2.3 Conflicts of interests

Description of conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest exist when the actions of one person attempting to maximise his advantages or benefits prevent, block, interfere with, injure, or in some other way make less effective the actions of another person attempting to maximise his / her advantages or benefits.The term ‘interest’ is used with the meaning of benefit, profit, advantage, concern, right or claim. Conflicts of interest can be based on

  • Differences in needs, values and goals
  • Scarcities of certain resources such as power, influence, money, time, space, popularity and position
  • Dispute or rivalry

Though not helpful in producing a creative, high quality decision, a conflict of interest, if managed properly, can help ensure that all group members are committed to implementing the group’s decisions and that the group’s problem solving ability does not deteriorate during the decision making process.

 

Avoid vs Resolve

When any conflict of interest arises, you will be faced with the decision of whether to try to control and avoid OR face it directly and try to resolve it. In order to make the decision, you will need to understand what triggers the expression of the conflict and what barriers hinder the beginning of negotiations.

A triggering event may be rather simple, e.g. two group members that are physically too near each other.On the other hand, a triggering event may be much more complex, e.g. two members that are, for some reason or other, in competition.Negative remarks, sarcasm and criticism on sensitive points are good examples of common triggering events, as is the feeling of being deprived, neglected or being ignored.

To avoid a conflict, you remove the triggering events and build up the barriers to negotiations.

To resolve a conflict, you increase the frequency of the triggering events and decrease the barriers to negotiations

e.g. being teased or mocked may lead to the elimination of membership of a farmer BUT

participation in a team-building exercise may result in name-calling

Basically, negotiation is the art of giving and taking between people.

Key words are often ‘concession’ and ‘compromise’

  1. Barriers to expressing the conflict and seeking its resolution:
    • Internal – attitudes;  values;  fears;  anxieties;  habitual patterns of avoiding conflict;
    • External – time constraints;  group norms disapproving of the open expression of conflict;  pressure to maintain a congenial public image; faulty perceptions of one’s own vulnerability and the other’s strength.
  2. Physical separation is a frequently used barrier to the expression of conflict – placing persons in different locations, or removing a person from the group
  3. A good conflict management requires:
    • Choosing the right time and place for negotiations:  it may be essential to suppress the expression of conflict until the time and place is more appropriate;  it may be necessary to further the expression when the time and place is appropriate
    • An understanding of the barriers and triggering events – some events may lead to a hostile expression of the conflict whilst others may lead to a constructive confrontation
  4. Remember that not every conflict of interest is negotiable – the involved persons may be too anxious, defensive or psychologically unstable to negotiate effectively or the motivation to change may be very low
  5. You are mistaken if you assume that you can every time negotiate the resolution of a conflict;  there are times when conflicts are better avoided.  Usually conflicts of interest can be settled constructively.

 

Prompting negotiations

Negotiations are aimed at achieving an agreement that specifies what each group members gives and receives in a transaction between them

The process usually entirely focuses on the concrete issues.

To reach agreement, the emotional issues must also be dealt with productively.

The primary gain is determined by the nature of the agreement:  the more favourable the agreement is to a member’s short term goals, the greater the primary gain for him / her.

The secondary gain is determined by the group:  the more effective the group, the more the person’s long term goals will be met, and therefore the greater the long term gain for him / her.

  1. Many procedures are available to resolve a conflict of interest:
    • Legal action;  third-party roles (therapists, counsellors, advocates etc)
    • Violence
    • Negotiation
  2. Negotiation is by far the most effective procedure for constructively resolving conflict within a group.  It is a process by which persons who want to come to an agreement try to work out a settlement
  3. Negotiating principles:
    • Know what to keep and what to give up
    • Know the other person
    • Understand the situation you are going into
    • Use the personalities involved in a positive way
    • Get some kind of agreement as soon as possible
  4. In a negotiation there are:
    • Concrete issues – competitive bids for the same resources
    • Emotional issues –negative feelings between members, such as anger, distrust, scorn, resentment, fear and rejection
  5. There are two basic goals in negotiating a conflict of interest:
    • Reaching an agreement
    • Not damaging the basic co-operation among the individuals involved.
  6. It is imperative that in negotiating a resolution to a conflict, a group member has to be concerned not only  with what is more desirable for him / her in the short term, but also with what is desirable for improving the effectiveness of the group.

