18  Group Behaviour — Team Building, Leadership, Group Dynamics

18.1 What is a Group?

A group is two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives (Robbins-Judge). The two italicised words — interacting and interdependent — separate a group from a mere collection of people: shoppers in a queue are not a group; the audit team huddled over quarterly numbers is.

TipWorking Definitions of a Group
Author Definition Foregrounds
Robbins & Judge “Two or more individuals interacting and interdependent, who come together to achieve particular objectives.” Interdependence + objective
Marvin Shaw “Two or more persons who interact such that each person influences and is influenced by each other person.” Mutual influence
Edgar Schein “A number of people who interact with one another, are psychologically aware of one another, and perceive themselves to be a group.” Felt membership
Homans “A group is a number of persons who communicate with one another over a span of time.” Communication over time

18.2 Types of Groups

The most-tested classification is formal vs informal — and within each, several sub-types.

TipFormal and Informal Groups
Family Sub-type Defining feature Example
Formal Command group Defined by the organisation chart; superior + subordinates A sales manager and her direct reports
Task group People working together on a specific job; may cross departments New-product launch task force
Committee Standing or ad-hoc body to address a defined matter Audit Committee
Project / cross-functional team Time-bound, multi-disciplinary SAP implementation team
Informal Interest group Members share an interest Office cricket club
Friendship group Members share liking Lunch group
Reference group Used as a comparison standard Senior management
Membership group The group one belongs to One’s current team
NoteWhy people join groups
  • Security — strength in numbers.
  • Status — group membership confers identity.
  • Self-esteem — feeling valued.
  • Affiliation — social need.
  • Power — collective leverage.
  • Goal achievement — pooled effort.

18.3 Stages of Group Development — Tuckman (1965, 1977)

Bruce Tuckman (1965) — the most-cited model of group formation. Adjourning was added in 1977 with Mary Ann Jensen.

TipTuckman’s five stages
Stage What happens Mood
1. Forming Group meets, learns about tasks, polite uncertainty Hesitant
2. Storming Conflict over roles, leadership, priorities Tense
3. Norming Agreement on roles, rules, norms Cooperative
4. Performing Group works at peak effectiveness Productive
5. Adjourning Group dissolves; reflection, separation Mixed 

flowchart LR
  F[1. Forming] --> S[2. Storming]
  S --> N[3. Norming]
  N --> P[4. Performing]
  P --> A[5. Adjourning]
    classDef default fill:#003366,color:#ffffff,stroke:#ffcc00,stroke-width:3px,rx:10px,ry:10px;

NoteAlternative — Punctuated Equilibrium (Gersick 1988)

Connie Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model found that task groups follow a different pattern — not stages but two phases separated by a mid-point transition of intense change. Phase 1: inertia. Mid-point: realisation that time is short. Phase 2: focused action. Applicable to time-bounded project teams.

18.4 Group Properties — Robbins’s Five

TipFive group properties
Property Meaning
Roles Expected behaviour patterns of a position
Norms Acceptable standards of behaviour shared by members
Status Socially defined position or rank
Size Number of members — small (≤ 7) vs large
Cohesiveness Degree to which members are attracted to one another and motivated to stay

18.4.1 Roles

  • Role perception — what we think we are supposed to do.
  • Role expectations — what others believe we should do.
  • Psychological contract — unwritten agreement between employee and employer about mutual obligations.
  • Role conflict — when expectations from different roles clash.
  • Role ambiguity — when expectations are unclear.
  • Role overload — too many roles or too much in one role.

The classic Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) is the iconic demonstration of how powerfully roles shape behaviour.

18.4.2 Norms

Norms emerge over time and govern behaviour. Major categories: performance norms, appearance norms, social arrangement norms, allocation-of-resource norms (Feldman 1984).

TipAsch conformity experiment (1951)

Solomon Asch’s classic experiment showed that 75 % of subjects conformed to a clearly wrong group answer about line length at least once. Conformity is the adjustment of one’s behaviour to align with group norms.

18.4.3 Status

Status comes from three sources: power, contribution to group goals, and personal characteristics.

18.4.4 Group Size

TipEffects of group size
  • Small groups (5-7) — faster decisions, higher member satisfaction.
  • Large groups (12+) — better for problem solving and diverse inputs but slower.
  • Odd-numbered groups preferred to avoid ties.
  • Social loafing (Ringelmann effect) — individual effort drops as group size grows. Demonstrated by Max Ringelmann (1913) with rope pulling; rediscovered by Bibb Latané, Williams & Harkins (1979).

18.4.5 Cohesiveness

High cohesion → conformity to norms. If norms favour productivity, performance rises; if norms favour goldbricking, performance falls. Cohesion is increased by smaller size, shared goals, time together, history of success, external threat.

