CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

308 GOLDMAN, CROPANZANO, STEIN, AND BENSON
Smith, Mitchell, & Beach, 1982; Svenson & Benson, 1993; Svenson, Edland,
& Slovic, 1990; Svenson & Maule, 1993; Wright, 1974; Zakay, 1985).
Similar effects occur when people need to solve disputes under time
pressure. For instance, time pressure can produce epistemic freezing in
which people become less aware of plausible alternatives during dispute
resolution (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983). Time pressure can also result in
a phenomenon called “closure of the mind” (De Dreu, 2003). Closure of
the mind increases disputants’ reliance on inadequate decision heuristics
during the dispute resolution process. Time pressure can also influence
the process and outcome of integrative bargaining (Carnevale & Lawler,
1986). For example, if negotiators have an individualist orientation, time
pressure produces more nonagreements and poor negotiation outcomes.
If negotiators adopt a cooperative orientation, negotiators achieve better
negotiation outcomes.
When managers feel the need to solve disputes in a brief amount of
time, they will generally engage in tactics that allow them maximum outcome
control (Lewicki & Sheppard, 1985). In fact, mediated dispute resolution
often occurs when one or all of the parties involved feel some sense of
urgency to solve a dispute that the original parties could not solve alone.
The perceived urgency may result from internal or external time constraints.
The internal constraints include things like arbitrary deadlines
selected by the negotiator or mediator that provide impetus for a quick
settlement (Cropanzano et al., 1999). External constraints include things
like shareholder meetings, court dates, and contract deadlines.
Urgency can also result from the parties involved thinking about the
potential outcome of the negotiation process (the outcome can be positive,
negative, or neutral). We will call this “outcome urgency.” For many disputes,
the parties involved must feel a sense of time urgency or outcome
urgency. If procrastination is advantageous to one or all parties involved,
there is little incentive to settle the dispute.
importance of the issue. The extent to which the organization will be
negatively affected by the dispute will influence the strength of actions
to be taken by the organization. For example, a complaint filed against a
company with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
accusing the company of racial discrimination would most likely receive
a stronger and more immediate response from the company than a petty
squabble between two employees about seniority for picking vacation
time. When the dispute has the potential to impact the welfare of the
company negatively, managers are apt to address the issue with greater
urgency (Pinkley et al., 1995). Indeed, empirical research supports this
idea (Lewicki & Sheppard, 1985; Sheppard et al., 1986).
Power balance between the conflicting parties. Research has found that the
relationship of the manager to the disputants is a key determinant of the
intervention tactic used (Karambayya & Brett, 1989; Kipnis & Schmidt,