If you want to study conflict,
just observe the ticket counter at nearly any major airport.
Here’s an exchange that I watched recently at O'Hare Airport in Chicago.
Customer.
I have a problem with my ticket.
I need to change my flight.
Service rep.
Okay, sir.
There will be a $500 change fee in addition to the cost of a new ticket,
less the amount you've already paid.
Customer.
That is ridiculous.
When I bought this ticket, I was told I could change the flight without a fee.
Service rep.
I'm sorry, sir, for whoever told you that.
It's not correct.
I demand to speak to your manager.
I am the manager.
The customer and the service representative are in a conflict.
Conflict occurs whenever people believe they have opposing interests or
beliefs regarding an outcome or a process.
A dispute is a specific type of conflict.
According to Ury, Brett & Goldberg, a dispute exists whenever
a claim has been made by one party and rejected by the other party.
Let's look at the airline ticket counter incident.
The customer has made a claim.
I want to change my flight for no charge.
And the service rep has rejected that claim.
As an exercise, think about the last time you were in a dispute situation.
You made a claim such as, that parking space is mine or
I submitted my report by the deadline.
And the other party rejected that claim.
We're going to use the interests, rights, and
power model of disputes to analyze our own and the others' behavior.
Let's define each one.
A power move refers to any statement or
behavior in which a person attempts to force or coerce another person.
My favorite examples in negotiation are, take it or
leave it, that's my last offer, or this is non-negotiable.
Power moves are essentially threats.
People demand a behavior and threaten to walk away or
sue or escalate if the other party does not comply.
Insults, obscenities, and demands are also uses of power.
Let me ask you ask a question.
If you used power in a negotiation, have you statistically
increased or decreased the chances that the other party will use power with you?
Research indicates that power is often reciprocated and encourages escalation.
There are other disadvantages of using power.
Most notably, the other party can call your bluff.
For example, suppose you say, this is my final offer in a negotiation,
when secretly that's not actually true.
If the other party starts to walk away, then you have a face-saving dilemma.
Namely, how do you get the other party back to the negotiation table and
maintain your dignity?
Let's talk about rights strategy.
When negotiators justify their offers with an appeal to
fair standards, legal precedent, past practice,
customer service, and market condition, this is rights.
So in our ticket counter example, the service rep used rights when he said,
the policy is to charge a $500 change fee.
If you guessed that negotiators often reciprocate
the right strategy with rights, you are correct.
And, again, we have a conflict escalation.
Okay.
So far we've learned that power and rights are often very tempting to use but
they encourage reciprocation and therefore increase conflict escalation.
Is there an alternative to using power or rights?
Yes.
The interests strategy refers to any behavior in which parties attempt to
understand the needs and interests of the other party.
When a customer says, I'm trying to change my ticket because my daughter is ill and
I need to get home as soon as possible, this would be an example of interest.
When negotiators use interests,
they resist the urge to teach the other party a lesson or show them who's boss.
When negotiators use interests, they separate the people from the problem.
How might you attempt to change the conversation from rights and
power to interests?
First, ask why and why-not questions.
Second, don't focus on a single option.
Attempt to generate multiple options or courses of action.
Finally, most important, reward and
reciprocate the use of interest by the other party.
1 Comments
good to hear
ReplyDelete