Module 8

Conflict and Negotiation

Learning Objectives:
 Understand why conflict in the workplace is inevitable
 Identify the different levels and sources of conflict
 Determine conflict resolutions and negotiation

Conflict in the workplace is inevitable, and when it happens, there is always that
great tendency for it to disrupt the flow of productive activities in the organization.
As conflicts cannot be disregarded, efforts should be exerted to manage them.

Conflict
Conflict occurs whenever deviations exist in a social situation over issues of
substance. Emotional antagonisms cause frictions between individuals or
groups. Traditional view of conflict revealed that all conflicts are harmful and
must be avoided. Professionals of the human relations avowed that conflict
was a natural event in all groups and organizations. Since conflict was
predictable, the human relations discipline supported acceptance of conflict.
Supporters rationalized its existence: It cannot be eradicated and there are
even times when conflict may promote a group's performance. The human
relations scrutiny had dominance on conflict theory from the late 1940s
through the mid-1970s. While the human relations approach accepted
conflict, the interactionist approach supports conflict on the grounds that a
harmonious, passive, calm, and helpful group is prone to becoming static,
lethargic, and nonresponsive to needs for transform and innovation. The
interactionist approach had great contribution in developing conflict
viewpoint and described that conflict is encouraging group leaders to
maintain a continuing minimum level of conflict to keep the group practical,
self-critical, and imaginative. Katz and Kahn (1978) observed that “every
aspect of organizational life that creates order and coordination of effort
must overcome other tendencies to action, and in that fact lies the
potentiality for conflict”. Conflict in organizations is predictable given that
humans therein need to manage their mutual interdependence. According to
modern theory, conflicts between human beings are inescapable. They
appear as a natural result of change and can be valuable to the organization,
if managed competently. Current theory (Kirchoff and Adams, 1982)
considers modernism as a device for bringing together various ideas and
viewpoints into a new and different fusion. An atmosphere of tension, and
hence conflict, is essential in any organization working with new ideas.
Main causes of conflict in organization are poor communication, lack of
openness, failure to respond to employee needs. In organizations, there are
numerous groups with which people might categorize. These might be based
on personal characteristics such as race or gender, job function like sales or
production, or job level such as manager or non-manager. Additionally,
differences between groups might be highlighted by real differences in
Human Behavior in Organization

power, opportunity, clients serviced. Best prediction is that people who

recognize with some groups will tend to be distrustful of out-group members.
The increased importance on teams in organizations generally places a high
premium on getting employees to identify powerfully with their team. The
occurrence of intergroup partiality proposes that organizations must be
attentive in managing relationships between these teams. When individuals
or subunits are jointly dependent upon each other to achieve their own
goals, the probability for conflict exists. Kirchoff and Adams (1982) explained
that there are four distinct conflict conditions such as high stress
environments, ambiguous roles and responsibilities, multiple boss situations,
and occurrence of advanced technology. Filley (1975) recognized various
main conditions which could instigate conflict situations in an organization.
These are as follows:

1. Ambiguous jurisdiction, which occurs when two individuals have

responsibilities which are interdependent but whose work boundaries and role
definitions are not clearly specified.

2. Goal incompatibility and conflict of interest refer to accomplishment of

different but mutually conflicting goals by two individuals working together in
an organization. Obstructions in accomplishing goals and lack of clarity on
how to do a job may initiate conflicts. Barriers to goal accomplishment arise
when goal attainment by an individual or group is seen as preventing another
party achieving their goal.

3. Communication barriers, as difficulties in communicating can cause

misunderstanding, which can then create conflict situations.

4. Dependence on one party by another group or individual.

5. Differentiation in organization, where, within an organization, sub-units

are made responsible for different, specialized tasks. This creates separation
and introduces differentiation. Conflict situations could arise when actions of
sub-units are not properly coordinated and integrated.

6. Association of the parties and specialization. When individuals

specialized in different areas work in a group, they may disagree amongst
themselves because they have different goals, views and methodologies
owing to their various backgrounds, training and experiences.

7. Behaviour regulation. Organizations have to have firm regulations for

individual behaviour to ensure protection and safety. Individuals may perceive
these regulations differently, which can cause conflict and negatively affect
output.