 

The negotiation relationship

Characteristics of negotiation:

  • It takes two to negotiate.
  • There may be two elements:  co-operative – both members believe they will gain more by negotiating than not negotiating; or competitive – both members have conflicting preferences among or competing interests in the different possible agreements.
  • Each member is dependent on the other for the outcome:  this is called ‘outcome dependence’.
  • There is a dilemma – (the ‘goal dilemma’): each participant wants an agreement as favourable to himself as possible, but for one to attempt to maximise his outcome might result in such an unsatisfactory agreement for the other member that he / she would refuse to settle and would leave the  negotiation relationship.  In resolving the goal dilemma, participants must decide on a ‘reasonable’ settlement, one that will not only get the most for one participant but also have a good chance of being acceptable to the other.
  • The problem is always that the more favourable the agreement to oneself the less favourable the agreement is to the other person.
  • The outcomes are dependent on the negotiators themselves for information about a possible agreement – called ‘the information dependence’.
  • This information can be shared openly and honestly OR each can attempt to hide information.  An effective negotiating position can only be arrived at when the situation comes where the negotiators know both what the other wants and what least the other will accept.
  • There are thus two further dilemmas – the dilemma of TRUST – if you tell lies you can reduce the outcome for the other participant, but not to trust the other participant means that no agreement is possible;  and the dilemma of HONESTY and OPENNESSS – you can be exploited if you disclose too much too quickly, or you can seriously damage the negotiating relationship by seeming to be deceitful or distrusting.
  • Contractual norms develop that spell out acceptable behaviour –such norms spell out the rules to be observed and the penalties for violating them – thus, if violations occur, the penalty can be assessed without destroying the possibility of further negotiations.  Two norms exist:  the norm of reciprocity – ‘an eye for an eye’;  and the norm of equity – the benefits received or the costs assessed by the negotiators are equal.
  • There are more important time dimensions – it has a beginning, a middle and an end.  Negotiations begin when the parties acknowledge that a conflict of interest exists and either formally or informally make initial moves in the direction of its resolution. Negotiation ends when one or more parties chooses to leave the negotiating relationship – either because of an agreement or because of the belief that no satisfactory agreement is possible.

 

Steps in resolution negotiations

A confrontation is a direct expression of one’s view of the conflict and one’s feelings about it

Confrontation involves clarifying and exploring the issues, the nature and strength of the underlying needs of the participants and their current feelings

It is a deliberate attempt to begin a direct and problem solving discussion about the conflict with the opposition

Guidelines

Timing is therefore important

A confrontation is the beginning of a negotiating process, NOT AN END IN ITSELF

Hit and run tactics escalate conflicts in negative directions and build resentment and anger in the victims

Do not reject the other person

Do not define the conflict as being caused by the other person’s personality or psychological flaws

The expression of feelings is the most difficult part, but very important

Express both anger and warmth

the opponent must believe that he / she is understood

listening skills are very important

Guidelines

Focus on behaviour!

Win-lose struggles undermine trust, inhibit dialogue and communication and generally diminish the likelihood that the conflict will be resolved constructively

The more obscure the definition of the conflict, the harder it is to resolve constructively

Throughout negotiations, positions and feelings on the issues may change – therefore it should be discussed continually.

Negotiators must understand what they disagree about, otherwise nothing can be resolved

Firstly differentiate, then try to integrate your position and your opponent’s position

The joint position on the issues being adopted

The ways in which the participants will act differently in the future

The ways co-operation will be restored if one of the participants slips and acts inappropriately

Some provision for future meetings at which members can check how well the agreement is working and how co-operation can be improved

