Case study Analysis

Case Scenario

Robert, a director and union member of the company, insisted on an eight per cent pay rise for his work unit and did not accept Kay’s offer of a promotion because recent financial reports showed that his division had increased the company’s profits by 15 per cent and he felt his team should be compensated with a pay rise.

Conflict-handling

In this scenario, Robert used the competing approach to deal with a conflict with Kay about whether to get a pay rise.

The conflict-handling styles

In this conflict, Robert always took a strong stance. When Robert asked Kay for a pay rise and later rejected Kay’s other offers, Robert never considered the company’s development, but always stood up for himself and his team in dealing with the conflict(Chanin, M. N., & Schneer, J. A. 1984). Even after Kay made concessions, he continued to insist on pay rises and tried to use the power of his union members to resolve the dispute.

Bargaining approach

Robert used the distributive bargaining approach.

The objectives, motivations, focus and interests of distributive and integrative negotiations are different(Ott, N. 2012).

In terms of objectives: distributive negotiations are about getting as much of the ‘cake’ as possible for the party, while integrated negotiations are about making the ‘cake’ bigger so that both parties can be satisfied.

Robert’s only goal is to raise the salaries of his team, also that Robert and his team can have a bigger share of the “cake”.

In terms of motivation: distributive bargaining is win-lose, integrative bargaining is win-win.

Robert doesn’t care that his demands will affect the company’s growth

In terms of focus: distributive bargaining is about positions, i.e. “I have to take this position on this issue”; integrative bargaining is about interests, i.e. “Can you explain why this issue is so important to you?”

Robert’s insistence on a higher salary for himself and his team.

In terms of interest: distributive negotiation is tit-for-tat; integrative negotiation is where there is a common interest.

Robert does not want there to be a common good but only his own interests and those of his team.

Interpersonal communication

In terms of language communication, Robert does not have good listening skills. After Kay puts forward good suggestions, Robert does not listen to Kay’s suggestions and carry out his own measurement and thinking, but directly denies Kay’s suggestions.

In terms of nonverbal communication, Robert has the stereotype that companies don’t see their team’s achievements(Duncan Jr, S. 1969). Under this stereotype, Robert did not actively want to have effective communication with Kay, but just wanted to raise his salary.

Hall’s context model

Robert’s behaviour is in a low-context culture. It is clear from Robert’s blunt rejection of Kay’s proposal that Robert’s innermost truths are contained in his words and actions. Robert then directly threatens his superior Kay with the rights of a union member, and it can be seen that Robert does not depend on the context of the situation each time he transmits a message, and that Robert is straightforward in expressing his thoughts regardless of the situation and who the other person is(Kittler, M. G., Rygl, D., & Mackinnon, A. 2011).

Reference list:

Chanin, M. N., & Schneer, J. A. (1984). A study of the relationship between Jungian personality dimensions and conflict-handling behavior. Human Relations, 37(10), 863-879.

Duncan Jr, S. (1969). Nonverbal communication. Psychological Bulletin, 72(2), 118.

Kittler, M. G., Rygl, D., & Mackinnon, A. (2011). Special Review Article: Beyond culture or beyond control? Reviewing the use of Hall’s high-/low-context concept. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 11(1), 63-82.

Ott, N. (2012). Intrafamily bargaining and household decisions. Springer Science & Business Media.