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 companys 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 rightafter all, they were simply upholding the principle of the firms Do No Evil policy. However, the episode highlights the tension that can exist between employees and...…to be right and were willing to hold out until upper management realized it as well. In this sense, the employees had a BATNAwhich 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 stagesclarity and bargain/problem-solvingto 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 missingbut overall…