Conflict Management: Negotiation Skills and Strategies Report

This report analyzes a case study of interpersonal conflict within a Canadian private enterprise, focusing on a dispute between the research and development and production departments regarding resource allocation. The conflict arose from differing objectives: the R&D department sought resources for customer and workforce research, while the production department aimed to meet sales quotas. The report explores the conflict as a result of differing perceptions, feelings of fear and bitterness, and actions taken by the departmental heads. It details the negotiation process, highlighting the encoding of social cues, interpretation of cues, and evaluation of conflict resolution strategies. The author, acting as a negotiator, utilized collaboration, trust, and interest-based negotiation to find a resolution. The report discusses various negotiation skills and strategies, including accommodation, avoidance, compromise, and collaboration, with a focus on the effectiveness of collaborative approaches. The author reflects on their negotiation skills, strengths, weaknesses, and the importance of leadership and decision-making in conflict resolution, and identifies areas for improvement through further training and experience.

Conflict Management
[Document subtitle]
[DATE]
[Company name]
[Company address]

Conflict Management 1
Summary
Conflict is all pervasive in nature (Rahim et al, 2018). The present study deals with
interpersonal conflict in the private enterprise in Canada. There was a conflict between the
head of the research and development, and the head of the production department over the
allocation of company resources. This situation ascended because each of have them had a
different objective, which were related to their particular division. I played the role of a
negotiator among the members who were discussing about resource allocation of the
organization.
Conflict among the Departmental Heads
Conflict as Perception
The conflict between the head of the two departments at the workplace was due to
difference in perceptions. The head of the research and development wanted to allocate the
resources of the company into research field so as to study the requirements and the needs of
the customers as well as that of the workforce so as to meet the demand of the customers. On
the other hand, the head of the production department wanted to allocate the resources into
production of additional units so as to fill up the sales quota as determined and anticipated by
the management for the period. The difference in perception and objectives always lead to
such an interpersonal conflict among different departments (Tedeschi, 2017).
Conflict as Feeling
The fear and bitterness among the departmental heads to lose the resources also
signalled disagreement of opinions. Though the behavioural factor was minimal, however the
conflict was still very real to them as they experienced the feelings of fear and bitterness. The
head of research and development department feared about losing the resources to the
production department, therefore having nothing left for them to conduct their research. His
behaviour turned out to be adverse towards the production head, thereby raising anger and
bitterness.
Conflict as an Action
Difference in perception a well as feelings of the departmental heads has led to
conflicts between them. The head of R&D, out of anger submitted a written letter to the
manager and the Board regarding the allocation of resources in research rather than in
production department. This in turn had made the managers more inclined towards this

Conflict Management 2
department rather than production department. The rage and bitterness were higher than
before. The conflict reached an advanced level.
Negotiation Skills at Each Stage
The first step was to encode the social indications in the situation, in terms of what
actually is the reason for conflict (Webb et al, 2017). During this stage, I have found out that
the primary reason behind such rage, anger, bitterness and ruthlessness against each other
was merely to show power. Neither the head of research and development team nor that of
the production team were in the position to lead each other because of the difference in their
departments and work. Therefore, getting a common topic, i.e. resource allocation and argue
over the matter was obvious. The behaviour of the departmental heads turned out to be
hostile. Rahim et al (2018) in their work contends that in order to collaborate between
members with hostile behaviours against each other, it is necessary to consider the situation
and generate possible ways to respond to the situation.
The next stage was to interpret the cues and thereby forming mental preparations for
dealing with the situation (Ness & Connelly, 2017). Interpreting the situation requires skills
of understanding and communication which helps in overcoming the situation and resolve the
conflict. Communicating with people, involves discussion on the matter that is argued over
(Ness & Connelly, 2017). Looking at the present situation, it has been found out that there
were limited resources which were available for the organization. The work had to be carried
out with the limited resources only, and this is why, prioritizing the requirements were
necessary in terms of cost-effective strategy as well as profit maximization. The interest of all
the departments towards enhancing their scope were rising one by one, similarly as that of the
research and development and production department.
It was necessary to improve customer relationship by means of meeting their desired
needs, which can only be known by conducting a research in this field. This indicated that
research was a vital course of action for the organization. On the other hand, producing the
required number of finished goods so as to confirm the orders of the customers was equally
important. Allocating the resources into one department only will make the other department
deprived of the resources. This turned out to be the major reason for conflict among the 2
departmental heads.
The next step was evaluating the strategies which is most suitable to resolve the
conflict (Ness & Connelly, 2017). According to the point of view of the academics Webb et

