nizational culture plays a role. If an organization, even unwittingly, reinforces

518 PART 3 The Group gender-stereotypic behaviors (men negotiating competitively, women negotiat- ing cooperatively), it will negatively affect negotiations when anyone goes against stereotype. Men and women need to know that it is acceptable for each to show a full range of negotiating behaviors. Thus, a female negotiator who behaves competitively and a male negotiator who behaves cooperatively need to know that they are not violating expectations. Making sure negotiations are designed to focus on well-defined and work-related terms also has promise for reducing gender differences by minimizing the ambiguous space for stereotypes to oper- ate. This focus on structure and work relevance also obviously helps focus nego- tiations on factors that will improve the organization’s performance. Research is less clear on whether women can improve their outcomes by showing some gender-stereotypic behaviors. Researchers Laura Kray and col- leagues suggested that female negotiators who were instructed to behave with “feminine charm” (be animated in body movements, make frequent eye con- tact with their partners, smile, laugh, be playful, and frequently compliment their partners) did better in negotiations than women not so instructed. These behaviors didn’t work for men.68 Other researchers disagree and argue that what can best benefit women is to break down gender stereotypes for the individuals who hold them.69 It’s pos- sible this is a short-term/long-term situation: In the short term, women can gain an advantage in negotiation by being both assertive and charming, but in the long term, their interests are best served by eliminating these sorts of sex role stereotypes. Evidence suggests women’s own attitudes and behaviors hurt them in nego- tiations. Managerial women demonstrate less confidence than men in antici- pation of negotiating and are less satisfied with their performance afterward, even when their performance and the outcomes they achieve are similar to those for men.70 Women are also less likely to see an ambiguous situation as an opportunity for negotiation. Women may unduly penalize themselves by failing to engage in negotiations that would be in their best interests. Some research suggests that women are less aggressive in negotiations because they are worried about backlash from others. 14-6 Assess the roles and Negotiating in a Social Context functions of third-party negotiations. 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.71 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 benefitting the other party.

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 519 mediator A neutral third party who Sometimes we either trust or distrust people based on word-of-mouth about facilitates a negotiated solution by using a person’s characteristics. What type of characteristics help a person develop a reasoning, persuasion, and suggestions for trustworthy reputation? A combination of competence and integrity.72 Negotia- alternatives. tors higher in self-confidence and cognitive ability are seen as more competent by negotiation partners.73 They are also considered better able to accurately arbitrator A third party to a negotiation describe a situation and their own resources, and more credible when they who has the authority to dictate an make suggestions for creative solutions to impasses. Individuals who have a rep- agreement. utation for integrity can also be more effective in negotiations.74 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.75 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.76 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 emo- tional bonds.77 Repeated negotiations also make integrative approaches more workable because a sense of trust and reliability has been built up.78 In sum, it’s clear that an effective negotiator needs to think about more than just the outcomes of a single interaction. Negotiators who consistently act in a way that demonstrates competence, honesty, and integrity will usually have bet- ter outcomes in the long run. Third-Party negotiations To this point, we’ve discussed bargaining in terms of direct negotiations. Occa- sionally, 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 Employ- ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported a settlement rate through mediation at 72.1 percent.79 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. Arbi- tration 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.

520 PART 3 The Group 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 Rob- conciliator A trusted third party who ert Duval in the first Godfather film. As Don Corleone’s adopted son and a lawyer provides an informal communication link by training, Duval acted as an intermediary between the Corleones and the other between the negotiator and the opponent. 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, interpret messages, and persuade disputants to develop agreements. Summary While many people assume conflict lowers group and organizational per- formance, this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. Levels of con- flict can be either too high or too low to be constructive. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates cre- ativity, 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 unpop- ular actions need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, discipline), and when the issue is vital to the organi- zation’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 po- tential 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 sat- isfaction 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. PErSONAl INvENTOry ASSESSmENTS P I A PERSONAL INVENTORY Strategies for handling conflict ASSESSMENT We all handle conflict, but few of us may have actual strategies in place. Take this PIA to further explore ways to handle conflict.

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 521 Pro sports strikes are caused by greedy Owners PoINt CouNterPoINt I’m as sick as anyone of the constant strikes, lockouts, and back- Major league owners are an easy target. But they have the and-forth negotiations between sports teams and the players’ most to lose from work stoppages. It’s the players and their unions. Of the major pro sports leagues, major league Baseball unions who push the envelope. (mlB) is the only one without a strike since 1995—and it had eight in It’s true that most major league players are well rewarded for their its history. you’ve got to wonder why this keeps happening. Here’s why: exceptional talents and the risks they take. It’s also true that owners Owners’ greed knows no limit. who are able to invest in teams are wealthy—investors usually are. But the fault for disputes lies with spoiled players—and the union leaders In nearly every recent strike or lockout, the main issue was money who burnish their credentials and garner the limelight by fanning the and how to divide it. When the National Hockey league (NHl) locked flames of discontent. out the players during the 2012–2013 season, the owners were the in- stigators. They wanted to reduce the players’ share of hockey revenues. On this latter point, give all the credit in the world to the union They wanted to eliminate salary arbitration. They wanted to introduce negotiators (paid millions themselves), who do nothing if not hawk term limits to contracts. They wanted to change free-agency rules and publicity and use hardball negotiating tactics. Take the NHl players’ eliminate signing bonuses. On a philosophical level, some of these pro- union boss Donald Fehr. For a “negotiation” set to begin at 10 a.m., posals are interesting because they reveal that owners want to restrict he arrived at 11:15. At exactly 12:00, he announced he had a lunch competition when it suits them and increase it when it benefits them. meeting uptown and left. While the owners were whining about the unfairness of long-term As for the players, pro athletes are entitled almost by definition. For contracts, the minnesota Wild’s owner Craig leipold, a noted negotia- example, one retired NFl player and union representative, Chester Pitts, tions hawk, signed Zach Parise and ryan Suter to identical 13-year, was commenting about how he had to settle for an $85,000 mercedes $98 million contracts. Contracts like these suggest that owners want instead of a $250,000 car. Well, we all have to make sacrifices. One the players’ union to save them from themselves. rookie, Jets’ quarterback Geno Smith, fired his agent after signing “only” a four-year contract for roughly $4.99 million. Smith called the contract Perhaps some of this behavior would make sense if the owners “hard to stomach.” I see a future in the players’ union for this guy. were losing money hand over fist, but that is hardly the case. The NHl has three teams worth over $1 billion each, and few are worth less Do we really need labor unions for workers whose average salaries than $200 million. The owners aren’t hurting, either. most are mil- are $2 million (NFl), $2.58 million (NHl), $3.82 million (mlB), and lionaires many times over. los Angeles Kings owner Philip Anschutz is $4.9 million (NBA)? NHl clubs spent 76 percent of their gross rev- reported to have a net worth of $12 billion. enues on players’ salaries and collectively lost $273 million the year before the most recent lockout. It’s not much better in the NBA, where Forbes reports the average NFl team is now worth more than many teams lose money. Take the Dallas mavericks, who have rarely $1.43 billion and the Dallas Cowboys are worth $3.2 billion; even made money since 2002, despite playing in the fourth-most populous low-earning and poorly run teams make money. Take the Jacksonville metro area and winning the NBA title in 2011. Jaguars. Wayne Weaver paid $208 million for the team in 1993. It has never made it to the Super Bowl and is almost always an also-ran in It’s easy to argue that major league sports have an unusual num- its division. Did the team’s ineffectiveness really cost Weaver? He sold ber of labor disputes, but that’s not necessarily accurate. Did you hear the club for $770 million in 2012. about the 2015 largest strike of oil refinery workers in decades or the ongoing worldwide strikes by low-paid workers in the fast-food indus- In essence, what we have are rich owners trying to negotiate rules try? Somehow these strikes don’t always make the news or our collec- that keep them from competing with one another for players. It’s a bald- tive consciousness as much as sports strikes. Sports strikes interest faced and hypocritical attempt to use their own kind of union to negoti- us, but we shouldn’t fall into the trap of blaming these on the owners. ate favorable agreements, all the while criticizing the players’ unions. Sources: #104 Philip Anschutz, Forbes real time net worth, http://www.forbes.com/profile/philip-anschutz/, downloaded June 9, 2015; T. Cary, “The 3 NHl Teams That Are Worth a Billion Dollars,” Sports Cheat Sheet, June 6, 2015; K. Badenhausen, “Average mlB Player Salary Nearly Double NFl’s, but Still Trails NBA’s,” Forbes, January 23, 2015, http://www.forbes.com/ sites/kurtbadenhausen/2015/01/23/average-mlb-salary-nearly-double-nfls-but-trails-nba-players/; J. Feinstein, “In the NHl lockout, the Owners Have It All Wrong,” Washington Post, December 25, 2012, downloaded may 29, 2013, from http:// articles.washingtonpost.com/; r. Cimini, “Geno Smith’s maturity Questioned,” ESPN, may 3, 2013, downloaded may 3, 2013, from http://espn.go.com/; K. Campbell, “Thanks to Donald Fehr, NHl Negotiating against Itself … and losing,” The Hockey News, December 29, 2012, downloaded may 29, 2013, from http://sports.yahoo.com/; B. murphy, “20 years of Peace and Prosperity Have Followed mlB’s last Strike,” Twin Cities, July 5, 2014, http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_26095630/ peace-that-lasts-since-1994-season-ending-strike; and E. Seba, “Oil refinery Strike Widens to largest U.S. Plant,” Huffington Post, February 21, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/21/us-refinery-strike-wide_n_6727736.html.

