See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273202297

Leadership and Negotiation Skills

Article · December 2014

CITATION READS

1 7,512

1 author:

Eduardo Simoes
ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
17 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Simoes on 07 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Caderno Electrónico do OPBPL (In press)

Leadership and Negotiation Skills

Eduardo Simões
ISCTE Business School - ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon

Abstract
Lateralized and complex organizational structures increase the potential for
emergence of conflict situations. In this context, in which the relations of
authority are rendered down, the qualities traditionally associated with
leadership effectiveness, such as vision, self-confidence or charisma, may be
insufficient. Managing conflicts about objectives and strategies as well as
negotiating the allocation of scarce resources constitute conditions for effective
leadership in today's organizations.

1 | Conflict: A Fact of Organizational Life

Conflict is salient part of organizational life. Today, it is virtually ubiquitous and assumes
different forms. Strikes, grievances and disputes including those which are accompanied by
court proceedings, are explicit manifestations of conflict. Less visible, altercations between
colleagues, which result in difficulties in working together and mutual hostility, or even
oppositional behavior to a directive from management, are examples that show other facets
of the conflict in organizations.
Although the conflict has always been associated with interactions within any human
group, and hence organizations, recent decades have brought changes that greatly
increased the potential for organizational conflict. The increasing diversity of the workforce,
for example, has radically altered the demographic landscape of organizations and it
challenges managers to deal with problems of ethnic, gender or age discrimination. Even if
there is a reasonable consensus on the need to find ways to take advantage of diverse
talents for economic advantage, some reflections of diversity, particularly the ones which rely
on differences in social status, can cause conflict and disruption.
In organizations, as in almost every domain of life, there are frequent cases of antagonism
between individuals or groups due to clash of ideas and interests, arising from divergent
aspirations and goals. In many conflicts, this divergence is objectively false, relying on biased
perceptions, which drive people to defend ideas, beliefs or opinions, they take erroneously as
incompatible with other people’s ideas. However, the observation of activities in
organizations indicates that people have a multiplicity of individual or group objectives and
interests. So, an important part of conflict situations has a realistic basis: the protagonists
differ, in fact, because they compete, explicitly or tacitly, for scarce resources such as
money, space, time and information.
Since the first theoretical approaches to management, there is a clear recognition of the
salience of conflicts of interest between individuals and groups in organizations and, more
specifically, between employers and employees. However, in line with the Taylorist tradition,
what lays behind this perspective is the idea that the presence of conflict was is was due to
mistakes of employees, i.e., in "deviant", "anti-social" or "dysfunctional" behaviors (Ackroyd,
2008). In practical terms, the conflict was referred as a multifaceted phenomenon generically
defined and associated with events such as complaints about work, sabotage of production
and also included individual expressions of conflict such as turnover, absenteeism and
problems with discipline.
When not in accordance with the expectations of the employer, the conflict is seen as
negative. This view is typical of a Unitarian approach still advocated by some managers
today rests on the idea that the organization and its members have a common goal and,
therefore, all employees benefit from the successes that the organization can achieve.
Consequently, there is an emphasis on the importance of achieving and maintaining
harmonious relationships, and the occurrence of conflict is seen defensively as the result of
misunderstandings, rather than being conceived as a natural product of the confrontation of