8. Unresolved prior conflicts which remain unsettled over time create

anxiety and stress, which can further intensify existing conflicts. A manager's
most important function is to avoid potential harmful results of conflict by
regulating and directing it into areas beneficial for the organization.
2
Human Behavior in Organization

Conflict can explode when groups differ considerably in power, status, or

culture. With reference to power, if dependence is not mutual, but one way,
the potential for conflict increases. If party X needs the collaboration of party
Y to achieve its goals, but Y does not need X’s assistance, rivalry may
develop. Y has power over X, and X has nothing with which to good deal. A
good case is the quality control system in many factories. Production workers
might be highly dependent upon inspectors to approve their work, but this
dependence is not common. The inspectors might have a separate boss,
their own office, and their own friends. In this case, production employees
might begin to treat inspectors with hostility which shows the symptoms of
conflict. Status is also cause of conflict. Status differences provide little
movement for conflict when people of low status are dependent upon those
of higher status. This is the way organizations often work, and most
members are socialized to expect it. Though because of the design of the
work, there are occasions when employees with technically lower status find
themselves giving orders to, or controlling the tasks of, higher-status people. When
evaluating the restaurant business, it can be found that in many restaurants, lower-
status waiters and waitresses give orders and begin queries to higher-status cooks
or chefs. The latter might come to dislike this problem of usual lines of influence.
The initiation of the electronic office also creates conflict. Culture also leads to
conflicting situation in organization. When different cultures develop in an
organization, the divergence in beliefs and values can result in obvious conflict.
Cultures are rooted in conflict because conflicts take place in human relationships.
Cultures influence the ways people blame, and attempt to cultivate conflicts.
Culture is always a dominant factor in conflict, whether it has major role or
influences it subtly and gently.
There are different types of conflict:
Substantive conflict: A fundamental disagreement over ends or goals to be
pursued and the means for their accomplishment.
Emotional conflict: Interpersonal difficulties that arise over feelings of anger,
mistrust, dislike, fear, resentment.

Levels of Conflict

In Intrapersonal conflicts, there are actual or perceived pressures from

incompatible goals or expectations. It occurs between two or more individuals who
are in opposition to one another. Conflicts can be Approach-approach conflict,
Avoidance-avoidance conflict and Approach-avoidance conflict.
Intergroup conflict occurs among members of different teams or groups.
Interorganizational conflict generally denotes to the competition and rivalry that
characterize firms operating in the same markets. It encompasses disagreements
that exist between any two or more organizations.
Conflict process in organization: Conflict is a vibrant process. In contemporary
organization some conflict can be helpful to enhance organizational effectiveness.
Tosi, Rizzo and Carroll (1986) described the stages involved in the conflict process,
from inception to end, as sequential in nature, namely:
3
Human Behavior in Organization

1. The conflict situation,

2. Awareness of the situation,

3. Realization,

4. Manifestation of conflict,

5. Resolution or suppression of conflict, and

6. After-effects of a conflict situation.

Conflict process:

Major benefits of functional conflict are that it surfaces important problems so they
can be addressed. It causes careful consideration of decisions and causes
reconsideration of decisions. It increases information available for decision making
and provides opportunities for creativity. At the same time, there are numerous
disadvantages of dysfunctional conflict. Conflict in organization can diverts
energies, harms group cohesion, promotes interpersonal hostilities, creates overall
negative environment, can decrease work productivity and job satisfaction. And can
contribute to absenteeism and job turnover.
Outcomes of conflict in organization: In the context to organizations, conflict is
the incongruity between employees, departments, managers or groups of people
within the business unit. Disagreements may develop due to differences in opinion,
beliefs or detrimental competition that may yield either positive or negative
outcomes. Despite of level of conflict, major functional and dysfunctional
consequences can occur from conflict. Conflict that results into healthy competition
promotes innovation and inventiveness amongst workers. During conflict, there is a
high sense of need that results into the appearance of divergent viewpoints
amongst employees. It is vital among the employees to develop new policy and
operating business to maintain with internal competition from their colleagues.