Conflict Management 3
al (2017), there are a number of alternative strategies which can be used so as to resolve
conflicts among team members. These include accommodation, avoidance, compromise and
collaboration. Rahim et al (2018) contends that immense skills are necessary for negotiation.
Sometimes, even being experts in compromising and avoiding situations do not help in
resolving the issues. It might worsen the situation as well. Therefore, people must be aware of
the situations before dealing with the conflicts. In addition to this, it is also essential for the
management of an organization that dealing with conflicts and resolving the same is essential
for the reason that it might lead to unforeseen circumstances as well. As a result of this, the
productivity and performance of the company might get hampered in no cause.
Accommodation involves giving one party what they need and fulfil their desire (Ness
& Connelly, 2017). This will end the situation; however, it might keep the other party
deprived of their desires. Avoiding the situation would cause more conflict and ruin the
stability of the workplace environment. According to Rahim (2017) avoiding the situations
reflects low esteem and low power and unproductive employee. This is why, it is an
inappropriate strategy for negotiation and thus must not be tried in the present situation. On
the other hand, compromising is said to be a strategy of mutual understanding with one
another. It is also evident that this strategy most often prevails in such conflicts where both
the parties hold equivalent power approximately (Ness & Connelly, 2017). In the present
case, both the parties held equal power, however, they were not ready to compromise with
each other, assuming that they might lose something valuable.
With my negotiation skills, I tried to calm down the departmental heads. I applied
collaboration strategy for conflict resolution, i.e. integrated the ideas set out by the
departmental heads together, so as to come to an appropriate solution by the end of the day.
The foundation of trust as well as optimism has enabled me to collaborate among the
departmental heads so as to reach agreement on seemingly peripheral issues. Using this skill,
I was able to unite the heads with equitable and fair agreement as a principle and interest-
based negotiation skill.
Negotiating with the members was not an easy task, as the biggest dilemma occurred
when head of research and development acted competitively and tried to take an advantage of
collaborative approach. However, I did not turn weak and rather, I showed my own
competitive strength and illustrated the advantages of collaborating with each other and

Conflict Management 4
allocating the resources on equal basis along with its impact on the overall organizational
goals.
At the first stage, the departmental head of R&D was not ready to make any
collaboration with the other party due to rage and anger of competitive strength. In addition
to this, when I tried to explain the situation and the needs of the organization, he was then as
well not content with the decision and not yet convinced. It took me a great deal of time to
request the head to calm down and take decision peacefully. I also called up for a formal
meeting with the two people and tried to ask them about their requirements as well as the
needs of the company, thereby encouraging them to work in the interest of the company
rather than their own personal interest. The head of the production department wanted to
negotiate with the other party, by allocating them 40% of the resources and the remaining
60% were to be used for production facilities. Seeing an additional loss of 10%, the head of
research and development department did not agree for negotiating with them. He requested
to either grant 100% of the resources, or persuade the management to disburse additional
funds.
The production department head was a skilled negotiator and thus, was ready to
negotiate with research and development department. However, the latter was abyssal, thus,
did not wanted to corporate at all. Though he explained the need of research on the first place
and then the requirements for such research. It can be seen that complete resource would be
expensed in research only depending on the type and subject matter. However, production
facilities were also significant so as to produce the ultimate finished goods and meet the
demand of the customers, failing which might hamper the productivity and profitability of the
company. Therefore, negotiation among these department was essential, and convincing the
head of research and development department was the most essential task, which was
challenging as well. I informed the management regarding the situation and asked him for his
help in resolving the conflict. However, allocation of resources become tough day by day.
Ultimately, I asked the head of research and development on the type of research that would
be required. He said that digital marketing campaign and survey will be done based on each
target area of the company where potential targets exist. I suggested him to undertake
existing marketing approach and details of customers and conduct a survey on them. In
addition to this, marketing can be done using social media and internet online platform o as to
reach a global mass at low cost. This would also enable them to meet the target objective as
well as the production department to use at least 60% of the resources. Listening to such a

Conflict Management 5
strategy, the head of research and development department agreed to take a chance using
such plan and negotiate with the production department, but for equivalent resource, rather
than a ratio of 2:3.
It is an evident fact that research is one of the most significant steps for an
organization, which helps in attracting customers (Tedeschi, 2017). But generating sales from
the customers is also important (Powell & Mwangi-Powell, 2017). Therefore, I tried to
convince the head of research and development to negotiate with the other team and work in
the interest of the company. This convinced the head and he was ready to make negotiations.
However, it took me longer to take this step due to fear of taking wrong decision and
allocating half of the resource to the production department. This fear turned out to be my
weakness. I could have made a better deal with the parties if I had expertise of leading. It did
not meet the criteria of leadership and control.
Working under a senior manager, had made me dependent on their decision and
opinion. This could have been improved if I would have taken less time to convince the
research department head. This skill could be improved in the future with more practice and
situational influences on ethical sensemaking. I would be further taking training for
leadership managerial skills so as to take up several opportunities to manage interpersonal or
intrapersonal conflicts as well and in the favour of the organizational interest.

Conflict Management 6
References
Ness, A. M., & Connelly, S. (2017). Situational influences on ethical sensemaking:
Performance pressure, interpersonal conflict, and the recipient of
consequences. Human Performance, 30(2-3), 57-78
Powell, R. A., & Mwangi-Powell, F. N. (2017). Female genital mutilation and the
Sustainable Development Goals: The importance of research. Health Care For
Women International, 38(6), 521-526.
Rahim, A. R. A., Noranee, S., Othman, A. K., Shabudin, A., & Anis, A. (2018). Organisation
Restructuring: The Influence of Interpersonal Conflict, Anomie, and Trust in
Management on Counterproductive Work Behaviour. International Journal of
Management and Sustainability, 7(2), 83-92.
Rahim, M. A. (2017). Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge.
Tedeschi, J. T. (2017). Conflict, power, and games: The experimental study of interpersonal
relations. Routledge.
Webb, C. E., Rossignac-Milon, M., & Higgins, E. T. (2017). Stepping forward together:
Could walking facilitate interpersonal conflict resolution?. American
Psychologist, 72(4), 374.