Styles of Conflict Management

Conflict and Negotiation

Functional or Dysfunctional?

When unequal amounts of power or resources are at stake, conflict is likely to occur. In the workplace, conflict may arise between employees or between employees and management. When a conflict erupts, management may need to intervene in order to resolve the issue. Depending on the approach taken, the conflict may be classified as functional or dysfunctional. A functional conflict is one that results in a positive outcome for the organization, such as increased creativity or improved decision-making (Bauer & Erdogan, 2012). A dysfunctional conflict, on the other hand, is one that harms the organization, such as decreased productivity or damaged relationships. In order to determine whether a particular conflict is functional or dysfunctional, it is necessary to consider the goals of the organization and the impact of the conflict on those goals. At Google, a conflict emerged when employees revolted over a company contract with the Pentagon. It was a functional conflict because it actually led to a good outcome and supported the company’s own mission of “Do No Evil.”

Conflict Cause

The cause of the conflict at Google was between employees and management and it stemmed from employees feeling that management was violating its “Do No Evil” principle by working on a Pentagon contract that would see the company supply programming for weapons that could potentially be used to harm innocent civilians in the Middle East. Essentially, the employees were concerned that the contract would involve them in the business of war, and they demanded that Google refuse to have any further part in the contract. Management initially refused, but eventually the conflict was resolved when upper management realized employees were right—after all, they were simply upholding the principle of the firm’s “Do No Evil” policy. However, the episode highlights the tension that can exist between employees and management when ambiguous issues like working on military contracts come up. Management had one view, and employees had another. In these cases of conflict, understanding the styles of managing conflict helps in finding resolution—and one of those styles is accommodation (Liddle, 2017). Upper management initially tried avoidance—but that did not solve the matter, as employees pushed back. Upper management realized these workers needed to be understood and once understood it was easy to see how the best approach to resolution was through accommodation.

Conflict Management

As Shearouse (2011) explains, accommodation management style is characterized by a high level of concern for both parties involved in the conflict, as well as a low level of concern for one’s own interests. Upper management had to show concern for both managers and employees involved in this conflict. That concern had to be equal. Shearouse (2011) points out that managers who use this style seek to avoid confrontation and instead look for ways to fulfill the needs of both parties. And in fact this is what happened in the Google case (some kind of work with the Pentagon remained but workers were appeased with respect to the specific drone contract). This accommodation approach is often used in situations where the relationship between the parties is more important than the outcome of the conflict itself. For example, accommodation might be used in a situation where an employee and their manager have different ideas about how a project should be completed. In this case, the manager might accommodate the employee’s suggestions in order to maintain a good working relationship. That is certainly how one could best characterize the situation at Google. However, it is important to note that accommodation can also lead to decisions that are not in line with one’s own best interests. For instance, stakeholders were not so in love with upper management’s decision to accommodate workers, for they felt that the contract was beneficial to the company’s bottom line. So upper management had to make a choice on that front.

Negotiation Stages

The negotiation was definitely distributive. It was a win-lose situation in the eyes of workers who saw managers as violating Google’s policy of “Do No Evil.” So it was not a matter of finding value for each party. The workers believed themselves to be right and were willing to hold out until upper management realized it as well. In this sense, the employees had a BATNA—which was simply to quit en masse and leave the company in the lurch. The exchange of information was such that it went public very quickly, which did not make it very possible for the next two stages—clarity and bargain/problem-solving—to be pursued. As Bauer and Erdogan (2012) point out, that is the normal course of negotiation, but in this case it was not so, as the negotiation went public and public pressure mounted swiftly. It was not long before upper management realized it had to jump to the final stage quickly, which was conclude and implement, and that is when accommodations were made and decisions reversed. So the stages of negotiation did not match precisely the stages described by Bauer & Erdogan (2012), as the middle stages were missing—but overall the general direction was the same.