different interests. And therefore, it is up to management to communicate and persuade
people in the most effectively as possible to stop it. This "Unitarian" perspective is silent
about the existence of a conflict of interest between the social actors in organization, and
assumes that to the extent management "best practices" are followed, conflict is not
perceived as necessary or as inevitable.
Instead, an alternative approach, which we designate “pluralistic”, emphasizes that
organizations integrate diverse groups, which seek to legitimately express their own points of
view which are partially divergent. The resultant conflict is inevitable and the mission of
managers in this domain is to establish a series of frameworks and procedures to address
the conflict in an institutional manner. It is about creating ways to mitigate the costs of conflict
through negotiation procedures to be used in a number of situations in predictable
disagreement (e, g., Ury, Brett & Goldberg, 1988). In summary, within a pluralist framework,
the manager's role is to balance the various interests, for the achievement of strategic goals
of the organization.
Those two perspectives correspond to different practices and labels. Thus, the
designation "conflict resolution", most commonly used by those who have a Unitarian
perspective, is associated with a negative view of the conflict as a threat to the stability of
organizations, and thus points to interventions that seek the reduction or elimination of
conflicts, using processes such as mediation, arbitration or formal negotiation (Rahim, 2002).
By contrast, the "conflict management" aims to reduce the dysfunctional impacts and
simultaneously seeks to expand the constructive functions of conflict, harnessing the
innovative potential contained in the discussion of divergences. In organizations where this
perspective is dominant, the solutions to conflicts are found through the use of collaborative
learning and integrating the diverse viewpoints of the parties involved.
Tacitly, the Unitarian perspective remains, even today, a dominant belief in management
practices and academic considerations: “An organization will not operate effectively unless it
has a stable and relatively harmonious relationship with its employees. Conflict and
disaffection will lead, almost inevitably, to high staff turnover, poor attendance, lack of
involvement and other indicators of poor performance.” (Stredwick, 2005, p.242).
The concern of achieving a balance between control of the negative consequences of the
conflict and the use of their potentialities is broadly supported by research (e.g., Rahim &
Bonoma, 1979), suggesting that it is worth encouraging the conflict when he is absent and
moderate its occurrence when this is excessive.
In general, two guidelines on how to deal with labor disputes can be highlighted. On the
one hand, we find a classic vision of the "labor relations", whose premises hold that the
conflict results from an imbalance of power employer-employee, it is durable, and requires
often institutional interventions, from unions and employers, to fix the power imbalance.
Firmly rooted in typical assumptions of School of Human Relations of the 30s and 40s of last
century, an alternative approach considers that the occurrence and, especially, the
persistence of conflict stems from mismanagement. Any antagonism can be partially reduced
by organizational innovations (redesign of the job, for example) that contribute to reconcile
the interests of employers and employees. Accordingly, the claims and complaints of workers
are seen as a positive "voice" mechanism (Hirschman, 1970), i.e., a way of reporting any
inadequacies and injustices. Therefore, this approach seeks to address proactively the
underlying conflict through the use of problem solving techniques, and fostering cooperative
guidelines aimed at achieving mutual benefits for the parties involved.
Through informal discussions between supervisors and employees or formally, such as
committees and forums, for example, this approach prescribes intervention at an early stage
of conflict. As underlined by Lewin (2008), it is a dynamic form of anticipation and monitoring
of conflict in contrast to other approaches that emphasize the deterioration of the
employment relationship as a pretext to search for reactive organizational justice with the aim
of resolving disputes, which meanwhile hatched.

