Using principles from the chapters on groups and teams, describe how will advise the team to manage conflict effectively.

1. Question 3: Using principles from the chapters on groups and
teams, describe how will advise the team to manage conflict
effectively.
1. Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early
stages of a group’s tenure, which often lowers group morale and
raises dropout rates.
2. One study compared groups that were culturally diverse
(composed of people from different countries) and homogeneous
(composed of people from the same country).
3. The groups performed equally well, but the diverse groups were
less satisfied with their groups, were less consistent, and had
more conflict.

2. Model: Manage Conflict Effectively

3. • However, culturally and demographically diverse groups may perform
better over time if they can get over their initial conflicts.
• Surface-level diversity in observable characteristics such as national
origin, race, and gender alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—
in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions.
• The impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse
group in the short term.
• However, if members can weather their differences, overtime diversity
may help them be more open-minded and creative and to do better.
• But even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong.
• As one review stated, “The business case (in demonstrable financial
results) for diversity remains hard to support based on the extant
research.”

4. Question 4 : Describe how integrative negotiation strategies might
achieve joint goals for the development team.
• Definition: Integrative negotiations can build long term relationships.
It can allow them to leave feeling they have a victory. The advantage
of it is that even as one side wins, the other side feels good about the
negotiation.
CHARACTERISTIC OF INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION
• It focus on commonalties rather than differences
• It attempt to address needs and interests, not positions
• It commit to meeting the needs of all involved parties
• Exchange information and ideas
• Discover the possibilities for mutual gain
• Use objective criteria for standard of performance

5. KEY CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Creating a free flow of information
• Attempting to understand the other negotiator’s real need and objective
• Emphasizing the commonalties between the parties and minimizing the
differences
• Searching for solutions that meet the needs and objectives of both sides.
KEY STEPS IN INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION PROCESS
• Identify and define the problem
• Understand the problem and bring interests and needs to the external
• Generate alternative solution to the problems
• Evaluate those alternatives and select among them

6. • To work together to create value, negotiators need to understand the
problem, identify the interests and needs of both parties, and generate
alternative solutions.
• The fourth step of the integrative negotiation process, the evaluation and
selection of alternatives, involves claiming value.
• Claiming value involves many of the distributive bargaining skills.
• The relationship between creating and claiming value is shown graphically.
It is important that processes to create value precede those to claim value
for two reasons:
• ➢ The creating-value process is more effective when it is done
collaboratively and without a focus on who gets what and
• ➢ Because claiming value involves distributive bargaining processes, it
may derail the focus on creating value and may even harm the relationship
unless it is introduced effectively.

7. Model: Joint Goals for the Development Team

8. They could use integrative negotiations to choose parts
of the solution that are the most significant to them.
Once that has been established, they can then focus on
how each side can achieve its chief need.
In this process neither side may receive all or exactly
what it desires, however, each side will receive the
more significant parts of what it hoped to accomplish.

9. Recommendations
 Identify appropriate partners with complementarities in terms of organizational
skills, resources, experience and spheres of influence for building a
alliance.
 Agree on guiding principles for partnership, including strategic objectives and
modalities of collaboration with the whole organizations to build a perfect team or
group.
 Implement mechanisms to ensure the smooth functioning of the coalition, such
as clarifying roles and resources of each partner, having a budgeted work plan,
regularupdate meetings and appointment of a chair (possibly on a rotation basis).

10. Build trust by facilitating information sharing between partners
(building a common website, sending regular e-blasts to members,
Twitter feed, etc.), creating immediate “quick-win” opportunities to
work together to demonstrate added value of the coalition, ensuring
reciprocal transparency, and supporting each other’sinitiatives.
Recognized the challenges of working in coalition; for instance,
disagreements on specific policy solutions, need to reach a broad
consensus, and conflicts on branding of the coalition.

11. • Early and comprehensive research would inform the entire advocacy
process. A balance needs to be struck between advancing the overall
agenda on a constant basis, and gearing up action on a specific issue
to take advantage of a certain policy window, when political attention
might be feasibly secured, during national elections for instance.
• Identify the relevant players who can influence the decision-making
process for the specific issue at hand, e.g., media, parliamentarians,
key political constituencies, donors, etc. Work towards creating
ownership of the advocacy issues by the identified champions.
• Identify potential ‘entry points’ for the advocacy initiatives to
generate maximum impact, and garner broader interest and support
for the particular issue focused on maternal health, which offered an
entry point to engage on sexual and reproductive health and rights
issues such as abortion.

12. • Evaluate specific campaigns in relation to agreed
benchmarks against baseline measures, e.g., increase in
awareness or increase in public discussion. Evaluate
advocacy efforts on an ongoing basis.
• Promote accountability by developing monitoring and
transparency tools and mechanisms (for example, to monitor
the actual flow and utilization of budgeted funds), and space
for greater dialogue with civil society.
• Evaluate the alliance on other important outcomes, such as
strengthened organizational capacity, alliances, or increased
base for support.

13. • An important contribution of this study is the provision of a model for
coalition building around controversial issues.
• Because of the insights derived from the study, the stakeholder
groups held a regional conference in March 1995, and formulated
action plans to sustain continued coalition efforts.
• The study holds several implications for Extension education.
• First, the model demonstrates that when views are properly
communicated and understood, and opinions are identified, coalition
building can be facilitated.
• Second, participants involved in controversial issues can be brought
together most effectively after common agenda items have been
identified and when the information generated can be used to
establish a positive mind-set.
• Third, in order to keep the coalition momentum, an agenda for action
should be developed.