522 PART 3 The Group cHaPter review MyManagementLab Go to mymanagementlab.com to complete the problems marked with this icon. QUestiOns fOr review 14-4 What are the five steps in the negotiation 14-1 What are the three types of conflict and the process? three loci of conflict? 14-5 How do individual differences influence 14-2 What are the steps in the conflict negotiations? process? 14-6 What are the roles and functions of third-party 14-3 What are the differences between distributive negotiations? and integrative bargaining? exPerientiaL exercise A Negotiation Role-Play There are two scenarios to consider for this case; one Marketing Group Specific Information (only the marketing is more distributive, the other more integrative. With- manager should read this) in your group of two, one of you takes the role of the The marketing group has been tracking the major areas of engineering director, while the other takes the role of sales and has come to the conclusion that Cytrix has satu- the marketing director. Read only your own side’s spe- rated the market. New sources of customers will need to be cific information for the two negotiation processes. The considered for future growth, especially general consumers overall situation is the same for both scenarios, but the who are interested in health but are not committed ath- priorities and outlook for the parties change depending letes. Research into sales of competitive products and areas on whether the group is doing the “contested resources” where competitors are failing to meet consumer demands scenario or the “combined future” scenario. is needed. The marketing group’s primary goal is to allo- cate sufficient resources to finance the research. The group The Case also wants to retain control over which new products will be Cytrix develops integrated bicycle and running per- developed. Marketing would prefer to see engineering act formance systems. Runners and bikers wear the Cytrix in a consulting role, determining how best to manufacture watch, which uses GPS signals to identify their location the devices that fit the needs identified above. and the distance they’ve covered. This information can then be uploaded to Cytrix Challenge website, where Engineering Group Specific Information (only the users record their performance over time. Social media engineering manager should read this) tools also allow them to compare their performance rela- The engineering group has recently been tracking the de- tive to that of friends. The majority of users are either velopment of new hardware that will improve the accuracy amateur student athletes or committed adult hobbyists of distance and speed estimates in remote areas. Several like marathon runners. other companies are already experimenting with similar designs. To fully realize this improvement, engineering The organization needs to determine how to allocate believes it will be necessary to further develop the tech- a fixed pool of resources for future development be- nology so it is both lightweight and inexpensive to pro- tween the marketing and engineering groups. Rather duce. The engineering group’s primary goal is to allocate than making an executive decision about resource allo- sufficient resources to develop these new technologies. cation, the top management team has asked the respec- The engineers would prefer to see marketing act in a tive teams to allocate $30 million dollars for planned consulting role, determining how best to advertise and future development and decide who will run different deliver the new devices. parts of the project.

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 523 Contested Resources Scenario The Negotiation The marketing and engineering departments are locked in a At the start of the negotiation, the instructor randomly as- struggle for power. Your side (either marketing or engineer- signs half the groups to the contested resources scenario, ing) should try to direct the largest possible proportion of and the other half to the combined future scenario. Begin both money and authority toward your proposed program. the process by outlining the goals and resources for your You still need to come up with a solution in which the other side of the negotiation. Then negotiate over the terms side ultimately agrees to assist you in implementing the pro- described in your scenario, attempting to advocate for a gram. If you can’t reach an agreement for shared resources, solution that matches your perspective. the CEO will appoint new directors for both groups. Debriefing Combined Future Scenario Afterward, get the class together to discuss the processes The marketing and engineering departments are eager to used. Especially consider the differences in outcomes find a positive solution. Both sides should endeavor to see between the contested resources and combined future that the company’s future needs are met. You know that to scenarios. Either scenario could arise in a real work en- achieve success everyone needs to work together, so you’d vironment, so think about how different negotiation like to find a way to divide the money and resources that situations give rise to different strategies, tactics, and benefits both marketing and engineering. Plans can incor- outcomes. porate multiple techniques for sharing and collaborating with resources. etHicaL DiLeMMa The Lowball Applicant Consider this first-person account: I knew the manager would be highly interested in this candidate and that he could probably get her to work I am a human resource manager, so I interview people the longer full-time hours at a lower rate of pay. That every day. Sometimes the managers in my company ask me outcome might be best for the company, or it might to prescreen candidates, which I do after discussing the job not. The candidate obviously didn’t fully understand the at length with the manager. I usually start the candidate company policies in her favor, and she was unsophisti- screening with a few personality–job fit tests; then conduct cated about her worth in the marketplace. What should an interview, following a list of job-specific questions the I have done? manager has given me; and finally discuss the job require- ments, our company, and the pay/benefits. By that time in Questions the process, the candidate usually has a good idea of the 14-7. If the human resource manager coached the job and is eager to suggest a level of pay at the top of the applicant to request a higher salary, did the advertised bracket or, often, above the pay bracket. How- coaching work against the interests of the orga- ever, this isn’t always the case. One time in particular, an ex- nization? Was the responsibility of the human cellent candidate with outstanding qualifications surprised resource (HR) manager to put the organization’s me by saying that since she wanted flextime, she would ac- financial interests first? cept a rate below the pay bracket. Confused, I  asked her 14-8. What do you see as the potential downside of the whether she wanted a reduction in hours below full-time. HR manager’s abstaining from discussing the pay She said no, she expected to work full-time and only wanted issue further with the candidate? to come in a little late and would leave a little late to make 14-9. If the candidate were hired at the reduced rate she up the time. I guess she figured this was a concession worth proposed, how might the situation play out over slashing her salary for, but our company has flextime. In the next year when she gets to know the organiza- fact, she could have asked for 5 fewer hours per week, still tion and its pay standards better? have been considered full-time by our company policies, and negotiated for salary above the advertised pay grade. case inciDent 1 Disorderly Conduct of the company to an open plan with no walls between work- ers. The goal of such a layout is to eliminate boundaries and The sound of Matt and Peter’s arguing is familiar to everyone enhance creativity. But for Matt and Peter, the new arrange- in the office by now. In an effort to make the best use of space ment creates a growing sense of tension. and ensure a free flow of discussion and ideas, the founder of Markay Design had decided to convert the one-floor office

524 PART 3 The Group The argument boils down to the question of work- sociated with lower levels of creativity. Moreover, cultures space order and organization. Peter prefers to keep his that push conflict underground but do not succeed in desk completely clean and clear, and he keeps a stack of reducing the underlying tensions can become passive-ag- cleaning wipes in a drawer to eliminate any dust or dirt. gressive, marked by underhanded behavior against other Matt, on the other hand, likes to keep all his work visible coworkers. on his desk, so sketches, plans, magazines, and photos are scattered everywhere, alongside boxes of crackers and Ultimately, finding a way through the clutter dispute is coffee cups. Peter finds it hard to concentrate when he probably going to be an ongoing process to find a balance sees Matt’s piles of materials everywhere, while Matt feels between perspectives. Both Matt and Peter worry that if he can be more creative and free flowing when he’s not they can’t find a solution, their usually positive work rela- forced to clean and organize constantly. Many of Matt and tionship will be too contentious to bear. And that would be Peter’s coworkers wish they’d just let the issue drop. The a real mess. men enjoyed a good working relationship in the past, with Peter’s attention to detail and thorough planning serving Questions to rein in some of Matt’s wild inspirations. But of late, their 14-10. What could Peter and Matt’s manager do to help collaborations have been derailed in disputes. them resolving their conflict? Everyone knows it’s not productive to engage in con- 14-11. The case suggests that there is research to support flicts over every small irritant in the workplace. Howev- er, completely avoiding conflict can be equally negative. the notion that avoiding conflict stifles creativity. Is An  emerging body of research has examined “conflict there such research, and do you agree? cultures” in organizations. The findings suggest having a 14-12. How can Matt and Peter develop an active culture that actively avoids and suppresses conflicts is as- problem-solving discussion to resolve this conflict? What could effectively be changed, and what is probably going to just remain a problem? Sources: S. Shellenbarger, “Clashing over Office Clutter,” Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2014, http:// www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304747404579447331212245004; S. Shellenbarger, “To Fight or Not to Fight? When to Pick Workplace Battles,” Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/picking-your-workplace-battles-1418772621; and M. J. Gelfand, J. R. Harrington, and L. M. Leslie, “Conflict Cultures: A New Frontier for Conflict Management Research and Practice,” in N. M. Ashkanasy, O. B. Ayoko, and K. A. Jehn (eds.), Handbook of Conflict Management Research, 2014, 109–35. case inciDent 2 Is More Cash Worth the Clash? With 3,700 hotels located in 92 countries, Accor’s revenues whose goal is to increase profit by lowering costs and gen- total more than $6 billion. About 180,000 people cur- erating more cash, and employees, who expect a higher rently work for Accor’s internationally renowned brands, pay from their company’s growth. including Sofitel, Novotel, and Ibis in Europe, the Middle- East, and Africa, and Huazhu, Grand Mercure (through In France, over the last five years, there have been hun- domestic brands Mei Jue, Maha Cipta, and Manee Pura), dreds of room attendants working for Accor hotels who and Sebel in Asia, Australia, and Latin America. Because publicly went on strike, complaining in the media about Accor is opening one hotel every two days, it will employ their pay and work conditions. These room attendants even more people over the next few years directly and via were not directly employed by Accor, but by subcontrac- subcontracting temporary work agencies. Not only does it tors who paid them less than the industry minima and im- mean negotiating an increasing number of employment posed higher production-rates on them (for example, to contracts with individuals, but it also involves local nego- clean four rooms an hour) than room attendants directly tiations with subcontractors. Work conditions and pay are employed by Accor, whose unions negotiated work condi- often at the core of most of these negotiations. tions (three rooms an hour is the key-performance indi- cator used in Ibis hotels). Although the conflict occurred In European hotels, labor costs represent almost 50% between temporary workers and their employing agen- of revenues. Thus, human capital is either a competitive cies, Accor had to play a role, because room attendants on advantage you might invest in or a resource you may save strike could not be replaced on the spot and remaining money on. There is often a clash between shareholders, employees could not accept more supplementary hours.

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 525 To foster its engagement in CSR and to solve the conflict, designed to help women to evolve within the group. A Sin- Accor signed a protocol with its subcontractors and the gaporean general counsel states that she had to face cultural room attendants went back to work. pressures that compelled her to focus on family commitments rather than to work, but WAAG assisted her in solving work– Unions may play a role in such labor-management life conflicts and advancing within Accor. In Dubai, where ho- conflicts. While it has excellent relationships with French tel managerial positions are usually held by men, the director unions, Accor was actually warned by the French Organ- of two hotels spoke of how WAAG helped her with training isation for Economic Co-operation and Development courses and Webinars, which also covered gender-related chal- (OECD) national contact point (NCP) in 2012 after a com- lenges, to assume her responsibilities as a female manager. plaint about the violation of international guidelines was brought against it in 2010 by the International Union of Questions Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco 14-13. Labor–management negotiations might be char- and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), which represents over 12 million workers. The IUF stated that Accor Group acterized as more distributive than integrative. Do Accor Group had denied the right of its employees to join you agree? Why do you think this is the case? What, collective negotiation in one hotel in Benin and to estab- if anything, would you do about it? lish trade unions in three hotels in Canada. Because local 14-14. Be they dyadic, intragroup, or intergroup ones, unions and hotels’ managers were unable to come to any labor–management conflicts are too often consid- agreement for years, the social conflict reached a global ered as dysfunctional while neglecting the role level with the IUF. In 2014, the French OECD NCP eventu- of third-parties that could make them more ally thanked Accor for their involvement in resolving the functional. Do you agree? Why? conflicts with the IUF, and in deploying training plans to 14-15. If you were advising union and management nurture hotels’ franchisees and managers’ sense of CSR. representatives about how to solve their conflicts, drawing from the artefacts in the UIF-Accor case Yet such conflicts should have been avoided, for Accor is and the concepts in this chapter, what would you strongly committed to developing compensation systems and tell them? work conditions that exceed the requirements of local legisla- 14-16. What kind of conflicts do the Accor employees in- tion. In 2014, Accor signed non-discretionary profit-sharing volved in WAAG networks face? Imagine, describe, agreements in countries like Mexico, Russia, Turkey, and the and analyze both the conflict process and the United Arab Emirates. Gender-neutral compensation and negotiation process that one of them might have equal opportunity programs are also vital to Accor, which experienced. created a Women at Accor Generation (WAAG) network Sources: P. Rosenzweig, “Accor: Global Excellence through People,” International Institute for Management Development Case, 1999; F. Rivaud, “Comment Bazin veut faire d’Accor le meilleur groupe hôtelier du monde,” Challenges, December 2014; Accor & Autorité des Marchés Financiers, “Enhancing Your Hotel Experience,” 2014 Registration Document and Annual Financial Report, March 2015; Direction de la Communication et des Relations Extérieures Accor, “Nous réinven- tons votre séjour,” Rapport d’activité 2014, 2015; S. Stabile, “Women’s Words,” Women at Accor Gen- eration WAAG, February 2015; European Trade Union Institute for Research, “European Trade Unions and Sustainable Development,” 2008; accorhotels-group.com; oecd.org; tresor.economie. gouv.fr; uif.org; cfdt-accor.org; hrinasia.com; hotelmagazine.com; e-hotelier.com; “Hotel Industry in Benin and Canada,” OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, https://mneguidelines. oecd.org/database/instances/fr0013.htm; http://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/File/411552. MyManagementLab Go to mymanagementlab.com for the following Assisted-graded writing questions: 14-16. In regard to Case Incident 1, how do you think modern, open workspaces contribute to or inhibit employee conflicts? 14-17. From your reading of Case Incident 2 and the text, how do you think unions have changed organizational negotiation practices? 14-18. MyManagementLab Only – comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter.