2| Leadership and Negotiation

Ubiquity of conflict in organizations, as a result of factors mentioned above, such as the
demographic changes and the increasing structural complexity in organizations, is also
encouraged by the dominant paradigm in management these days. Thus, the occurrence of
conflicts is more likely due to continual pressures to change, adapt and innovate, with the
concomitant increase in workload and job insecurity.
Given that the high potential for conflict is one of the defining characteristics of
organizations currently, no manager can ignore the need to develop skills and designing
action plans to deal positively with the confrontation of differences. However, this centrality of
conflict management appears to differ from the tendency to exacerbate the traditional
dimensions of leadership: vision charisma or self-confidence, for example. However, leading
without formal authority is nowadays common and necessary. And this involves using skills
to manage conflict and negotiate. The importance of these competences has increased in
recent times because the world has never been so complex and the interdependency so
strong. Nations, social groups, organizations and individuals are bound by ties more or less
visible.
The need to respond to the complexity of the surrounding context led an equal complexity
in organizational structures. On the other hand, the intensive use of new information
technologies, creating a tacit requirement of omnipresence and prompt response, also
encourages friction between individuals and groups. But perhaps the key factor to increase
the conflict is the decline of the traditional hierarchy that simultaneously led to a more "flat"
structures but also more complex, which started to demand a permanent negotiation of
resources and have created conditions for more frequent confrontations of opposed goals,
beliefs and values. Moreover, all these conditions reinforce the relations of interdependency
on goals and decisions. And it is known that the more people depend on each other the
greater the likelihood of conflict (Deutsch, 1973, 2000).
Exercising leadership effectively implies understanding the interests of each follower and
to recognize that the emergence of differences about it may lead to conflict, with which it is
necessary to handle constructively. Cooperate is one of those ways. The exercise of
transformational leadership, for example, involves mediation and conflict management as
mechanisms through which the leader improves team coordination, and therefore contributes
to better team performance (Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2011). However, some aversion to
transactional contacts (i.e., involving exchanges and rewards) with the followers, by giving
almost total emphasis on construction of rapport, can result in a tendency to use a
compromising style (Hendel, Fish, & Galon, 2005), abdicating the discovery of more creative
solutions and that go beyond the "lose-lose" situation associated with compromise solutions.
This tendency is in line with results of classical studies (Fry, Firestone, & Williams, 1983)
which show that a strong emotional attachment between parties can lead to solutions "half
bridge" to avoid damaging the relationship.
The specific requirements of project management are perhaps one of the best examples
of how leadership involves intensive negotiation skills. Project teams have gained increasing
salience in the functioning many companies, coexisting in a matrix form with functional
departments. The leader of a project team manages scarce resources: time of its members,
who come from various departments, but also, for example, money and space allocated to it.
This type of management occurs in a context in which the structural units seek to assert their
interests through the members they "lend" to the team. Managing project teams involves
almost continuous allocation of resources that are under the control of others. In turn, the
result of the team work globally favors the acquisition of resources for the departments
involved and for the company as a whole.
In short, interdependency permeates all external and internal relationships in a project
team. But, in general, the prevalence of teams and workgroups in organizations today
reinforces those ties, requiring constant attention to the leaders to confront problems and
explore solutions to conflicts that necessarily derive from this interdependence.