4
Human Behavior in Organization

Consequences of conflict

Conflict management
Conflicts are unavoidable in an organization. However, conflicts can be used as
motivators for transformation in organization. In business environment, several
factors create competition; they may be differing departmental objectives,
individual objectives, and competition for use of resources or differing viewpoints.
These have to be integrated and exploited powerfully to achieve organizational
objectives. A manager should be competent to observe emerging conflicts and take
proper preventative action. The manager should recognize the causes creating
conflict, the outcome of conflict, and various methods by which conflict can be
managed in the organization. In this way, the manager should develop an approach
to resolve conflicts before their troublesome repercussions have an impact on
productivity and creativity. Therefore, a manager should possess special skills to
react to conflict situations, and should create a good atmosphere for communication
between conflicting groups. Tosi, Rizzo, and Carroll (1986) developed four ways to
manage conflicts.

1. Styles: Conflict managing behaviour styles such as competition,

collaboration, compromise, avoidance or accommodation may be properly
encouraged, depending upon the situation.

2. Improving organizational practices: When cause of conflict is understood,

suitable organizational practices can be used to resolve conflicts such as
establishing super ordinate goals, reducing vagueness, minimizing authority
and domain-related disputes, improving policies, procedures and rules, re-
5
Human Behavior in Organization

apportioning existing resources or adding new, altering communications,

movement of personnel, and changing reward systems.

3. Special roles and structure: A manager has to begin structural changes

needed, including re-location or merging of specialized units, shoulder liaison
functions, and act as an integrator to resolve conflicts. A person with
problem-solving skills and respected by the conflicting parties can be
designated to de-fuse conflicts.

4. Confrontation techniques: Confrontation techniques are intended to

explore a mutually acceptable and enduring solution through partnership and
compromise. It is executed that conflicting parties are ready to face each
other amicably, and entails intercession, bargaining, negotiation, mediation,
attribution and application of the integrative decision method, which is a
collaborative style based on the premise that there is a solution which can be
accepted by both parties. It involves a process of defining the problem,
searching for alternatives and their evaluation, and deciding by consensus.

It is established that conflict may be understood as fight, war, collision or

disagreement. The conflict may be within an individual when there is in-
compatibility between his or her own goal and event; may be between two
individuals. Many theorists viewed that Conflict is a process that begins when one
party perceives that another party has unenthusiastically affected, or is about to
negatively affect. Management team of organization should manage conflicts
effectively rather than repress or avoid them.

Negotiation
Majority of companies have to negotiate in many areas of organizational conflict.
Negotiation is an open process for two parties to find a satisfactory solution to a
complex conflict. Negotiation is process in which two or more parties exchange
goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them. In an
organizational context, negotiations may take place between two people, within a
group, between groups and over the Internet. Negotiation can take extensive forms
from skilled negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization or position in a
formal setting to an informal negotiation between friends. Negotiation can be
contrasted with intervention, where a neutral third party listens to each side's
arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement between the parties. It can also
be compared with arbitration, which resembles a legal proceeding. In arbitration,
both sides make an argument as to the merits of their case and the arbitrator
decides the outcome. This negotiation is also called positional or hard-bargaining
negotiation. Basically, negotiation is a problem-solving procedure in which two or
more people willingly discuss their differences and try to reach a joint decision on
their common concerns. Negotiation requires participants to recognize issues, about
which they differ, educate each other about their needs and interests, generate
possible settlement options and bargain over the terms of the final agreement.
Winning negotiations result in some kind of exchange or promise being made by the
negotiators to each other. The exchange may be tangible or intangible.

6
Human Behavior in Organization

Negotiations are categorized by four elements:

1. Some disagreement or conflict exists, which may be perceived, felt or

manifest.

2. There is some degree of interdependence between the parties.

3. The situation must be conducive to opportunistic interaction. Each party must

have both the means and in the inclination to attempt to influence the other.

4. There exists some possibility of agreement, without which the negotiation

cannot bring about a positive resolution.