18.5 Group Decision-Making

TipGroup vs Individual Decisions
Group strengths Group weaknesses
More information, viewpoints Time-consuming
Better acceptance Conformity pressure (groupthink)
Higher legitimacy Dominance by a few
Diversity of expertise Diffused responsibility

18.5.1 Groupthink — Irving Janis (1972)

Groupthink is the deterioration of judgement in highly cohesive groups under pressure for unanimity. The eight symptoms (Janis):

TipJanis’s eight symptoms of groupthink
  1. Illusion of invulnerability
  2. Collective rationalisation
  3. Belief in inherent morality of the group
  4. Stereotyped views of out-groups
  5. Direct pressure on dissenters
  6. Self-censorship of doubts
  7. Illusion of unanimity
  8. Self-appointed mind-guards

Classic cases: Bay of Pigs invasion (1961), Challenger disaster (1986), Iraq WMD intelligence (2003). Remedies: assign a devil’s advocate, invite outside experts, hold second-chance meetings, break the group into independent sub-groups.

18.5.2 Group Shift / Polarisation

After group discussion, decisions tend to be more extreme in the direction members were initially leaning — the risky shift or, more accurately, group polarisation (Moscovici, Stoner).

18.5.3 Group Decision Techniques

TipGroup decision techniques
Technique Author Method
Interacting group Default Face-to-face open discussion
Brainstorming Alex Osborn (1953) Free idea generation; no criticism
Nominal Group Technique (NGT) Delbecq & Van de Ven (1968) Silent writing → round-robin → vote
Delphi technique Helmer & Dalkey, RAND (1959) Anonymous iterative expert questionnaires
Devil’s Advocate / Dialectical Inquiry Mason & Mitroff (1981) Assigned dissenter
Electronic meeting / GDSS various Anonymous typed input in networked room

18.6 Teams vs Groups

A team is a group whose members collaborate to achieve shared, specific goals — with positive synergy, mutual accountability and complementary skills.

TipTeam vs Group
Dimension Work Group Work Team
Goal Share information Collective performance
Synergy Neutral (sometimes negative) Positive
Accountability Individual Individual + mutual
Skills Random / varied Complementary

18.6.1 Types of Teams

TipFive types of teams
  • Problem-solving team — meet to discuss process improvements (e.g., quality circle).
  • Self-managed team — autonomous, makes its own decisions.
  • Cross-functional team — members from different functions; e.g., new-product team.
  • Virtual team — geographically dispersed, technology-mediated.
  • Multi-team system (“team of teams”) — coordinated network of teams (Stanley McChrystal).

18.6.2 Belbin’s Nine Team Roles

Meredith Belbin (1981) identified nine team roles in three clusters:

TipBelbin’s nine team roles
Cluster Roles Strength
Action-oriented Shaper · Implementer · Completer Finisher Drive and delivery
People-oriented Coordinator · Teamworker · Resource Investigator Collaboration
Thinking Plant · Monitor Evaluator · Specialist Ideas and judgement

18.7 Leadership

Leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals (Robbins). Management and leadership are related but distinct: managers do things right; leaders do the right things (Bennis, Drucker).

TipManager vs Leader (Bennis)
Manager Leader
Administers Innovates
Maintains Develops
Focuses on systems and structure Focuses on people
Relies on control Inspires trust
Short-term view Long-term view
Asks how and when Asks what and why
Imitates Originates
Does things right Does the right things

18.7.1 Leadership Theories — Five Families

TipFive families of leadership theory
Family Question Anchor theories
Trait theories Who is a leader? Stogdill’s traits; Big Five for leadership
Behavioural theories What do leaders do? Ohio State (consideration + initiating structure); Michigan (employee- vs production-oriented); Blake-Mouton Grid
Contingency theories How does situation matter? Fiedler · Hersey-Blanchard Situational · House Path-Goal · Vroom-Yetton-Jago
Charismatic / Transformational Vision and emotion? Weber (charisma) · Bass-Burns (transformational vs transactional) · Conger-Kanungo
Contemporary / Modern Newer questions? Servant leadership (Greenleaf) · Authentic leadership · Ethical · Distributed/Shared · LMX (Graen)

18.7.2 Trait Theories

Ralph Stogdill (1948, 1974) identified intelligence, supervisory ability, initiative, self-assurance, decisiveness, masculinity, maturity, etc. The Big Five trait of Extraversion is the strongest correlate of leadership emergence; Conscientiousness of leadership effectiveness.

18.7.3 Behavioural Theories

TipBehavioural leadership models
  • Ohio State Studies (1940s-50s) — two independent dimensions: Initiating Structure (task) and Consideration (people).
  • Michigan Studies (Likert) — Employee-oriented vs Production-oriented leaders.
  • Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid (1964) — 9 × 9 grid on Concern for People × Concern for Production. (9,9) = Team Management is ideal; (1,1) = Impoverished; (1,9) = Country Club; (9,1) = Task Authority-Compliance; (5,5) = Middle-of-the-Road.
  • Kurt Lewin’s three styles (1939) — Autocratic · Democratic · Laissez-faire.