3| Intervention in Interpersonal Conflicts

At interpersonal level, even though the conflict may be related to individual characteristics,
such as the predisposition to dogmatism, the level of propensity to pleasantness in
relationships and other the characteristics of the situation in which they occur are crucial.
This means that situational factors and personality predispositions determine both the
emergence of conflicts between people and how they are addressed.
In conflicts between individuals, it is difficult to extract people from organizational settings
in which they occur. Some of the situational variables are, moreover, formatted for the
actions of those who are in charge hierarchically or functionally. The exercise of leadership
affects, for example, the clarity or ambiguity of occupational role, the degree of autonomy,
etc.. For example, two colleagues who are in conflict because of the vacation planning are
not doing it just because of individual differences in interests and personality. The leadership
style of the manager responsible for the work of both may be decisive in how conflict
evolves. For instance, the leader may be more or less strict in applying the rules of planning,
or more or less conducive to dialogue about personal matters of workers, thus determining
the process and outcome of the conflict situation.
By recognizing the importance of conflict settlement on productivity and on employee
motivation, the exercise of leadership includes active interventions in various conflict
situations that also require different strategies for action. In interpersonal conflicts, the way
situation is perceived determines how the process takes place, beyond structural or
contextual factors. Five individual strategies of conflict management have been identified in
literature (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Thomas, 1976; Bonoma & Rahim, 1979; Pruitt, 1983),
integrating a descriptive model that also contains prescriptive guidance for organizational
daily life.
Competition - also called confrontation or domination, it refers to a situation in which one
party continually tries to persuade the other to yield and it may include threats and
intimidation. This strategy may be appropriate when quick decisions are demanded and
there’s not enough time to discuss the differences. However, will inevitably produce “winners”
and “losers”, it generates malaise and encourages desires for revenge. When both parties
are equally powerful there is high probability of rupture or increased hostility.
Avoidance - is an active way of doing nothing to the conflict, paradoxically. It may be an
appropriate strategy when, for example, the issue is trivial or if it is desirable to "cool down" a
complicated conflict before it can be approached in a more constructive way. However, it
may be ineffective if used in situations that require an immediate solution and binding for
both parties. On the other hand, it tends to enhance future disruptions as its use deny, in
fact, the existence of the problem that led to the situation. So if there is no active resolution,
the return of conflict is inevitable. That is, the mechanisms of avoidance can be a very
effective way to deal with a conflict situation in the short run. However, if it lasts too long, this
strategy may be dysfunctional because it prevents the recognition that a problem exists.
Problem solving - Using this strategy, also called integration or cooperation, the individual
seeks to satisfy both the personal interests and those of others. This approach enables the
identification of areas of agreement and disagreement, and selecting of a solution to the
problem that can incorporate the perspectives of both parties. By envisioning the
disagreement as a problem to be solved jointly, so that each party can benefit from the
solution, the cooperation strategy is, however, the one that requires more time to settle the
conflict. Hence it may be contraindicated or difficult to implement when there is short time
available to reach a solution. This strategy is convenient when problems are complex and a
synthesis of proposals from both parties may favor the quality of the solution. Therefore, it is
considered the most appropriate way to address disputes involving organizational goals,
strategic guidelines or long-term planning (Rhaim, 2002).
Accommodation - also called “yielding” or “submission”, this strategy, which implies some
subordination of self-interest and the acceptance of others’ interests, proves to be
appropriate for dealing with situations in which conflict resolution is more important to one of
the parties and the need or desire to preserve personal relationship prevails. It can also be a
way to get "social credit", giving up something unimportant, tacitly expecting to get something
in return in the future. Instead, the style is inappropriate when the issue is important to the
individual, or when the other party defends ethically reprehensible positions.
Compromising - this may be an appropriate strategy when the parties are at impasse in
resolving a conflict or need a temporary solution. In practice, It consists in exchanging
concessions (fifty / fifty). This is what happens, for example, when the objectives of both
parties are mutually exclusive. It is an inadequate way to address conflicts associated with
complex problems, which, more than a means to momentarily solve the conflict, require
rational efforts to find solutions to enable qualitative gains for both parties.
Strategies for the management of conflict are therefore answers to specific situations. But
one cannot say that the influence of the environment on the individual is univocal. In fact, the
individual styles of conflict management may, in turn, shape the social environment of those
who make use of them, affecting the level of conflict and therefore the stress associated with
it. Using data collected from workers of a hospital service, Friedman, Tidd, Currall and Tsai.
(2000) have shown that those who use a more collaborative strategy have lower levels of
conflict and stress in their teams. Those who choose strategies of domination or avoidance
get more involved in conflicts, presenting therefore a higher stress level. Put it another way,
when it comes to conflict, the work environment is also a product of the actions of people
themselves. Thus, the rigidity of the leader in the approach to intra-organizational, tacit or
explicit negotiations format, and conflict management may constitute a potential threat to the
overall effectiveness of the exercise of leadership. In order to be effective, the choice of
strategy should be contingent upon the characteristics of the situation such as, for example,
the level of complexity and importance of the issue in dispute, the urgency of the solution or
the power relationship between parties. This means that the leader effectiveness when
acting on a conflict situation lies on the choice of strategy, whether she/he manages to
escape from the automatic tendency to use her/his personal style impulsively, i.e., when
she/he acts in a flexible way.