526 PART 3 The Group enDnOtes 12R. Friedman, C. Anderson, J. Brett, 28A. Somech, H. S. Desivilya, and H. Lido- M. Olekalns, N. Goates, and C. C. Lisco, “The goster, “Team Conflict Management and Team 1See, for instance, D. Tjosvold, A. S. H. Wong, Positive and Negative Effects of Anger on Effectiveness: The Effects of Task Interdepen- and N. Y. F. Chen, “Constructively Managing Dispute Resolution: Evidence from Electroni- dence and Team Identification,” Journal of Or- Conflicts in Organizations,” Annual Review of cally Mediated Disputes,” Journal of Applied ganizational Behavior 30, no. 3 (2009): 359–78. Organizational Psychology and Organizational Psychology, April 2004, 369–76. 29H. Ren and B. Gray, “Repairing Relationship Behavior 1 (March 2014): 545–68; and 13J. S. Chun, and J. N. Choi, “Members’ Conflict: How Violation Types and Culture M. A. Korsgaard, S. S. Jeong, D. M. Mahony, Needs, Intragroup Conflict, and Group Influence the Effectiveness of Restoration and A. H. Pitariu, “A Multilevel View of Intra- Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99 Rituals,” Academy of Management Review 34, no. group Conflict,” Journal of Management 34, no. (2014): 437–50. 1 (2009): 105–26. 6 (2008): 1222–52. 14See, for instance, J. R. Curhan, “What Do 30M. J. Gelfand, M. Higgins, L. H. Nishii, J. L. 2F. R. C. de Wit, L. L. Greer, and K. A. Jehn, People Value When They Negotiate? Mapping Raver, A. Dominguez, F. Murakami, S. Yamagu- “The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta- the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation,” chi, and M. Toyama, “Culture and Egocentric Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 97, no. 2 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Sep- Perceptions of Fairness in Conflict and Negotia- (2012): 360–90; and N. Gamero, V. González- tember 2006, 117–26; N. Halevy, E. Chou, and tion,” Journal of Applied Psychology, October 2002, Romá, and J. M. Peiró, “The Influence of J. K. Murnighan, “Mind Games: The Mental 833–45; and Z. Ma, “Chinese Conflict Manage- Intra-Team Conflict on Work Teams’ Affective Representation of Conflict,” Journal of Personality ment Styles and Negotiation Behaviours: An Climate: A Longitudinal Study,” Journal of and Social Psychology 102 (2012): 132–48. Empirical Test,” International Journal of Cross Occupational and Organizational Psychology 81, 15A. M. Isen, A. A. Labroo, and P. Durlach, “An Cultural Management, April 2007, 101–19. no. 1 (2008): 47–69. Influence of Product and Brand Name on Posi- 31P. P. Fu, X. H. Yan, Y. Li, E. Wang, and S. 3N. Halevy, E. Y. Chou, and A. D. Galinsky, tive Affect: Implicit and Explicit Measures,” Peng, “Examining Conflict-Handling Ap- “Exhausting or Exhilarating? Conflict as Motivation & Emotion, March 2004, 43–63. proaches by Chinese Top Management Teams Threat to Interests, Relationships and Identi- 16Ibid. in IT Firms,” International Journal of Conflict ties,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 17C. Montes, D. Rodriguez, and G. Serrano, Management 19, no. 3 (2008): 188–209. (2012): 530–37. “Affective Choice of Conflict Management 32W. Liu, R. Friedman, and Y. Hong, “Culture 4F. R. C. de Wit, L. L. Greer, and K. A. Jehn, Styles,” International Journal of Conflict Manage- and Accountability in Negotiation: Recogniz- “The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A ment 23 (2012): 6–18. ing the Importance of In-Group Relations,” Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 97 18M. A. Rahim, Managing Conflict in Organiza- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision (2012): 360–90. tions, 4th ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Processes 117 (2012): 221–34; and B. C. Gunia, 5J. Farh, C. Lee, and C. I. C. Farh, “Task Con- Publishers, 2011). J. M. Brett, A. K. Nandkeolyar, and D. Kamdar, flict and Team Creativity: A Question of How 19Ibid. “Paying a Price: Culture, Trust, and Negotia- Much and When,” Journal of Applied Psychology 20Ibid. tion Consequences,” Journal of Applied Psychol- 95, no. 6 (2010): 1173–80. 21L. A. DeChurch, J. R. Mesmer-Magnus, and ogy 96, no. 4 (2010): 774–89 6B. H. Bradley, A. C. Klotz, B. F. Postlethwaite, D. Doty, “Moving beyond Relationship and Task 33M. H. Bazerman, J. R. Curhan, D. A. Moore, and K. G. Brown, “Ready to Rumble: How Conflict: Toward a Process-State Perspective,” and K. L. Valley, “Negotiation,” Annual Review Team Personality Composition and Task Con- Journal of Applied Psychology 98 (2013): 559–78. of Psychology 51 (2000): 279–314. flict Interact to Improve Performance,” Journal 22G. Todorova, J. B. Bear, and L. R. Weingart, 34See, for example, D. R. Ames, “Assertiveness of Applied Psychology 98 (2013): 385–92. “Can Conflict Be Energizing? A Study of Task Expectancies: How Hard People Push Depends 7B. H. Bradley, B. F. Postlethwaite, A. C. Klotz, Conflict, Positive Emotions, and Job Satisfac- on the Consequences They Predict,” Journal of M. R. Hamdani, and K. G. Brown, “Reaping the tion,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (2014): Personality and Social Psychology 95, no. 6 (2008): Benefits of Task Conflict in Teams: The Critical 451–67. 1541–57; and J. R. Curhan, H. A. Elfenbein, Role of Team Psychological Safety Climate,” 23P. J. Hinds and D. E. Bailey, “Out of Sight, and H. Xu, “What Do People Value When They Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (2012), 151–58. Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective 8S. Benard, “Cohesion from Conflict: Does Distributed Teams,” Organization Science, No- Value in Negotiation,” Journal of Personality and Intergroup Conflict Motivate Intragroup vember–December 2003, 615–32. Social Psychology 91, no. 3 (2006): 493–512. Norm Enforcement and Support for Central- 24K. A. Jehn, L. Greer, S. Levine, and 35R. Lewicki, D. Saunders, and B. Barry, ized Leadership?” Social Psychology Quarterly 75 G. Szulanski, “The Effects of Conflict Types, Negotiation, 6th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill/ (2012): 107–30. Dimensions, and Emergent States on Group Irwin, 2009). 9G. A. Van Kleef, W. Steinel, and Outcomes,” Group Decision and Negotiation 17, 36J. C. Magee, A. D. Galinsky, and A. C. Homan, “On Being Peripheral and no. 6 (2005): 777–96. D. H. Gruenfeld, “Power, Propensity to Paying Attention: Prototypicality and Infor- 25Zellmer-Bruhn, Maloney, Bhappu, and Salva- Negotiate, and Moving First in Competitive mation Processing in Intergroup Conflict,” dor, “When and How Do Differences Matter?” Interactions,” Personality and Social Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology 98 (2013): 63–79. 26J. Fried, “I Know You Are, but What Am I?” Bulletin, February 2007, 200–12. 10R. S. Peterson and K. J. Behfar, “The Dynamic Inc., July/August 2010, 39–40. 37H. R. Bowles, L. Babcock, and L. Lei, “Social Relationship between Performance Feedback, 27K. J. Behfar, R. S. Peterson, E. A. Mannix, Incentives for Gender Differences in the Pro- Trust, and Conflict in Groups: A Longitudinal and W. M. K. Trochim, “The Critical Role of pensity to Initiative Negotiations: Sometimes Study,” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Conflict Resolution in Teams: A Close Look It Does Hurt to Ask,” Organizational Behavior Processes, September–November 2003, 102–12. at the Links between Conflict Type, Conflict and Human Decision Processes 103 (2007): 11T. M. Glomb and H. Liao, “Interpersonal Management Strategies, and Team Outcomes,” 84–103. Aggression in Work Groups: Social Influence, Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 1 (2008):. 38E. Wilson, “The Trouble with Jake,” The New Reciprocal, and Individual Effects,” Academy of 170–88; A. G. Tekleab, N. R. Quigley, and P. York Times, July 15, 2009, www.nytimes.com. Management Journal 46, no. 4 (2003): 486–96; E. Tesluk, “A Longitudinal Study of Team 39Rahim, Managing Conflict in Organizations. and V. Venkataramani and R. S. Dalal, “Who Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and 40C. K. W. De Dreu, L. R. Weingart, and Helps and Harms Whom? Relational Aspects Team Effectiveness,” Group and Organization S. Kwon, “Influence of Social Motives on In- of Interpersonal Helping and Harming in Management 34, no. 2 (2009): 170–205. tegrative Negotiation: A Meta-Analytic Review Organizations,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 4 (2007): 952–66.