  1. Step 1:  confronting the opposition
    • Do not hit and run – confront only when there is time to jointly define the conflict and schedule a negotiating session
    • Openly communicate your feelings about and perceptions of the issues involved in the conflict and try to do so in minimally threatening ways
    • Accurately and fully comprehend the opponent’s views of and feelings about the conflict
  2. Step 2:  jointly defining the conflict
    • Do not label, accuse or insult an opponent but describe his / her actions
    • Define the problem as a mutual problem to be solved, not as a win-lose struggle.
    • Define the problem in the smallest and most precise way possible
  3. Step 3: communicating feelings and positions
  4. Step 4:  communicating co-operative intentions
    • It shortens the time of negotiating
    • It reduces the opponent’s defensiveness and egocentrism
    • It reduces the feeling of having the ‘right’ ideas about the issues being negotiated
    • It produces a greater comprehension and retention by an opponent of one’s position and arguments
    • It increases the perception of the opponent that one really and accurately understands the opponent’s position, he / she is an understanding and accepting person and is a person you would like to confide in
  5. Step 5:  taking the opponent’s perspective
    • Sufficiently detach yourself from your position
    • Switch chairs with the opponent and spend a period of time presenting his / her position as if you were he / she and let the opponent do the same *(called ‘perspective-reversal’)
  6. Step 6: co-ordinating motivation o negotiate in good faith
    • All parties need to be motivated to resolve conflict
    • Such motivation is based on the costs and gains of continuing the conflicts
    • Costs maybe the loss of a friendship; less enjoyment from membership; constant group disruption; lower productiveness.
    • Gains may be satisfaction of no frustrating;  protecting the status quo
    • Increase the costs and reduce the gains
  7. Step 7:  reaching an agreement
    • This ends the conflict of interests
    • All participants need to be satisfied with the agreement and committed to abiding by it
    • The agreement should specify –

 

The win/lose strategy

In this situation, the goal is to make an agreement more favourable to oneself than to the other negotiator. A common strategy in this situation is for both negotiators to set a relatively high but tentative goal at first;they can then change it on the basis of the other person’s reactions and counterproposals.

Assessment of the opponent as well as influencing of both parties take place

Ideally a win-lose negotiator would like to obtain as much information as possible about the other’s preferences while disclosing the minimum, or misleading information about his / her own preference

Other strategies are using threats and promises and sticking doggedly to a committed position.

Shortcomings of win-lose strategies:

  • They emphasise power inequalities
  • They undermine trust
  • They inhibit dialogue and communication
  • They diminish the likelihood that the conflict will be resolved constructively

 

The use of role reversal

Many conflicts are viewed as conflicts of interest, while in fact they are not

People tend to use the wrong strategies in the wrong situations

Role reversal is often helpful in:

  • Changing a win-lose orientated negotiator to a problem-solving orientated negotiator
  • Helping two problem-solving oriented negotiators understand each other and
  • Helping negotiators find creative integrations of their interests
  • Managing controversies

Role reversal:

  • Increases co-operative behaviour between negotiators
  • Clarifies misunderstanding of the other’s position
  • Increases understanding of the other’s position
  • Aids one’s ability to perceive the issues from the other’s frame of reference
  • Can through re-evaluation lead to change of attitude

 

Win / lose intergroup conflict

This should be prevented if at all possible.

Make sure that groups share a cooperative goal structure

Make sure that problem solving methods are at work between them (between groups)

A group in the situation of win lose intergroup conflict experiences:

  • A strong upward shift in cohesion
  • Greater loyalty
  • Members put aside some of their conflicts
  • Militant leaders take control and members become more willing to accept autocratic leadership
  • Task needs become vital
  • The group becomes more tightly structured and organised
  • Satisfaction runs high
  • The opposing group is belittled and devaluated
  • Conformity is demanded (a ‘solid front’ presented)

Between the groups:

  • Attitude of hostility develops
  • Inaccurate and uncomplimentary stereotypes form
  • Distortions in perception increase
  • Interaction and communication between groups decrease
  • Group members listen to what supports their own positions and stereotypes

In negotiations:

  • Distortions of judgment occur
  • Negotiators are blind to points of agreement between their own and the other side’s proposals
  • Negotiators tend to emphasise the differences
  • Negotiators want to WIN for their group
  • The hero-traitor dynamic starts to function

Effects on the group that ‘wins’:

  • Becomes more cohesive
  • Becomes self-satisfied, casual, even playful
  • The leadership that was responsible for the ‘victory’ is consolidated
  • High concern for maintenance, little tendency to work
  • The stereotype of the other group is confirmed therefore no need exists to reevaluate perceptions or reexamine group operations to learn how to improve them

Effects on the group that ‘loses’:

  • Frequently splinters, seeks the reasons for its defeat and then reorganises
  • Unresolved conflicts are brought to the fore
  • Tension increases and the group tends to work harder
  • Maintenance concerns decrease and task concerns rise
  • They seek someone to blame for the defeat
  • They replace leadership responsible for the loss
  • They learn a lot about themselves – stereotypes, perceptions
  • Likely to reorganise and become more cohesive once the loss is accepted realistically

Intergroup conflict can have benefits:

  • It often increases involvement, fun, commitment, interest and motivation of group members working on tasks

 

Three basic traps

Seeing every action of the other party as a move to dominate

Seeing the motivation for the other group’s behaviour in terms of personality factors rather than the dynamics of intergroup conflict.It is much easier to blame the conflict on sick, vicious, power-hungry persons than to view the other group’s behaviour as a predictable result of intense intergroup conflict

E.g. one group assumes the other is belligerent and quarrelsome and proceeds to engage in hostile behaviour in an attempt to defend itself by mounting a good offense – thereby provoking belligerence and a quarrelsome behaviour on the part of the other group, which confirms the original assumption

  1. Win-lose dynamic
  2. Psychodynamic fallacy
  3. Self-fulfilling prophecies

 

Constructive management of conflicts of interest

Whatever method is used to either control or resolve conflicts must establish as much co-operation as possible among group members to be effective

Group members must view ‘fighting’ over conflicts of interest in a positive way

They must believe that

  •  conflicts of interest are natural and should not be avoided or repressed
  • The natural tension and frustration of working together can be greatly reduced through conflicts
  • Conflicts help group members avoid stockpiling anger and resentments and being bothered by the past
  • Conflicts bring information to group members about how they are progressing, what is important to each other, and how group work and members’ relationships can be improved.

Norms and procedures conducive to constructive conflict management:

Maintaining contact with an adversary

Substituting negotiations for violent action

Gathering intelligence

Practising deception

Having an impact on third parties

  • Understand the circumstances that brought about the conflict
  • Assess the entry state (the person’s ability to deal constructively with conflict) of every group member
  • Set standards as to what ‘weapons’ are to be allowed and what ‘beltlines’ are to be established for each member
  • The situational power of all participants should be balanced
  • Intermissions should take place during which the participants can reflect on the conflict and what they are learning from it
  • Maintain an optimal tension level throughout
  • The consequences of the conflict of interest should be clearly understood (either costs or gains)
  • A common language about conflicts is often required, e.g. win-lose, problem-solve, confront, beltline and gunnysack (which is to store up grievances for a long time and then unload them all on an offending group member)
  • Many participants wish to appear hard to influence, and the group may wish to find ways of minimising the concern of their members that the reputation of the negotiators will be affected if they reach constructive agreements
  • Negotiations can have important side effects such as –
  • Ensure that all parties focus on the long term joint outcomes of an agreement

 

Negotiation Strategies: Constructive and destructive

Every negotiator is continually faced with the threefold choice:

  • Accept the available terms for agreement
  • Try to improve the available terms through further negotiations
  • Discontinue the negotiations without agreement and with no intention of resuming them

When the choice is to continue negotiations, a variety of strategies can be used to influence:

  • The opponent’s expectations as to what a reasonable agreement outcome is for him / her
  • The opponent’s perceptions of what one’s expectations of a reasonable agreement are
  • The opponent‘s perception of how influence-able one is

Examples of such strategies: (note that the strategies are not necessarily recommended, because such negotiations are based on win-lose situations)

  • Establish the boundaries of negotiation by adopting an extreme opening offer and refusing to compromise in order to build a reputation of toughness and to influence the opponent’s perception of what an acceptable agreement is
  • Search for possible points of agreement beneath the surface of the current disagreement – obtain accurate information about possible agreements that would be acceptable to the opponent
  • Precipitate a decision-making crisis in which you try to force the opponent into making a decision favourable to yourself – this is done by gaining control over the opponent’s perception of the situation, luring the opponent’s attention in the desired direction and using pressure to speed the opponent along toward an end to the negotiations
  • Compromise
  • Add new demands until the other negotiator agrees to less favourable terms than those originally proposed
  • Propose a package deal in which several issues that are considered part of the agreement are settled
  • Introduce an issue considered irrelevant by your opponent – a tie-in – and offer to accept a certain settlement provided this issue is also settled to your satisfaction
  • Carve an issue out of a larger context, settle it and leave the related issues unsettled
  • Coercion: make a threat that you will carry out if your opponent does not agree to your germs
  • Commit yourself to an action that leaves the last clear chance of avoiding disaster of non-agreement to the other negotiator, thereby limiting his / her alternatives
  • Create an impression of being uncertain about what you will do, being out of control, or being irrational, so that the opponent will want to settle quickly before you do serious harm to everyone involved.
Groups and Group Dynamics