4| Leadership and Conflict in Work Groups

As mentioned before, it is still prevalent the belief that intergroup conflict in the
organization (between different groups of employees or between departments, for example)
is dysfunctional. In the opposite direction, but equally stereotypical, remains the vision of
intragroup conflict as necessarily functional process (Behfar & Thompson, 2007). However,
as stated by Thompson (2003, p.156), "conflict is lot like cholesterol: There is a good kind
and a bad kind". Research findings in this area suggest that conflict within work groups and
teams may assume healthy and useful ways, but it can also prove burdensome, destructive,
and harmful to the accomplishment of group's work. The advantage of the team over the
individual, which lies in its diversity of resources, knowledge and ideas, is simultaneously the
condition of the potential for conflict. This means that the richness of interaction within the
team is due to the confrontation of different sources of knowledge, which unavoidably
generate conflict. This conflict is positive in general, since it is a cognitive conflict, i.e., a
discussion of ideas, and its results could be the basis for creating new and more creative
solutions. Specifically, a moderate level of conflict is functional, as it stimulates discussion
and debate, improving group performance through a better understanding of various points
of view and alternative solutions (Jehn, 1995). However, as there are other differences that
fuel conflict, such as those relating to values and attitudes, outcomes are not always positive.
A classic taxonomy of interpersonal conflicts (Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954) it is useful to clarify
the nature of the consequences of intragroup divergence. Thus, it is possible to distinguish,
first, the affective conflicts, which concern antagonisms related to personal issues, involving
negative emotions and exacerbated tension between people. A group where there are
serious frictions and quarrels among its members is naturally prone to affective conflicts at
work. A second category refers to the cognitive conflict, i.e., referring to a situation in which
there is exchange of ideas about the work that is being done in the group. If people disagree
about what they have to do, they will be faced with a task conflict. If, despite agreeing on
what to do, they are in antagonism about how to achieve it, a process conflict is likely to
occur. In general, it is assumed that cognitive conflicts tend to generate positive outcomes for
the group and the organization. Rather, affective conflicts negatively influence the
performance as the hostility between people's cognitive function deteriorates and limits the
concentration of attention in tasks. The medium and long run, it reduces the level of member
satisfaction and their desire to work together.
Conflict can be boosted by the existence of differences in power, leadership style (De
Dreu & Van Kleef, 2004) and heterogeneity in group composition (e.g., Jehn, Chadwick &
Thatcher, 1997), creating a tendency for relational confrontations. Another conflict source
that is specific of teams is the reward system of group performance. Rewarding the goal
achievement of team as a whole (rather than individual performance) it is advisable in order
to reinforce the interdependency and increase the effort of the team members. However, this
process introduces the propensity to discuss justice issues by questioning the differences in
individual contributions to the collective effort. It is a kind of conflict can be particularly severe
when the specific team members get individualized rewards. This problem is often
experienced in organizations that in the past have rewarded individual performance and, at
some point began to reward the whole team effort. But, however hard that these
confrontations are, and depending on the interaction and communication patterns adopted by
the group, especially those relating to the negotiation of solutions, the consequences could
be positive and functional, such as innovation, improved performance and member
satisfaction. Conversely, conflict may turn into dysfunctional interaction, involving aggression
and hostility, and resulting in loss of performance.
No work group is immune to relational conflicts, no matter how good the climate of
interaction among its members. Moreover, there is often a co-occurrence of cognitive and
affective conflicts, so it is difficult to demonstrate that the cognitive conflict by itself, results in
higher performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In practice, more than the propensity for
either type of conflict, what characterizes an effective work group is the ability to transform
the affective conflict in a confrontation of ideas (cognitive conflict) that, in most cases,
underlies it. And this ability depends on different individual and group variables (Tjosvold,
2008). Certain characteristics of groups, such as a high level of confidence or the deliberate
adoption of standardized procedures for dealing with internal difficulties, help to establish a
boundary between the affective and cognitive conflict, while maintaining a desirable level of
controversy to promote more creative decisions (cf. review of Behfar & Thompson, 2007). On
the other hand, since teams and workgroups evolve over time, the way the members will
initially resolving conflicts and how they learn to integrate differences between members
determine how they handle conflicts as they arise and in particular, the way they manage its
functional effects.
To sum up, knowing the desirable and undesirable types of conflict in workgroups and
teams it is possible to intervene consequences in structural way (eg, creation of standards)
and relational (eg, building confidence) to maximize the benefits of discussing the
divergences.