Conflict and Negotiation CHAPTER 14 527 and Test of Two Theories,” Journal of Personal- 53G. Lelieveld, E. Van Dijk, I. Van Beest, and “A Meta-Analysis on Gender Differences in ity & Social Psychology, May 2000, 889–905. G. A. Van Kleef, “Why Anger and Disappoint- Negotiation Outcomes and Their Modera- 41This model is based on R. J. Lewicki, ment Affect Other’s Bargaining Behavior Dif- tors,” Psychological Bulletin 141 (2015): 85–104. D. Saunders, and B. Barry, Negotiation, 7th ed. ferently: The Moderating Role of Power and 68L. J. Kray, C. C. Locke, and A B. Van Zant, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2014). the Mediating Role of Reciprocal Comple- “Feminine Charm: An Experimental Analysis 42J. R. Curhan, H. A. Elfenbein, and G. J. mentary Emotions,” Personality and Social of its Costs and Benefits in Negotiations,” Per- Kilduff, “Getting off on the Right Foot: Psychology Bulletin 38 (2012): 1209–21. sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2012): Subjective Value versus Economic Value in 54S. Côté, I. Hideg, and G. A. van Kleef, “The 1343–57. Predicting Longitudinal Job Outcomes from Consequences of Faking Anger in Negotia- 69S. de Lemus, R. Spears, M. Bukowski, M. Job Offer Negotiations,” Journal of Applied tions,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Moya, and J. Lupiáñez, “Reversing Implicit Psychology 94, no. 2 (2009): 524–34. 49 (2013): 453–63. Gender Stereotype Activation as a Function of 43L. L. Thompson, J. Wang, and B. C. Gunia. 55G. A. Van Kleef and C. K. W. De Dreu, “Lon- Exposure to Traditional Gender Roles,” Social “Negotiation,” Annual Review of Psychology 61, ger-Term Consequences of Anger Expression Psychology 44 (2013): 109–16. (2010): 491–515. in Negotiation: Retaliation or Spillover?” 70D. A. Small, M. Gelfand, L. Babcock, and 44Michael Schaerer, Roderick I. Swaab, and Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46, no. H. Gettman, “Who Goes to the Bargaining Adam D. Galinsky, “Anchors Weigh More 5 (2010): 753–60. Table? The Influence of Gender and Framing Than Power: Why Absolute Powerlessness 56H. Adam and A. Shirako, “Not All Anger Is on the Initiation of Negotiation,” Journal Liberates Negotiators to Achieve Better Out- Created Equal: The Impact of the Express- of Personality and Social Psychology 93, no. 4 comes,” Psychological Science, December, 2014, er’s Culture on the Social Effects of Anger in (2007): 600–13. doi:10.1177/0956797614558718. Negotiations,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71D. T. Kong, K. T. Dirks, and D. L. Ferrin, “In- 45R. P. Larrick and G. Wu, “Claiming a Large 2013. terpersonal Trust within Negotiations: Meta- Slice of a Small Pie: Asymmetric Disconfirma- 57Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Beest, and Van Analytic Evidence, Critical Contingencies, and tion in Negotiation,” Journal of Personality and Kleef, “Why Anger and Disappointment Affect Directions for Future Research,” Academy of Social Psychology 93, no. 2 (2007): 212–33. Other’s Bargaining Behavior Differently.” Management Journal 57 (2014): 1235–55. 46H. A. Elfenbein, “Individual Difference in 58M. Olekalns and P. L Smith, “Mutually De- 72G. R. Ferris, J. N. Harris, Z. A. Russell, Negotiation: A Nearly Abandoned Pursuit Re- pendent: Power, Trust, Affect, and the Use of B. P. Ellen, A. D. Martinez, and F. R. Blass, vived,” Current Directions in Psychological Science Deception in Negotiation,” Journal of Business “The Role of Reputation in the Organiza- 24 (2015): 131–36. Ethics 85, no. 3 (2009): 347–65. tional Sciences: A Multilevel Review, Con- 47T. A. Judge, B. A. Livingston, and C. Hurst, 59A. W. Brooks and M. E. Schweitzer, “Can struct Assessment, and Research Directions,” “Do Nice Guys—and Gals—Really Finish Last? Nervous Nellie Negotiate? How Anxiety Research in Personnel and Human Resources The Joint Effects of Sex and Agreeableness Causes Negotiators to Make Low First Offers, Management 32 (2014): 241–303. on Income,” Journal of Personality and Social Exit Early, and Earn Less Profit,” Organization- 73R. Zinko, G. R. Ferris, S. E. Humphrey, Psychology 102 (2012): 390–407. al Behavior and Human Decision Processes 115, C. J. Meyer, and F. Aime, “Personal Reputa- 48N. Dimotakis, D. E. Conlon, and R. Ilies, no. 1 (2011): 43–54. tion in Organizations: Two-Study Constructive “The Mind and Heart (Literally) of the Ne- 60M. Sinaceur, H. Adam, G. A. Van Kleef, and Replication and Extension of Antecedents and gotiator: Personality and Contextual Determi- A. D. Galinsky, “The Advantages of Being Consequences,” Journal of Occupational and nants of Experiential Reactions and Economic Unpredictable: How Emotional Inconsistency Organizational Psychology 85 (2012): 156–80. Outcomes in Negotiation,” Journal of Applied Extracts Concessions in Negotiation,” Journal of 74A. Hinshaw, P. Reilly, and A. Kupfer Schnei- Psychology 97 (2012): 183–93. Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013): 498–508. der, “Attorneys and Negotiation Ethics: A 49E. T. Amanatullah, M. W. Morris, and 61K. Leary, J. Pillemer, and M. Wheeler, Material Misunderstanding?” Negotiation J. R. Curhan, “Negotiators Who Give Too “Negotiating with Emotion,” Harvard Business Journal 29 (2013): 265–87; N. A. Welsh, “The Much: Unmitigated Communion, Relational Review, January–February 2013, 96–103. Reputational Advantages of Demonstrating Anxieties, and Economic Costs in Distribu- 62L. A. Liu, R. Friedman, B. Barry, Trustworthiness: Using the Reputation Index tive and Integrative Bargaining,” Journal M. J. Gelfand, and Z. Zhang, “The Dynamics with Law Students,” Negotiation Journal 28 of Personality and Social Psychology 95, no. 3 of Consensus Building in Intracultural and (2012): 117–45. (2008): 723–38; and D. S. DeRue, Intercultural Negotiations,” Administrative 75J. R. Curhan, H. A. Elfenbein, and X. Heng, D. E. Conlon, H. Moon, and H. W. Willaby, Science Quarterly 57 (2012): 269–304. “What Do People Value When They Negoti- “When Is Straightforwardness a Liability in 63M. Liu, “The Intrapersonal and Interperson- ate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value Negotiations? The Role of Integrative Poten- al Effects of Anger on Negotiation Strategies: in Negotiation,” Journal of Personality and Social tial and Structural Power,” Journal of Applied A Cross-Cultural Investigation,” Human Com- Psychology 91 (2006): 493–512. Psychology 94, no. 4 (2009): 1032–47. munication Research 35, no. 1 (2009): 148–69; 76W. E. Baker and N. Bulkley, “Paying It For- 50S. Sharma, W. Bottom, and H. A. Elfenbein, and H. Adam, A. Shirako, and W. W. Maddux, ward vs. Rewarding Reputation: Mechanisms “On the Role of Personality, Cognitive Ability, “Cultural Variance in the Interpersonal Ef- of Generalized Reciprocity,” Organization Sci- and Emotional Intelligence in Predicting fects of Anger in Negotiations,” Psychological ence 25 (June 17, 2014): 1493–510. Negotiation Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis,” Science 21, no. 6 (2010): 882–89. 77G. A. Van Kleef, C. K. W. De Dreu, and A. S. Organizational Psychology Review 3 (2013): 64P. D. Trapnell and D. L. Paulhus, “Agentic R. Manstead, “An Interpersonal Approach to 293–336. and Communal Values: Their Scope and Emotion in Social Decision Making: The Emo- 51H. A. Elfenbein, J. R. Curhan, N. Eisenkraft, Measurement,” Journal of Personality Assessment tions as Social Information Model,” Advances in A. Shirako, and L. Baccaro, “Are Some Negoti- 94 (2012): 39–52. Experimental Social Psychology 42 (2010): 45–96. ators Better Than Others? Individual Differenc- 65C. T. Kulik and M. Olekalns, “Negotiating 78F. Lumineau and J. E. Henderson, “The es in Bargaining Outcomes,” Journal of Research the Gender Divide: Lessons from the Negotia- Influence of Relational Experience and in Personality, December 2008, 1463–75. tion and Organizational Behavior Literatures,” Contractual Governance on the Negotiation 52A. Zerres, J. Hüffmeier, P. A. Freund, Journal of Management 38 (2012): 1387–415. Strategy in Buyer–supplier Disputes,” Journal K. Backhaus, and G. Hertel, “Does It Take Two 66C. Suddath, “The Art of Haggling,” Bloom- of Operations Management 30 (2012): 382–95. to Tango? Longitudinal Effects of Unilaterial berg Businessweek, November 26, 2012, 98. 79U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity and Bilateral Integrative Negotiation Training,” 67J. Mazei, J. Hüffmeier, P. A. Freund, Commission, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/ Journal of Applied Psychology 98 (2013): 478–91. A. F. Stuhlmacher, L. Bilke, and G. Hertel, mediation/qanda.cfm, accessed June 9, 2015.

Foundations 15 of Organization Structure 528 Source: John Harding/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images

Learning Objectives 15-4 Describe the effects of downsizing on organiza- tional structures and employees. After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 15-5 Contrast the reasons for mechanistic and 15-1 Identify seven elements of an organization’s organic structural models. structure. 15-6 Analyze the behavioral implications of different 15-2 Identify the characteristics of the functional organizational designs. structure, the divisional structure, and the matrix structure. 15-3 Identify the characteristics of the virtual structure, the team structure, and the circular structure. MyManagement If your professor has chosen to assign this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com to complete the chapter warm up. In the Flat FIeld Startups often struggle to move from executing small, collaborative, local projects to becoming complex, organized, global organizations. Their leaders sometimes believe a hierarchy would create a bloated class of middle managers whose work would change into recording and administrating, rather than imagining and creating. As Craig Silverstein, Google’s first hire, says, entre- preneurs often ask, “Who needs managers? They never add any value.” Remaining a perpetually entrepreneurial organization with an organic, flat structure may be appealing, but it’s not easy to achieve. Management’s core functions are to provide direction, resolve conflicts, and realize product potential in the market. Even if everyone gets along, good ideas may never be fully realized without some form of coordinating structure and a strategic business framework. Large organizations can always restructure their units, but growing creates an orchestra of processes that need to be brought together. Each growth strategy exponentially increases the complexity of managing workers and information flow. Innovative organizations try to strike a balance between achieving the positive coordinating functions of management and avoiding a tight bureaucratic structure.