Research into negotiation behaviour has mostly been conducted from one of three
theoretical traditions that include Individual differences approach, the motivational
approach or the cognitive approach (Thompson, 1990). The individual differences
approach scrutinizes the types of personal characteristics that affect negotiator
behaviour, the negotiation process and the types of outcomes achieved. Research
from this perspective might, for example, investigate negotiation behaviour as a
function of gender (Walters, Stuhlmacher and Meyer, 1998), culture (Brett, 2000) or
experience (Neale & Northcraft, 1986).
Motivational approaches search to establish how negotiator aspirations and goals
influence bargaining behaviour and the resultant outcomes. Researchers essentially
consider the way that certain aspirations for self and other affect outcomes and
vary as a result of the negotiation interaction (Wilson & Putnam, 1990). The
cognitive approach attempts to determine how individuals construe events and
reach judgments about courses of action during negotiation. This approach is
grounded in information processing theory (Carroll and Payne, 1991), which
essentially posits that, when individuals experience events, stored information is
activated in the mind and is then used to reach the next decision. This activation
and subsequent processing has been found to occur in an economically efficient
manner (Thompson, 1990). Such competence, involves various cognitive shortcuts
that impair judgments, thereby limiting a negotiator's effectiveness (Neale and
Bazerman, 1991).
Negotiation theorists generally differentiate between two types of negotiation.
Different theorists explained diverse labels for the two general types and distinguish
them in different ways. The negotiator must select a general negotiation approach.
There are many procedures, but the most common approaches to negotiation are
positional bargaining and interest-based bargaining.
First is distributive negotiation, also called positional negotiation. Positional
bargaining is a negotiation approach in which a series of positions, alternative
solutions that meet particular interests or needs, are selected by a negotiator,
ordered sequentially according to preferred outcomes and presented to another
party in an effort to reach agreement. The first or opening position represents that
maximum gain hoped for or expected in the negotiations. Each following position
demands less of an opponent and results in fewer benefits for the person
advocating it. Agreement is reached when the negotiators' positions converge and
they reach an acceptable settlement range. Major benefits of this approach is that it
may prevent premature concessions, useful in dividing or compromising on the
7
Human Behavior in Organization

distribution of fixed-sum resources, does not require trust to work and does not
require full disclosure of privileged information. It tends to approach negotiation on
the model of bargaining in a market. In a distributive negotiation, each side often
assumes an extreme position, knowing that it will not be accepted, and then
employs an amalgamation of cleverness, bluffing, and brinkmanship in order to
yield as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive bargainers visualize
negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of value.
Second is integrative negotiation, also known as interest-based or principled
negotiation. It is process that attempts to develop the quality and likelihood of
negotiated agreement by providing an alternative to conventional distributive
negotiation techniques. Interest-based bargaining which involves parties in a
collaborative effort to jointly meet each other's needs and satisfy mutual interests
rather than moving from positions to counter positions to a compromise settlement,
negotiators pursuing an interest-based bargaining approach attempt to identify
their interests or needs and those of other parties prior to developing specific
solutions. After the interests are identified, the negotiators jointly search for a
variety of settlement options that might satisfy all interests, rather than argue for
any single position. The parties select a solution from these jointly generated
options. This approach to negotiation is frequently called integrated bargaining
because of its emphasis on cooperation, meeting mutual needs, and the efforts by
the parties to expand the bargaining options so that a wiser decision, with more
benefits to all, can be achieved. While distributive negotiation assumes there is a
fixed amount of value to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation
often tries to create value in the course of the negotiation. It focuses on the
fundamental interests of the parties rather than their arbitrary starting positions,
approaches negotiation as a shared problem rather than a personalized battle, and
insists upon adherence to objective, principled criteria as the basis for agreement.
Business groups choose to negotiate in order to gain recognition of either issues or
parties, test the strength of other parties, obtain information about issues, interests
and positions of other parties, educate all sides about a particular view of an issue
or concern, ventilate emotions about issues or people, change perceptions, mobilize
public support, buy time, bring about a desired change in a relationship, develop
new procedures for handling problems, make substantive gains and solve a
problem.

There are many conditions that affect the success or failure of

negotiations.
Identifiable parties who are willing to participate: The people or groups who
have a chance in the result must be specific and willing to sit down at the
bargaining table if productive negotiations are to occur. If a critical party is either
absent or is not willing to commit to good faith bargaining, the potential for
agreement will decline.
Interdependence: For prolific negotiations, the contributors must be dependent
upon each other to have their needs met or interests satisfied. The participants
need either each other's assistance or restraint from negative action for their
interests to be satisfied. If one party can get his/her needs met without the
collaboration of the other, there will be little impetus to bargain.

