Chapter Twelve Conflict, Power and Politics
Thomson Learning © 2004
13-1
Marketing – Manufacturing Areas of Potential Goal Conflict Goal Conflict Conflict Area
MARKETING Operative goal is customer satisfaction Typical Comment
VS.
MANUFACTURING Operative goal is production efficiency Typical Comment
Breadth of product line:
“Our customers demand variety.”
“The product line is too broad, all we get are short, uneconomical runs.”
New product introduction:
“New products are our lifeblood.”
“Unnecessary design changes are prohibitively expensive.”
Production scheduling:
“We need faster response. Lead times are too long.”
“We need realistic customer commitments that don’t change like the wind direction
Physical distribution:
“Why don’t we ever have the right merchandise in inventory?”
“We can’t afford to keep huge inventories.”
Quality:
“Why can’t we have reasonable quality at low cost?”
Sources: Based on Benson S. Shapiro, “Can Marketing and Manufacturing Coexist?” Harvard Business Review 55 (September-October 1977): 104-14; and Victoria L. Crittenden, Lorraine R. Gardiner, and Antonie Stam, “Reducing Conflict Between Marketing and Manufacturing,” Industrial Marketing Management 22 (1993): 299-309.
Thomson Learning © 2004
“Why must we always offer options that are too expensive and offer little customer utility?”
13-2
Sources of Conflict and Use of Rational vs. Political Model Sources of Potential Inter-group Conflict
When Conflict Is Low, Rational Model describes organization Consistent across participants
Goal Incompatibility
Centralized
Organization Variables Goals Power and Control
Differentiation Task Interdependence Limited Resources
Orderly, logical, rational Norm of efficiency
Extensive, systematic, accurate
Decision Process Rules and Norms Information
Thomson Learning © 2004
When Conflict Is High, Political Model describes organization Inconsistent, pluralistic within the organization Decentralized, shifting coalitions and interest groups Disorderly, result of bargaining and interplay among interests Free play of market forces, conflict is legitimate and expected Ambiguous, information used and withheld strategically
13-3
Individual vs. Organizational Power
Legitimate power Reward power Coercive power Expert power Referent power Thomson Learning © 2004
13-4
Power vs. Authority
POWER
Ability to influence others to bring about desired outcomes
AUTHORITY
Flows down the vertical hierarchy Prescribed by the formal hierarchy Vested in the position held Thomson Learning © 2004
13-5
Vertical Sources of Power
Formal Position
Resources
Control of Decision Premises and Information
Network Centrality Thomson Learning © 2004
13-6
Horizontal Sources of Power High Power
Low Power
350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125
Sales Production R&D Finance
Co. B
Co. C
Source: Charles Perrow, “Departmental Power and Perspective in Industrial Firms,” in Mayer N. Zald, ed., Power in Organizations (Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970), 64.
Co. I
Thomson Learning © 2004
Avg.
13-7
Strategic Contingencies That Influence Horizontal Power Among Departments Dependency
Financial Resources
Centrality
Department Power
Nonsubstitutability
Coping with Uncertainty Thomson Learning © 2004
13-8
Power and Political Tactics in Organizations Tactics for Increasing the Power Political Tactics for Base Using Power
Tactics for Enhancing Collaboration
1. Enter areas of high uncertainty
1. Create integration devices
1. Build coalitions
2. Create dependencies2. Expand networks
2. Use confrontation and negotiation
3. Provide resources
3. Control decision premises
3. Schedule inter-group consultation
4. Satisfy strategic contingencies
4. Enhance legitimacy and 4. Practice member expertise rotation 5. Make preferences explicit, but keep power implicit Thomson Learning © 2004
5. Create superordinate goals
13-9
Negotiating Strategies 1.
2. 3.
4.
5. 6.
Win-Win Strategy Define the conflict as a mutual problem Pursue t outcomes Find creative agreements that satisfy both groups Use open, honest, and accurate communication Avoid threats Communicate flexibility
Source: Adapted from David W. Johnson and Frank P. Johnson, ing Together: Group Theory and Group Skills (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975), 182-83.
Win-Lose Strategy
5.
Define the conflict as a win-lose situation Pursue self outcomes Force other group into submission Use deceitful, inaccurate communication Use threats
6.
Communicate rigidity
1.
2. 3.
4.
Thomson Learning © 2004
13-10