530 PART 3 The Group One way to stay entrepreneurial in an organizational structure is demonstrated at the video game company Valve. The company’s hand- book notes, “We don’t have any management, and nobody ‘reports to’ anybody else.” This suggests that Valve’s organizational structure is com- pletely flat, with everyone equal in the organization. Still, team leaders are assigned to positions of authority over specific projects. The key fea- ture appears to be that this leadership role is temporary. From the time of its founding by David Kelley in 1993, shown in the photo, the design firm IDEO has minimized a formal organizational struc- ture by having employees focus on different levels of project account- ability. Coordination of multiple projects is done at the “portfolio” level, whereas coordination of projects across the entire organization is done at the “enterprise” level. There is no formal hierarchy, again suggesting a flat organizational structure. Responsibility for decision making remains with the individual and his or her area of concentration. Another approach is the use of virtual management that completely sep- arates administration from core work tasks. For example, small biotech companies outsource lab work, financial management, and marketing so the scientist-entrepreneur can focus on what he or she does best. Some very small biotech firms share office space, allowing scientists working on very different projects to swap ideas while another set of individuals takes care of the management side of the business. Although multiple functions are being fulfilled, the formal organizational chart might just consist of one or two individuals at the top, and a loose, rather undefined network of col- laborators who are accountable for the scope of work they are assigned to complete, but are self-managing. The approaches successful companies have taken to structuring them- selves during growth provide two major lessons. First, a vision is needed of how the increasingly complex organization can coordinate people around a common strategy. Second, management must ensure that organizational structures and reporting relationships don’t become so restrictive that they undermine the creative passions that made the company successful in the first place. As you can see, organizational structures set up a com- pany for future success. Sources: M. Hutson, “Espousing Equality, but Embracing a Hierarchy,” New York Times, June 22, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/business/espousing-equality-but-embracing- a-hierarchy.html?_r=0; J. Whalen, “Virtual Biotechs: No Lab Space, Few Employees,” Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/virtual-biotechs-no-lab-space-few- employees-1401816867; and C. Huston, “He Failed on ‘Shark Tank’—But So What?” Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405270230394 2404579361040224777748.

Foundations of Organization Structure CHAPTER 15 531 E ven for a startup with only a few employees, choosing an organizational structure requires far more than simply deciding who’s the boss and how many employees are needed. The organization’s structure will determine what relationships form, the formality of those relationships, and many work out- comes. The structure may also change as organizations grow and shrink, as management trends dictate, and as research uncovers better ways of maximiz- ing productivity. Structural decisions are arguably the most fundamental ones a leader has to make toward sustaining organizational growth.1 In this chapter, we’ll explore how structure affects employee behavior and the organization as a whole. 15-1 Identify seven elements What Is Organizational Structure? of an organization’s structure. An organizational structure defines how job tasks are formally divided, grouped, organizational structure The way in and coordinated. Managers should address seven key elements when they design their organization’s structure: work specialization, departmentalization, chain of which job tasks are formally divided, grouped, command, span of control, centralization and decentralization, formalization, and coordinated. and boundary spanning.2 Exhibit 15-1 presents each element as the answer to an important structural question, and the following sections describe them. work specialization The degree to which tasks in an organization are subdivided into Work Specialization separate jobs. Early in the twentieth century, Henry Ford became rich by building automobiles on an assembly line. Every worker was assigned a specific, repetitive task such as putting on the right front wheel or installing the right front door. By divid- ing jobs into small standardized tasks that could be performed over and over, Ford was able to produce a car every 10 seconds, using employees with relatively limited skills. Work specialization, or division of labor, describes the degree to which activities in the organization are divided into separate jobs. The essence of work specialization is to divide a job into a number of steps, each completed by a separate individual. Individuals specialize in doing part of an activity rather Exhibit 15-1 Key design Questions and answers for designing the Proper Organizational Structure The Key Question The Answer Is Provided by 1. To what degree are activities subdivided Work specialization Departmentalization into separate jobs? Chain of command 2. On what basis will jobs be grouped Span of control Centralization and decentralization together? Formalization 3. To whom do individuals and groups Boundary spanning report? 4. How many individuals can a manager efficiently and effectively direct? 5. Where does decision-making authority lie? 6. To what degree will there be rules and regulations to direct employees and managers? 7. Do individuals from different areas need to regularly interact?

532 PART 3 The Group than the entirety. Specialization is a means of making the most efficient use of employees’ skills and even successfully improving them through repetition. Less time is spent changing tasks, putting away tools and equipment from a prior step, and getting ready for another. By the 1960s, it increasingly seemed that the good news of specialization could be carried too far. Human diseconomies began to surface in the form of boredom, fatigue, stress, low productivity, poor quality, increased absentee- ism, and high turnover, which more than offset the economic advantages (see Exhibit 15-2). Managers could increase productivity now by enlarging, rather than narrowing, the scope of job activities. Giving employees a variety of activi- ties to do, allowing them to do a whole and complete job, and putting them into teams with interchangeable skills often achieved significantly higher out- put, with increased employee satisfaction. Ford demonstrated work can be performed more efficiently if employees are allowed to specialize, and the practice still has applications in many industries. For example, could you build a car by yourself? Not likely! Equally important, it’s easier and less costly to find and train workers to do specific tasks, especially in highly sophisticated and complex operations. Finally, work specialization increases efficiency and productivity by encouraging the creation of customized inventions and machinery. Most managers today recognize the economies specialization provides in certain jobs and the problems when it’s carried too far. High work specialization helps McDonald’s make and sell hamburgers and fries efficiently and aids medical specialists in most health maintenance orga- nizations. Wherever job roles can be broken down into specific tasks or projects, specialization is possible. Specialization may still confer advan- tages outside manufacturing, particularly where job sharing and part-time work are prevalent.3 Amazon’s Mechanical Turk program, TopCoder, and others like it have facilitated a new trend in microspecialization in which extremely small pieces of programming, data processing, or evaluation tasks are delegated to a global network of individuals by a program manager who then assembles the results.4 This opens the way for employers to use online platforms to assign multiple workers to tasks in a broader functional role like marketing.5 Thus, whereas spe- cialization of yesteryear focused on breaking manufacturing tasks into specific duties within the same plant, today’s specialization judiciously breaks complex tasks into specific elements by technology, expertise, and region. Yet the core principle is the same. Exhibit 15-2 economies and diseconomies of Work Specialization (High) ies humanImdpisaeccot nfroommie Productivity opfasctpefrcioalmizeactioonnom s Im (Low) Work specialization (High)

Foundations of Organization Structure CHAPTER 15 533 departmentalization The basis by which departmentalization jobs in an organization are grouped together. Once jobs have been divided through work specialization, they must be grouped so common tasks can be coordinated. The basis by which jobs are grouped is called departmentalization. One of the most popular ways to group activities is by the functions performed. A manufacturing manager might organize a plant into engineering, accounting, manufacturing, human resources (HR), and supply chain departments. A hos- pital might have departments for research, surgery, intensive care, account- ing, and so forth. A professional football franchise might have departments for player personnel, ticket sales, and travel and accommodations. The major advantage of this type of functional departmentalization is efficiencies gained from putting like specialists together. We can also departmentalize jobs by the type of product or service the organi- zation produces. Procter & Gamble places each major product—such as Tide, Pampers, Charmin, and Pringles—under an executive who has complete global responsibility for it. The major advantage here is increased accountability for performance because all activities related to a specific product or service are under the direction of a single manager. When a firm is departmentalized on the basis of geography, or territory, the sales function, for instance, may have western, southern, midwestern, and east- ern regions each, in effect, a department organized around geography. This form is valuable when an organization’s customers are scattered over a large geographic area and have similar needs within their locations. For this reason, Toyota changed its management structure into geographic regions “so that they may develop and deliver ever better products,” said CEO Akio Toyoda.6 Process departmentalization works for processing customers as well as prod- ucts. If you’ve ever been to a state motor vehicle office to get a driver’s license, you probably went through several departments before receiving your license. In one typical state, applicants go through three steps, each handled by a sepa- rate department: (1) validation by the motor vehicles division, (2) processing A global firm that operates on a local scale in more than 200 countries, The Coca-Cola Company is organized into six geographic segments: North America, Latin America, Europe, Eurasia, Africa, and Asia Pacific. The structure enables it to tailor its strat- egy to markets in different stages of economic development and with differing consumer tastes and buying behavior. Source: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters

534 PART 3 The Group chain of command The unbroken line by the licensing department, and (3) payment collection by the treasury depart- of authority that extends from the top of the ment. A final category of departmentalization uses the particular type of cus- organization to the lowest echelon and tomer the organization seeks to reach. clarifies who reports to whom. Interestingly, organizations do not always stay with the basis of departmen- authority The rights inherent in a talization they first adopt. Microsoft, for instance, used customer departmen- managerial position to give orders and to talization for years, organizing around its customer bases: consumers, large expect the orders to be obeyed. corporations, software developers, and small businesses. However, in a June 2013 letter from CEO Steve Ballmer to all employees, he announced a restructuring unity of command The idea that a to functional departmentalization, citing a need to foster continuing innova- subordinate should have only one superior to tion. The new departments grouped jobs by traditional functions including whom he or she is directly responsible. engineering, marketing, business development, strategy and research, finance, HR, and legal.7 Ballmer expected the change in Microsoft’s organizational structure would “reshape how we interact with our customers, developers, and key innovation partners, delivering a more coherent message and family of product offer- ings.”8 As we see throughout this text, whenever changes are deliberately made in organizations to align practices with organizational goals, particularly the goals of strong leaders, a good execution of the changes creates a much higher probability for improvement. In Microsoft’s case, the results are not yet determined—Ballmer, who is a strong leader, announced his retirement 2 months later (he officially left Microsoft in 2014), and further changes ensued. Microsoft continued to struggle with the reorganization, announc- ing further changes in its leadership personnel and team structure less than a year later.9 Chain of Command While the chain of command was once a basic cornerstone in the design of organizations, it has far less importance today. But managers should still consid- er its implications, particularly in industries that deal with potential life-or-death situations when people need to quickly rely on decision makers. The chain of command is an unbroken line of authority that extends from the top of the organization to the lowest echelon and clarifies who reports to whom. We can’t discuss the chain of command without also discussing authority and unity of command. Authority refers to the rights inherent in a managerial position to give orders and expect them to be obeyed. To facilitate coordi- nation, each managerial position is given a place in the chain of command, and each manager is given a degree of authority in order to meet his or her responsibilities. The principle of unity of command helps preserve the concept of an unbroken line of authority. It says a person should have one and only one superior to whom he or she is directly responsible. If the unity of com- mand is broken, an employee might have to cope with conflicting demands or priorities from several superiors, as is often the case in organization charts’ dotted-line reporting relationships depicting an employee’s accountability to multiple managers. Times change, however, and so do the basic tenets of organizational design. A low-level employee today can access information in seconds that was available only to top managers a generation ago, and many employees are empowered to make decisions previously reserved for management. Add the popularity of self-managed and cross-functional teams as well as structural designs that include multiple bosses, and you can see why authority and unity of command may appear to hold less relevance. Yet many organizations still find they can be most productive by enforcing the chain of command. Indeed, one survey of more than 1,000 managers found that 59 percent agreed with the statement, “There is an imaginary line in my company’s organizational