8
Human Behavior in Organization

Readiness to negotiate: Individuals must be ready to negotiate for conversation

to begin. When participants are not mentally equipped to talk with the other parties,
when sufficient information is not obtainable, or when a negotiation scheme has not
been prepared, people may be unwilling to begin the process.
Means of influence or leverage: For people to reach an agreement over issues
about which they differ, it is necessary that they must have some ways to influence
the attitudes and behaviour of other negotiators. Often influence is seen as the
power to intimidate or inflict pain or unwanted costs, but this is only one way to
support another to change. There are numerous ways to influence in negotiation
over issue such as enquire thought-provoking questions, provide needed
information, to get the advice of experts, appealing to influential associates of a
party, exercising legitimate authority or providing rewards.
Agreement on some issues and interests: People must be able to agree upon
some common issues and interests for good negotiations. Generally, participants
will have some issues and interests in common and others that are of concern to
only one party. The number and importance of the common issues and interests
influence whether negotiations occur and whether they stop in agreement. Parties
must have sufficient issues and interests in common to do themselves to a joint
decision-making process.
Will to settle: In order to have successful negotiations, contributors have to desire
to settle. If conflict is continued instead of settlement, then negotiations are bound
to failure. Often parties want to keep conflicts going to preserve a relationship, to
mobilize public opinion or support in their favour, or because the conflict
relationship gives meaning to their life. These factors encourage continued division
and work against settlement. The harmful consequences of not settling must be
more significant and greater than those of settling for an agreement to be reached.
Unpredictability of outcome: People bargain because they need something from
another person. They also negotiate because the outcome of not negotiating is
unpredictable. Chances for a crucial and one-sided victory need to be unpredictable
for parties to enter into negotiations.
A sense of urgency and deadline: Negotiations normally occur when there is
pressure or it is critical to reach a decision. Urgency may be imposed by either
external or internal time constraints or by potential negative or positive
consequences to a negotiation outcome. External constraints include; court dates,
imminent executive or administrative decisions, or predictable changes in the
environment. Internal constraints may be artificial deadlines selected by a
negotiator to enhance the motivation of another to settle. For negotiations to be
successful, the participants must jointly feel a sense of urgency and be aware that
they are vulnerable to adverse action or loss of benefits if a timely decision is not
reached. If procrastination is beneficial to one side, negotiations are less likely to
occur, and, if they do, there is less impetus to settle.
No major psychological obstacle to settlement: Strong expressed or
unexpressed feelings about another party can sharply affect a person's
psychological willingness to bargain. Psychological barriers to settlement must be
lowered if triumphant negotiations are to occur.
Issues must be negotiable. For successful negotiation to occur, negotiators must
believe that there are acceptable settlement options that are possible as a result of
9
Human Behavior in Organization

participation in the process. If it appears that negotiations will have only win/lose
settlement possibilities and that a party's needs will not be met as a result of
participation, parties will be reluctant to enter into dialogue.
The people must have the authority to decide: In order to obtain successful
outcome, participants must have the power to make a decision. If they do not have
a lawful and recognized right to decide, or if a clear approval process has not been
established, negotiations will be limited to an information exchange between the
parties.
Willingness to compromise: It is found that all negotiations do not require
compromise. On occasion, an agreement can be reached which meets all the
participants' needs and does not require a sacrifice on any party's part. However, in
other disputes, compromise willingness to have less than 100 percent of needs or
interests satisfied may be necessary for the parties to reach a satisfactory
conclusion. Where the physical division of assets, strong values or principles
preclude compromise, negotiations are not possible.
The agreement must be rational and be implemented: Some settlements may
be substantively acceptable but may be impossible to implement. Participants in
negotiations must be able to establish a realistic and workable plan to carry out
their agreement if the final settlement is to be acceptable and hold over time.
External factors favourable to settlement: Often factors external to
negotiations hamper or promote settlement. Views of associates or friends, the
political climate of public opinion or economic conditions may promote agreement
or continued chaos. Some external conditions can be managed by negotiators while
others cannot. Favourable external conditions for settlement should be developed
whenever possible.
Resources to negotiate: Members in negotiations must develop interpersonal
skills required for bargaining and, where suitable, the money and time to engage
fully in dialogue procedures. Insufficient or imbalanced resources may block the
beginning of negotiations or obstruct resolution.