5| Communication is Key, Cooperation is not

Enough
It is common to prescribe cooperation as accurate panacea for conflict management.
Indeed, a clear personal orientation to assign importance to the interests of others (high
social motivation) is a necessary but not sufficient condition to deal constructively with
conflict situations with a certain degree of complexity. The effectiveness of the performance
is maximized when, in addition to behave in prosocial ways, people have high epistemic
motivation (De Dreu, Koole & Steinel, 2000; Simões, 2011), i.e., when they are motivated to
analyze the causes of conflicts, appreciate different perspectives and create solution
proposals. Some variables can help individuals to focus on facts and deepen the analysis of
their differences, reducing or reversing the propensity for escalating conflict. De Dreu (2005)
suggests that issues such as the balance of power, accountability, and time availability are
crucial. Because it promotes epistemic motivation (i.e., the desire to think thoroughly about
the decisive aspects of the conflict) the aggregation of these variables can turn socially
motivated individuals, but who tend not to reflect on the causes of conflict (and therefore
have difficulty finding constructive solutions) in pro-social thinkers who strive to resolve their
disputes in order to obtain mutual benefits.
Frequently, the misuse (or lack of) personal communication skills are seen as factor that
potentiates the conflict between individuals. In fact, communication skills, such as active
listening and appropriate use of feedback, are essential to reduce distortions of meaning and
information gaps in which the process of interpersonal communication is fertile. And, of
course, are useful for dealing with conflict situations. The effective resolution of interpersonal
conflict always involves an effort by both parties to put themselves in the other's perspective
as well as the ability to lead the other party to do the same. When they arrived on this stage,
using forms of active listening, opponents have managed something central to building a
mutually acceptable solution: agree to disagree. That is, they have expressed a sincere
desire to understand the position and interests of the other person, overcoming the common
confusion between "understanding" and "agreeing". Becoming aware of differences and
being able to analyze them is an essential step to accept that a difference is only a
difference, not right or wrong. This process, in turn, takes some form of cognitive
restructuring, i.e., a sensemaking process that changes the meaning of the conflict situation,
which is now different from the perspective that each party held before starting the
discussion of their differences.
Being able to transform the opposition of interests and / or ideas into a problem to be
solved in common not only depend on the proper use of individual communication skills. This
ability is based on a constructive view of the conflict and calls for values of cooperation and
understanding between people. However, even if the effectiveness of communication
between people is not a panacea for conflict resolution, as commonly believed, the truth is
that without the proper use of communication, good intentions are not enough.
Communicating effectively helps individuals in conflict to explore the views of both parties
and to change accusations into feelings, guilt into causes, "truths" into perceptions.
Ultimately, the appropriate management of communication can support the exercise of
leadership, disentangling the problems that led to conflict from selfish resonances of the
situation. And this is a crucial step to avoid biased and useless attributions of intention and
an indispensable condition for building a constructive solution for the conflict.

References
Ackroyd, S. (2008). Organizational conflict. In S. R. Clegg & C. L Cooper (Eds.) The SAGE

Handbook of Organizational Behavior: Volume II - Macro Approaches( pp 192-209).

SAGE Publications.

Behfar, K., & Thompson, L. (2007). Conflict within and between organizational groups:

Functional, dysfunctional, and quasi-functional perspectives. In L. Thompson & K.

Behfar (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups – New directions in theory and

practice (pp.3-35). Evanston, Il: Northwestern University Press.

Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

De Dreu, C. & Weingart, L. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and

team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-

749.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). A PACT against conflict escalation in negotiation and dispute

resolution. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 149-152.

De Dreu, C. K. & Van Kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search,

impression formation, and demands in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 40, 303-319.

DeDreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L., & Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed pie: a motivated

information-processing approach to integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 79, 975-987.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.),

The handbook of conflict resolution - theory and practice (pp. 21-40). S. Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.
Friedman, R., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C., & Tsai, J.C. (2000). What goes around comes around:

The impact of personal conflict style on workplace conflict and stress. International

Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 32-55.

Fry, W. R., Firestone, I. J. & Williams, D. L. (1983). Negotiation process and outcome of

stranger dyads and dating couples: do lovers lose? Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 4, 1-16.

Guetzkow,H. & Gyr, J.(1954). An analysis of conflict in decision making groups. Human

Relations, 7, 367-381.

Hendel, T., Fish, M. & Galon, V. (2005), Leadership style and choice of strategy in conflict

management among Israeli nurse managers in general hospitals. Journal of Nursing

Management, 13: 137–146.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and determinants of intragroup

conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C. & Thatcher S. (1997). To agree or not to agree: Diversity, conflict,

and group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287-306.

Lewin, D. (2008). Resolving Conflict. In P. Blyton, N. Bacon, J. Fiorito, & E. Heery, (Eds.),

The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations( pp. 447–468). London: Sage.

Pruitt, D.G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 167-

194.

Rahim, M. A. (2002). Towards a theory of managing organizational conflict. International

Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 205-235.

Rahim, M. A. & Bonoma, T.V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: a model for diagnosis

and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44,1323-1344.

Simões, E. (2011). Outcome and process accountability in negotiation: a motivated

processing approach. Psychologica, 55, 351-368.

Stredwick, J. (2005). An introduction to human resource management (2nd Edition).

Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

 Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook

of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago: Randy McNally.

Thompson, L. (2004). Making the team- A guide for managers (2nd Edition).Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 29, 19-28.

Ury, W., Brett, J. &Goldberg, S. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut

the costs of conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zhang, X.-a., Cao, Q. & Tjosvold, D. (2011), linking transformational leadership and team

performance: A conflict management approach. Journal of Management Studies,

48: 1586–1611.

View publication stats