Foundations of Organization Structure CHAPTER 15 535 span of control The number of chart. Strategy is created by people above this line, while strategy is executed subordinates a manager can efficiently and by people below the line.”10 However, this same survey found that lower-level employees’ buy-in (agreement and active support) to the organization’s over- effectively direct. all, big picture strategy was inhibited by their reliance on the hierarchy for decision making. Span of Control How many employees can a manager efficiently and effectively direct? The span of control describes the number of levels and managers an organization has. All things being equal, the wider or larger the span, the fewer levels, the more employees at each level, and the more efficient the organization. Assume two organizations each have about 4,100 operative-level employees. One has a uniform span of 4 and the other a span of 8. As Exhibit 15-3 illus- trates, the wider span of 8 will have two fewer levels and approximately 800 fewer managers. If the average manager makes $50,000 a year, the wider span will save $40 million a year in management salaries! Obviously, wider spans are more efficient in terms of cost. However, at some point when supervisors no longer have time to provide subordinates with the necessary leadership and support, effectiveness declines and employee performance suffers. Narrow or small spans have their advocates. By keeping the span of control to five or six employees, a manager can maintain close control.11 But narrow spans have three major drawbacks. First, they’re expensive because they add lev- els of management. Second, they make vertical communication in the organiza- tion more complex. The added levels of hierarchy slow down decision making and can isolate upper management. Third, narrow spans encourage overly tight supervision and discourage employee autonomy. The trend in recent years has been toward wider spans of control. They’re consistent with firms’ efforts to reduce costs, cut overhead, speed decision making, increase flexibility, get closer to customers, and empower employees. However, to ensure performance doesn’t suffer because of these wider spans, organizations have been investing heavily in employee training. Managers recognize they can handle a wider span best when employees know their jobs inside and out or can turn to coworkers with questions. Exhibit 15-3 Contrasting Spans of Control Members at each level (Highest) Assuming Assuming span of 4 span of 8 Organizational Level 11 1 24 8 3 16 64 4 64 512 5 256 4,096 6 1,024 Span of 8: 7 4,096 Operatives = 4,096 Managers (Levels 1–4) = 585 Span of 4: Operatives = 4,096 Managers (Levels 1–6) = 1,365

536 PART 3 The Group centralization The degree to which Centralization and decentralization decision making is concentrated at a single Centralization refers to the degree to which decision making is concentrated point in an organization. at a single point in the organization. In centralized organizations, top manag- ers make all the decisions, and lower-level managers merely carry out their directives. In organizations at the other extreme, decentralized decision making is pushed down to the managers closest to the action or to workgroups. The concept of centralization includes only formal authority—that is, the rights inherent to a position. An organization characterized by centralization is different structurally from one that’s decentralized. A decentralized organization can act more quickly to solve problems, more people provide input into decisions, and employees are less likely to feel alienated from those who make decisions that affect their work lives. The effects of centralization and decentralization can be predicted: Centralized organizations are better for avoiding commission errors (bad choices), while decentralized organizations are better for avoiding omission errors (lost opportunities).12 Management efforts to make organizations more flexible and responsive have produced a trend toward decentralized decision making by lower-level managers, who are closer to the action and typically have more detailed knowl- edge about problems than top managers. Sears and JCPenney have given their store managers considerably more discretion in choosing what merchandise to stock in individual stores. This allows the stores to compete more effectively against local merchants. Similarly, when Procter & Gamble empowered small groups of employees to make decisions about new-product development inde- pendent of the usual hierarchy, it was able to rapidly increase the proportion of new products ready for market.13 Concerning creativity, research investigat- ing a large number of Finnish organizations demonstrated that companies with decentralized research and development (R&D) offices in multiple locations were better at producing innovation than companies that centralized all R&D in a single office.14 Decentralization is often necessary for companies with offshore sites because localized decision making is needed to respond to each region’s profit With more than 7,000 neighborhood and airport locations throughout North America and Europe, Enterprise Rent-A-Car empowers employees at the local level to make decisions that affect their work. Decentralization gives Enterprise a competitive advan- tage by enabling employees to provide personalized service that results in high customer satisfaction. Source: David Carson/MCT/Landov

Foundations of Organization Structure CHAPTER 15 537 formalization The degree to which jobs opportunities, client base, and specific laws, while centralized oversight is within an organization are standardized. needed to hold regional managers accountable. Failure to successfully balance these priorities can harm not only the organization, but also its relationships boundary spanning When individuals with foreign governments.15 form relationships outside their formally assigned groups. Formalization Formalization refers to the degree to which jobs within the organization are standardized. If a job is highly formalized, the employee has a minimal amount of discretion over what to do and when and how to do it, resulting in consistent and uniform output. There are explicit job descriptions, lots of organizational rules, and clearly defined procedures covering work processes. Formalization not only eliminates the possibility of employees engaging in alternative behav- iors; it removes the need for them to consider alternatives. Conversely, where formalization is low, job behaviors are relatively unprogrammed and employees have a great deal of freedom to exercise discretion in their work. The degree of formalization can vary widely between and within organiza- tions. In general, research from 94 high-technology Chinese firms indicated that formalization is a detriment to team flexibility in decentralized organi- zation structures, suggesting that formalization does not work as well where duties are inherently interactive, or where there is a need to be flexible and innovative.16 For example, publishing representatives who call on college pro- fessors to inform them of their company’s new publications have a great deal of freedom in their jobs. They have only a general sales pitch, which they tailor as needed, and rules and procedures governing their behavior may be little more than suggestions on what to emphasize about forthcoming titles and the requirement to submit a weekly sales report. At the other extreme, clerical and editorial employees in the same publishing houses may need to be at their desks by 8:00 a.m. and follow a set of precise procedures dictated by management. Boundary Spanning We’ve described ways that organizations create well-defined task structures and chains of authority. These systems facilitate control and coordination for spe- cific tasks, but if there is too much division within an organization, attempts to coordinate across groups can be disastrous. One way to overcome compartmen- talization and retain the positive elements of structure is to encourage or create boundary-spanning roles. Within a single organization, boundary spanning occurs when individu- als form relationships with people outside their formally assigned groups. An HR executive who frequently engages with the IT group is engaged in boundary spanning, as is a member of an R&D team who implements ideas from a production team. These activities help prevent formal structures from becoming too rigid and, not surprisingly, enhance organization and team creativity.17 Boundary-spanning activities occur not only within but also between organi- zations. Gathering information from external knowledge sources is especially advantageous in highly innovative industries where keeping up with the compe- tition is challenging. Positive results are especially strong in organizations that encourage extensive internal communication; in other words, external bound- ary spanning is most effective when it is followed up with internal boundary spanning.18 Organizations can use formal mechanisms to facilitate boundary-spanning activities through their structures. One method is to assign formal liaison roles or develop committees of individuals from different areas of the organization.

538 PART 3 The Group BMW encourages all employees, including this production worker at its plant in Jakarta, Indonesia, to build relationships throughout the global company. Boundary spanning at BMW links R&D, design, production, and marketing individuals to speed prob- lem solving and innovation and to adapt to market fluctuations. Source: Dadang Tri/Bloomberg/Getty Images Development activities can also facilitate boundary spanning. Employees with experience in multiple functions, such as accounting and marketing, are more likely to engage in boundary spanning.19 Many organizations try to set the stage for these sorts of positive relationships by creating job rotation programs so new hires get a better sense of different areas of the organization. A final method to encourage boundary spanning is to bring attention to overall organizational goals and shared identity concepts. You probably have personal experience with at least some of the results of decisions leaders have made in your school or workplace that related to the elements of organizational structure. The organizational framework, which can be depicted by a drawing of an organizational chart, can help you clarify leader- ship intentions. We’ll discuss them next. 15-2 Identify the character- Common Organizational Frameworks istics of the functional and Structures structure, the divisional structure, and the matrix Organizational designs are known by many names and are constantly evolving structure. in response to changes in the way work is done. We will start with three of the more common organizational frameworks: the simple structure, the bureaucracy, simple structure An organizational and the matrix structure. structure characterized by a low degree of the Simple Structure departmentalization, wide spans of control, What do a small retail store, an electronics firm run by a hard-driving entre- authority centralized in a single person, and preneur, and an airline’s “war room” in the midst of a pilot’s strike have in common? They probably all use the simple structure. little formalization. The simple structure has a low degree of departmentalization, wide spans of control, authority centralized in a single person, and little formalization. It is a flat organization; it usually has only two or three vertical levels, a loose body of employees, and one individual with decision-making authority. Most companies

Foundations of Organization Structure CHAPTER 15 539 Exhibit 15-4 a Simple Structure (Jack Gold’s Men’s Store) Jack Gold, owner-manager Johnny Moore, Edna Joiner, Bob Munson, Norma Sloman, Jerry Plotkin, Helen Wright, salesperson salesperson salesperson salesperson salesperson cashier bureaucracy An organizational structure start as a simple structure, and many innovative technology-based firms with short with highly routine operating tasks achieved lifespans, like cell phone app development firms, remain compact by design.20 through specialization, very formalized rules and regulations, tasks that are grouped into Exhibit 15-4 is an organization chart for a retail men’s store owned and man- functional departments, centralized authority, aged by Jack Gold. Jack employs five full-time salespeople, a cashier, and extra narrow spans of control, and decision making workers for weekends and holidays, but he runs the show. Though this is typical that follows the chain of command. for a small business, in times of crisis large companies often simplify their struc- tures (though not to this degree) as a means of focusing their resources. The strength of the simple structure lies in its simplicity. It’s fast, flexible, and inexpensive to operate, and accountability is clear. One major weakness is that it becomes increasingly inadequate as an organization grows because its low formalization and high centralization tend to create information overload at the top. Decision making typically becomes slower as the single executive tries to continue doing it all. This proves the undoing of many small businesses. If the structure isn’t changed and made more elaborate, the firm often loses momentum and can eventually fail. The simple structure’s other weakness is that it’s risky—everything depends on one person. An illness at the top can liter- ally halt the organization’s information and decision-making capabilities. the Bureaucracy Standardization! That’s the key concept that underlies all bureaucracies. Consider the bank where you keep your checking account, the store where you buy clothes, or the government offices that collect your taxes, enforce health regulations, or provide local fire protection. They all rely on standardized work processes for coordination and control. The bureaucracy is characterized by highly routine operating tasks achieved through specialization, strictly formalized rules and regulations, tasks grouped into units, centralized authority, narrow spans of control, and decision making that follows the chain of command. Bureaucracy incorporates all the strongest degrees of departmentalization described earlier. Bureaucracy is a dirty word in many people’s minds. However, it does have advantages, primarily the ability to perform standardized activities in a highly efficient manner. Putting like specialties together in units results in econo- mies of scale, minimum duplication of people and equipment, and a common language employees all share. Bureaucracies can get by with less talented—and hence less costly—middle- and lower-level managers because rules and regula- tions substitute for managerial discretion. There is little need for innovative and experienced decision makers below the level of senior executives. Listen in on a dialogue among four executives in one company: “You know, nothing happens in this place until we produce something,” said the production executive. “Wrong,” commented the R&D manager, “Nothing happens until we design something!” “What are you talking about?” asked the marketing executive,