There are five steps to the negotiation process

Preparation and Planning: Before the start of negotiations one must be aware of
conflict the history leading to the negotiation the people involved and their
perception of the conflict expectations from the negotiations etc.
Definition of Ground Rules: Once the planning and strategy is developed, one
has to begin defining the ground rules and procedures with the other party over the
negotiation itself that will do the negotiation. Where will it happen? What time
constrains, if any will apply? To what issues will negotiations be limited? Will there
specific procedure to follow in an impasse is reached? During this phase the parties
will also exchange their initial proposals or demands.
Clarification and Justification: When initial positions have been exchanged, both
the parties will explain amplify, clarify, bolster and justify their original demands.
This need not be confrontational. Rather it is an opportunity for educating and
informing each other on the issues why they are important and how each arrived at
10
Human Behavior in Organization

their initial demands. This is the point where one party might want to provide the
other party with any documentation that helps support its position.
Bargaining and Problem Solving: The essence of the negotiation process is the
actual give and take in trying to hash out an agreement. It is here where
concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties.
Closure and Implementation: The final step in the negotiation process is
formalization the agreement that has been worked out and developing and
procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring. For major
negotiations, this will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract.

Negotiation process:

There is a major role of mood and personality traits in Negotiation. Positive moods
optimistically affect negotiations. Traits do not appear to have a considerably direct
effect on the outcomes of either bargaining or negotiating processes. There are also
gender differences in Negotiations. Women negotiate no differently from men,
although men in fact negotiate better outcomes. Men and women with similar
power in organization use the same negotiating styles. Women’s attitudes toward
negotiation and their success as negotiators are less favourable than men.

Challenges in negotiation
The negotiation approaches are intended to benefit organization but sometimes it is
difficult to reach to a conclusion and satisfy all parties. There are many challenges
faced by parties to negotiation and it is necessary to overcome them to effectively
operate business. The main challenge to negotiation is when individuals are not
11
Human Behavior in Organization

ready to understand the second party at all. There are individuals who only think
about their interests and tend to ignore the interest and needs of the other. It is
important to find out the expectations of the other party as well. For business
negotiation, managers will definitely be appreciated if employee saves
organization’s money. Lack of time is also challenge to effective negotiation. One
should never be in a hurry. Person need time to convince others. It is advised to
analyse things carefully and then only come to conclusions. Going unprepared for a
negotiation is intolerable. It is said that don’t underestimate the second party. One
should do his homework carefully. Check out even the smallest details before going
for a negotiation. Lack of patience also leads to a bad negotiation. Every individual
has the right to express his views and one should not interfere in his speech. People
might not agree to him but at least listen to him first. Sit with the second party and
make him realize how the deal would benefit you as well as him. Criticism, sarcasm,
derogatory remarks are the major threats to a successful negotiation. Never ever
say anything which might hurt others. It is advised to avoid last minute changes as
it result in confusions and misunderstandings. The two parties must be very clear on
what they expect from each other, and must stick to it. Being too rigid is one of the
prime challenges to an effective negotiation. Negotiator must be little flexible. Stay
alert while individual is negotiating. Lack of confidence is again major threats to
negotiation.
Many people label negotiation as a formal process of good deal between labour and
management or purchaser and seller. Nevertheless, negotiating is more than this
concept. Job applicants negotiate for their salary, workers bargain for better job
projects. To include all of these situations, it can be explained that negotiation is "a
decision-making process among interdependent parties who do not share identical
preferences." Negotiation comprises conflict management in that it is an effort
either to avert conflict or to resolve existing conflict. Negotiation is an attempt to
gain a reasonable exchange among or between the parties. Successful negotiating
needs good knowledge of techniques.
To summarize, Negotiation is the most powerful approach to make decisions and
manage disputes in organization. Negotiation is among the most commonly utilized
modes of conflict resolution. Negotiation strategies are grouped as being either
distributive or integrative. Many research studies have demonstrated that these
different approaches to negotiation regularly lead to vastly different behavioral and
attitudinal outcomes. Cognitive descriptions do not enable persons to fully
comprehend nor internalize these distinctly different approaches to negotiation.
Therefore, there exists a need to develop and use negotiation simulations to meet
these objectives.

Reference/s:
https://www.civilserviceindia.com/subject/Management/notes/organisational-
behaviourand-design-conflict-and-negotiation.html

12
Human Behavior in Organization

*** End of the Course ***

13