540 PART 3 The Group Hospitals benefit from standardized work processes and procedures common to a bureaucratic structure because they help employees perform their jobs efficiently. At Christchurch Women’s Hospital in New Zealand, reg- istered nurse Megan Coleman (right) and midwife Sally Strathdee follow formal rules and regulations in caring for mothers and newborns. Source: Greg Wood/AFP/Getty Images functional structure An organizational “Nothing happens until we sell something!” The exasperated accounting man- structure that groups employees by their ager responded, “It doesn’t matter what you produce, design, or sell. No one similar specialties, roles, or tasks. knows what happens until we tally up the results!” This conversation highlights that bureaucratic specialization can create conflicts in which the unit perspec- divisional structure An organizational tives override the overall goals of the organization. structure that groups employees into units by product, service, customer, or geographical The other major weakness of a bureaucracy is something we’ve all witnessed: market area. obsessive concern with following the rules. When cases don’t precisely fit the rules, there is no room for modification. The bureaucracy is efficient only as long as employees confront familiar problems with programmed decision rules. There are two aspects of bureaucracies we should explore: functional and divi- sional structures. the Functional Structure The functional structure groups employees by their similar specialties, roles, or tasks.21 An organization organized into production, marketing, HR and accounting departments is an example. Many large organi- zations utilize this structure, although this is evolving to allow for quick changes in response to business opportunities. Still, there are advantages, including that the functional structure allows specialists to become experts more easily than if they worked in diversified units. Employees can also be motivated by a clear career path to the top of the organization chart specific to their specialties. The functional structure works well if the organization is focused on one product or service. Unfortunately it creates rigid, formal communications because the hierarchy dictates the communication protocol. Coordination among many units is a problem, and infighting in units and between units can lead to reduced motivation. the divisional Structure The divisional structure groups employees into units by product, service, customer, or geographical market area.22 It is highly depart- mentalized. Sometimes this structure is known by the type of division structure it uses: product/service organizational structure (like units for cat food, dog food, and bird food that report to an animal food producer), customer organizational

Foundations of Organization Structure CHAPTER 15 541 matrix structure An organizational structure (like units for outpatient care, inpatient care, and pharmacy that re- structure that creates dual lines of authority port to hospital administration), or geographic organizational structure (like units for Europe, Asia, and South America that report to corporate headquarters).23 and combines functional and product The divisional structure has the opposite benefits and disadvantages of the departmentalization. functional structure. It facilitates coordination in units to achieve on-time com- pletion, budget targets, and development and introduction of new products to market, while addressing the specific concerns of each unit. It provides clear responsibility for all activities related to a product, but with duplication of func- tions and costs. Sometimes this is helpful, say when the organization has a unit in Spain and another in China, very different markets, and a marketing strategy is needed for a new product. Marketing experts in both places can incorporate the appropriate cultural perspectives into their region’s marketing campaign. How- ever, the organization’s marketing function employees in two places may repre- sent an increased cost, in doing basically the same task in two different countries. the Matrix Structure The matrix structure combines the functional and product structures, and we find it in advertising agencies, aerospace firms, R&D laboratories, construction companies, hospitals, government agencies, universities, management consult- ing firms, and entertainment companies.24 Companies that use matrix-like structures include ABB, Boeing, BMW, IBM, and P&G. The most obvious structural characteristic of the matrix is that it breaks the unity-of-command concept. Employees in the matrix have two bosses: their functional department managers and their product managers. Exhibit 15-5 shows the matrix for a college of business administration. The academic depart- ments of accounting, decision and information systems, marketing, and so forth are functional units. Overlaid on them are specific programs (that is, products). Thus, members in a matrix structure have a dual chain of command: to their functional department and to their product groups. A professor of accounting teaching an undergraduate course may report to the director of undergraduate programs as well as to the chairperson of the accounting department. The strength of the matrix is its ability to facilitate coordination when the organization has a number of complex and interdependent activities. Direct and frequent contacts between different specialties in the matrix can let information permeate the organization and more quickly reach the people who Exhibit 15-5 Matrix Structure for a College of Business administration Programs Academic Undergraduate Master’s Ph.D. Research Executive Community Service Departments Development Accounting Finance Decision and Information Systems Management Marketing

542 PART 3 The Group need it. The matrix reduces “bureaupathologies”—its dual lines of authority limit people’s tendency to protect their territories at the expense of the orga- nization’s goals.25 A matrix also achieves economies of scale and facilitates the allocation of specialists by both providing the best resources and ensuring they are efficiently used. The major disadvantages of the matrix lie in the confusion it creates, its tendency to foster power struggles, and the stress it places on individuals.26 For individuals who desire security and absence from ambiguity, this work climate can be stressful. Reporting to more than one boss introduces role conflict, and unclear expectations introduce role ambiguity. Without the unity- of-command concept, ambiguity about who reports to whom is significantly increased and often leads to conflict and power struggles between functional and product managers. 15-3 Identify the characteris- Alternate Design Options tics of the virtual structure, the team In the ever-increasing trend toward flatter structures, many organizations structure, and the have been developing new options with fewer layers of hierarchy and more circular structure. emphasis on opening the boundaries of the organization.27 In this section, we describe three such designs: the virtual structure, the team structure, and the virtual structure A small, core organiza- circular structure. tion that outsources major business functions. the Virtual Structure Why own when you can rent? That question captures the essence of the virtual structure (also sometimes called the network, or modular, structure), typically a small, core organization that outsources its major business functions.28 The vir- tual structure is highly centralized, with little or no departmentalization. The prototype of the virtual structure is today’s film-making organization. In Hollywood’s golden era, movies were made by huge, vertically integrated corporations. Studios such as MGM, Warner Brothers, and 20th Century Fox owned large movie lots and employed thousands of full-time specialists—set designers, camera people, film editors, directors, and even actors. Today, most movies are made by a collection of individuals and small companies who come together and make films project by project. This structural form allows each project to be staffed with the talent best suited to its demands, rather than just with the people employed by the studio. It minimizes bureaucratic overhead because there is no lasting organization to maintain. And it lessens long-term risks and their costs because there is no long term—a team is assembled for a finite period and then disbanded. Exhibit 15-6 shows a virtual structure in which management outsources all the primary functions of the business. The core of the organization is a small group of executives whose job is to oversee directly any activities done in-house and to coordinate relationships with organizations that manufacture, distribute, and perform other crucial functions. The dotted lines represent the relation- ships typically maintained under contracts. In essence, managers in virtual struc- tures spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external relations. The major advantage of the virtual structure is its flexibility, which allows individuals with an innovative idea and little money to successfully compete against larger, more established organizations. The structure also saves a great deal of money by eliminating permanent offices and hierarchical roles.29 The drawbacks have become increasingly clear as popularity has grown.30 Virtual organizations are in a state of perpetual flux and reorganization, which means roles, goals, and responsibilities are unclear, setting the stage for

Foundations of Organization Structure CHAPTER 15 543 Exhibit 15-6 a Virtual Structure Advertising agency Independent research and development consulting firm Executive group Factories Commissioned in sales South Korea representatives team structure An organizational political behavior. Cultural alignment and shared goals can be lost because structure that replaces departments with of the low degree of interaction among members. Team members who are geographically dispersed and communicate infrequently find it difficult empowered teams, and which eliminates to share information and knowledge, which can limit innovation and slow response time. Sometimes—as with Lululemon’s shipments of unintentionally horizontal boundaries and external barriers see-through yoga pants, where the deficiencies weren’t noticed until many had been sold—the consequences of having geographically remote managers can between customers and suppliers. be embarrassing and even financially harmful to the company.31 Ironically, some virtual organizations are less adaptable and innovative than those with well-established communication and collaboration networks. A leadership presence that reinforces the organization’s purpose and facilitates communi- cation is thus especially valuable. the team Structure The team structure seeks to eliminate the chain of command and replace de- partments with empowered teams.32 This structure removes vertical and hori- zontal boundaries in addition to breaking down external barriers between the company and its customers and suppliers. By removing vertical boundaries, management flattens the hierarchy and minimizes status and rank. Cross-hierarchical teams (which include top execu- tives, middle managers, supervisors, and operative employees), participative decision-making practices, and the use of 360-degree performance appraisals (in which peers and others evaluate performance) can be used. For example, at the Danish firm Oticon A/S, the world’s largest hearing aid manufacturer, all traces of hierarchy have disappeared. Everyone works at uniform mobile work- stations, and project teams, not functions or departments, coordinate work. As previously discussed, functional departments create horizontal boundar- ies between functions, product lines, and units. The way to reduce them is to replace functional departments with cross-functional teams and organize activ- ities around processes. Xerox, for instance, develops new products through multidisciplinary teams that work on a single process instead of on narrow functional tasks.

544 PART 3 The Group What structure should i choose? Career OBjectives I’m running a small but growing busi- Second, you may want to now competency as they move up the or- ness and need help figuring out how to define roles based on broad sets ganization chart. keep positions flexible as we expand. of competencies that span multiple The most important thing to remem- What advice can you give me about levels of organizational functioning. ber is that you aren’t creating a job designing job structures that will In this strategic competency model, structure just for today—make sure help combine my success today with job roles and incentives are defined it’s ready to grow and change with your growth for tomorrow? based on a clear structure. Here are business. the steps: Grow well! — Anika Dear Anika: • Look at the top level and think about Sources: G. W. Stevens, “A Critical Review A surprising number of small busi- the future. In the competency model, of the Science and Practice of Competen- nesses fail right at the point where you should use the mission state- cy Modeling,” Human Resource Develop- they begin to grow. There are many ment and overall organizational ment Review 12 (March 2013): 86–107; reasons, including financing deficits strategies to evaluate your organiza- P. Capelli and J. R. Keller, “Talent Man- and competitors that copy their good tion’s future needs. agement: Conceptual Approaches and ideas. However, a common problem is Practical Challenges,” Annual Review of that the structure the company began • Once you’ve identified the organiza- Organizational Psychology and Organization- with is simply not right for a larger firm. tion’s future needs, figure out a smart al Behavior 1 (March 2014): 305–31; and way to assign responsibilities to indi- C. Fernández-Aráoz, “21st Century Talent There are ways to meet the chal- viduals. You’ll obviously need some Spotting,” Harvard Business Review, June lenge. Start by looking at individual specialization, but at the same time, 2014, https://hbr.org/2014/06/21st- jobs and their responsibilities. Make consider general skills that will be century-talent-spotting. a list for each job. When job roles and useful for both growth and long-term responsibilities aren’t defined, you sustainability. The opinions provided here are of the manag- do pick up a great deal of flexibility, ers and authors only and do not necessar- assigning employees to tasks exactly • As your business grows, identify ap- ily reflect those of their organizations. The when needed. Unfortunately, this flex- plicants with the potential to meet authors or managers are not responsible for ibility also means it’s hard to determine future needs, and develop employee any errors or omissions, or for the results which skills are available, or to identify incentives to encourage broad skills obtained from the use of this information. gaps between planned strategy and profiles. You’ll want to structure In no event will the authors or managers, or available human resources. your plan so employees increase in their related partnerships or corporations thereof, be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the opinions provided here. When fully operational, the team structure may break down geographic barriers. Today, most large U.S. companies see themselves as team-oriented global corporations; many, like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s, do as much business overseas as in the United States, and some struggle to incorporate geographic regions into their structure. In other cases, the team approach is need-based. Such is the case with Chinese companies, which made 93 acquisitions in the oil and gas industry in five years—incorporating each acquisition as a new team unit—to meet forecasted demand their resources in China could not meet.33 The team structure provides a solution because it considers geography as more of a tactical, logistical issue than a structural one. In short, the goal may be to break down cultural barriers and open opportunities. Some organizations create teams incorporating their employees and their customers or suppliers. For example, to ensure important product parts are reli- ably made to exacting specifications by its suppliers, Honeywell International partners some of its engineers with managers at those suppliers.

Foundations of Organization Structure CHAPTER 15 545 Flexible structures, Deskless Workplaces an ethical Choice Once upon a time, students fresh • Where will confidential discussions • How can you assure your clients from business schools couldn’t take place? In some contemporary of confidentiality? Even walled, wait for that first cubicle to call workplace designs, ad hoc confer- soundproof rooms for virtual or live home, mid-level managers aspired to ence rooms address the need for meetings may not provide the de- an office of their own, and executives separate gatherings. This may not sired level of security for clients who coveted the corner office. These days, be optimal if the walls are made need to know their business will stay the walls are coming down. As organi- of glass, if employees will feel stig- on a need-to-know basis. zational structures change, so do their matized when called into a meeting physical environments. Many organi- room, or if they become reluctant to • How will expectations and account- zations have been trying to make the approach human resources staff with abilities be enforced? In an environ- physical environment reflect the organi- issues because of privacy concerns. ment without offices and sometimes zational structures they adopt. without job titles, there is an even • How can differences in personal- greater need for clearly assigned At online retailer Zappos, not even ity traits be overcome? Employees goals, roles, and expectations. the CEO wants an office, and all 1,500 high in extraversion will be more Otherwise, open, collaborative struc- employees are welcome throughout comfortable building collaborative tures may foster diffusion of respon- the open spaces. Firms like Google relationships without assigned work- sibility and confusion. have workplace designs of public spaces, while introverted individuals rooms with lounge areas and large, may be uncomfortable without an es- Sources: S. Henn, “‘Serendipitous Interaction’ multiperson tables. According to Ed- tablished office structure where they Key to Tech Firm’s Workplace Design,” NPR, ward Danyo, manager of workplace can get to know others over time. March 13, 2013, www.npr.org/blogs/alltech strategy at pharmaceuticals firm Glax- considered/2013/03/13/174195695/ oSmithKline, shared environments cre- • How can personal privacy be main- serendipitous-interaction-key-to-tech-firms- ate great work gains, including what tained? Zappos gives employees workplace-design; H. El Nasser, “What Of- he estimates is a 45 percent increase personal lockers, asks employees fice? Laptops Are Workspace,” USA Today, in the speed of decision making. But to angle laptop screens away from June 6, 2012, 1B–2B; R. W. Huppke, “Think- there are ethical concerns for the dis- neighbors, and tries to make open ing Outside the Cubicle,” Chicago Tribune, mantling of the physical and mental spaces more private by encouraging October 29, 2012, 2-1, 2-3; “Inside the New organizational structure: ear buds to create a sound barrier Deskless Office,” Forbes, July 16, 2012, 34; between working employees. and E. Maltby, “My Space Is Our Space,” The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2012, R9. circular structure An organizational the Circular Structure structure in which executives are at the Picture the concentric rings of an archery target. In the center are the execu- center, spreading their vision outward in rings tives, and radiating outward in rings grouped by function are the managers, then the specialists, then the workers. This is the circular structure.34 Does it seem like grouped by function (managers, then organizational anarchy? Actually, there is still a hierarchy, but top management is at the very heart of the organization, with its vision spreading outward. specialists, then workers). The circular structure has intuitive appeal for creative entrepreneurs, and some small innovative firms have claimed it. However, as in many of the current hybrid approaches, employees are apt to be unclear about whom they report to and who is running the show. We are still likely to see the popularity of the circular structure spread. The concept may have intuitive appeal for spreading a vision of corporate social responsibility (CSR), for instance. PersonAl InvenTory AssessmenTs PI A PERSONAL INVENTORY Organizational Structure Assessment ASSESSMENT To learn more about how organizations are structured, complete this PIA.

546 PART 3 The Group 15-4 Describe the effects The Leaner Organization: Downsizing of downsizing on organizational structures The goal of some organizational structures we’ve described is to improve agility and employees. by creating a lean, focused, and flexible organization. Downsizing is a systematic effort to make an organization leaner by closing locations, reducing staff, or selling off business units that don’t add value. Downsizing doesn’t necessarily mean physically shrinking the size of your office, although that’s been happen- ing, too (see OB Poll). The radical shrinking of Motorola Mobility in 2012 and 2013 is a case of downsizing to survive after its 2011 $12.5 billion acquisition by Google. In response to declining demand for its smartphones, Motorola cut its workforce by 20 percent in August 2012. When the company posted a $350 million fourth- quarter loss in 2012, with a 40 percent revenue decline, it cut the workforce again, by 10 percent. Google called this “rightsizing.”35 Motorola Mobility was then sold to China’s Lenovo in 2014 for $2.91 billion. Other firms downsize to direct all their efforts toward their core competencies. American Express claims to have been doing this in a series of layoffs over more than a decade: 7,700 jobs in 2001; 6,500 jobs in 2002; 7,000 jobs (10 percent of its workforce) in 2008; 4,000 jobs in 2009. The 2013 cut of 5,400 jobs (8.5 percent of the remaining workforce) represented “its biggest retrenchment in a decade.” An additional layoff of 4,000 jobs was slated for 2015. Each layoff has been accompanied by a restructuring to reflect chang- ing customer preferences, away from personal customer service and toward online customer service. According to CEO Ken Chennault, “Our business and industry continue to become transformed by technology. As a result of these changes, we have the need and the opportunity to evolve our organization and cost structure.”36 Some companies focus on lean management techniques to reduce bureaucracy and speed decision making. Starbucks adopted lean initiatives in 2009, which encompassed all levels of management and also focused on faster barista techniques and manufacturing processes. Customers gener- ally applauded the shortened wait times and improved product consistency. Starbucks continues to reap returns from its lean initiatives, posting notable revenue gains each quarter.37 Ob POLL the incredible shrinking Office O ce space per worker 300 260 225 165 (sq ft) 250 2010 150 200 150 2012 (2017) 100 50 0 2000 Source: Based on February 28, 2012, press release “Office Space per Worker Will Drop to 100 Square Feet or Below.” http://www.corenetglobal.org/files/ home/info_center/global_press_releases/pdf/pr120227_officespace.pdf.

Foundations of Organization Structure CHAPTER 15 547 Despite the advantages of being a lean organization, the impact of down- sizing on organizational performance is not without controversy. Reducing the size of the workforce has an immediately positive outcome in the form of lower wage costs, and companies downsizing to improve strategic focus often see positive effects on stock prices after the announcement. An example is Russia’s Gorky Automobile Factory (GAZ), which realized a profit for the first time in many years after President Bo Andersson fired 50,000 workers, half the workforce.38 On the other hand, among companies that only cut employees but don’t restructure, profits and stock prices usually decline. Part of the prob- lem is the effect of downsizing on employee attitudes. Employees who remain often feel worried about future layoffs and may be less committed to the organization. Stress reactions can lead to increased sickness absences, lower concentration on the job, and lower creativity. Downsizing can also lead to more voluntary turnover, so vital human capital is lost. The result is a company that is more anemic than lean. Companies can reduce negative impacts by preparing in advance, thus alle- viating some employee stress and strengthening support for the new direction. Here are some effective strategies for downsizing: • Invest. Companies that downsize to focus on core competencies are more effective when they invest in high-involvement work practices afterward. • Communicate. When employers make efforts to discuss downsizing with employees early, employees are less worried about the outcomes and feel the company is taking their perspective into account. • Participate. Employees worry less if they can participate in the process in some way. Voluntary early-retirement programs or severance packages can help achieve leanness without layoffs. • Assist. Severance, extended health care benefits, and job search assis- tance demonstrate a company cares about its employees and honors their contributions. In short, companies that make themselves lean can be more agile, effi- cient, and productive—but only if they make cuts carefully and help employees through the process. 15-5 Contrast the reasons Why Do Structures Differ? for mechanistic and organic structural We’ve described many organization design options. Exhibit 15-7 recaps our dis- models. cussions by presenting two extreme models of organizational design. One we’ll call the mechanistic model. It’s generally synonymous with the bureaucracy in mechanistic model A structure charac- that it has highly standardized processes for work, high formalization, and more terized by extensive departmentalization, high managerial hierarchy. The other extreme is the organic model. It’s flat, has few- formalization, a limited information network, er formal procedures for making decisions, has multiple decision makers, and and centralization. favors flexible practices.39 organic model A structure that is flat, With these two models in mind, let’s ask a few questions: Why are some uses cross-hierarchical and cross-functional organizations structured along more mechanistic lines whereas others follow teams, has low formalization, possesses a organic characteristics? What forces influence the choice of design? In this sec- comprehensive information network, and tion, we present major causes or determinants of an organization’s structure.40 relies on participative decision making. Organizational Strategies Because structure is a means to achieve objectives, and objectives derive from the organization’s overall strategy, it’s only logical that structure should fol- low strategy. If management significantly changes the organization’s strategy or its values, the structure must change to accommodate. For example, recent