18.7.4 Contingency Theories

Fiedler’s Contingency Model (1967) — leadership effectiveness depends on the match between leader style (task-oriented vs relationship-oriented, measured by LPC scale) and situational favourableness (leader-member relations · task structure · position power). Low-LPC (task-oriented) leaders perform best in highly favourable or highly unfavourable situations; high-LPC (relationship-oriented) in moderately favourable ones.

Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership (1969) — Style adapts to follower readiness (R1 → R4):

TipHersey-Blanchard styles
Follower readiness Leader style
R1 — Unable + unwilling S1 — Telling (high task, low relationship)
R2 — Unable + willing S2 — Selling (high task, high relationship)
R3 — Able + unwilling S3 — Participating (low task, high relationship)
R4 — Able + willing S4 — Delegating (low task, low relationship)

House’s Path-Goal Theory (1971) — Leader’s job is to clear the path to subordinate goals using four styles (directive, supportive, participative, achievement-oriented) chosen contingent on follower characteristics and task demands.

Vroom-Yetton-Jago (1973, 1988) — Five decision styles (AI · AII · CI · CII · GII) chosen via a contingency decision tree.

18.7.5 Charismatic and Transformational

Charismatic leadership — Max Weber’s earlier concept; Conger-Kanungo (1987) behavioural model with vision, sensitivity to environment, personal risk, unconventional behaviour.

James MacGregor Burns (1978) distinguished:

  • Transactional leadership — exchange of rewards for performance.
  • Transformational leadership — inspires followers to transcend self-interest for the organisation.

Bernard Bass (1985) operationalised transformational leadership through the 4 I’s:

TipBass’s Four I’s of Transformational Leadership
  • Idealised Influence — leader as a role model.
  • Inspirational Motivation — articulating a compelling vision.
  • Intellectual Stimulation — encouraging creativity.
  • Individualised Consideration — coaching, mentoring.

18.7.6 Contemporary Theories

TipContemporary leadership theories
  • Servant Leadership — Robert Greenleaf (1970) — leader serves followers; ego subordinated to others’ growth.
  • Authentic Leadership — Bill George (2003) — self-awareness, transparency, ethics.
  • Ethical Leadership — Brown-Treviño — moral managers + moral persons.
  • Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) / Vertical Dyad Linkage — George Graen (1975) — leaders develop in-group and out-group relationships with different subordinates.
  • Distributed / Shared Leadership — leadership emerges across members rather than residing in one person.
  • Implicit Leadership / Romance of Leadership — Meindl — followers’ prototypes shape leader perception.

18.8 Power and Influence

Power is the capacity to influence the behaviour of others. Wider than authority (formal power from position).

TipFrench & Raven’s Five Bases of Power
Base Source Type
Legitimate Position in hierarchy Position
Reward Ability to confer rewards Position
Coercive Ability to punish Position
Expert Specialised knowledge Personal
Referent Personal charisma; identification Personal
(Informational — added 1965 by Raven) Control of information Personal
NoteTactics of Influence (Kipnis-Schmidt)

Nine tactics: rational persuasion · inspirational appeals · consultation · ingratiation · personal appeals · exchange · coalitions · pressure · legitimacy.

18.9 Conflict and Negotiation

TipThree views of conflict
  • Traditional view (1930s-40s) — conflict is harmful and must be avoided.
  • Human relations view (1940s-70s) — conflict is natural and inevitable.
  • Interactionist view (since 1970s) — some conflict (task / functional) is necessary; relationship conflict is harmful.

18.9.1 Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Modes

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann (1974) — five conflict-handling styles on two axes (assertiveness vs cooperativeness):

TipThomas-Kilmann five styles
Style Assertiveness Cooperativeness When to use
Competing / Forcing High Low Quick decision, unpopular issue
Collaborating High High Important issue, time available
Compromising Medium Medium Equal-power parties, time pressure
Avoiding Low Low Trivial issue, more info needed
Accommodating Low High You are wrong; harmony matters

18.9.2 Pondy’s Five Stages of Conflict

Louis Pondy (1967) — Latent → Perceived → Felt → Manifest → Aftermath.

18.9.3 Negotiation Strategies

  • Distributive bargaining — fixed-pie, win-lose, positions.
  • Integrative bargaining — expand the pie, win-win, interests.

BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement) — Fisher and Ury (Getting to Yes, 1981) — your fallback if negotiation fails.

18.10 Practice Questions

Q 01 Tuckman Easy

Tuckman's five-stage group development sequence is:

  • AForming · Storming · Norming · Performing · Adjourning
  • BPlan · Do · Check · Act · Reset
  • CDefine · Measure · Analyse · Improve · Control
  • DUnfreeze · Change · Refreeze
View solution
Correct Option: A
Tuckman (1965, +1977): Forming · Storming · Norming · Performing · Adjourning.
Q 02 Gersick Hard

The Punctuated Equilibrium model of group development is by:

  • ABruce Tuckman
  • BConnie Gersick
  • CEdgar Schein
  • DMeredith Belbin
View solution
Correct Option: B
Connie Gersick (1988) — alternative for time-bounded project teams. Mid-point transition is key.
Q 03 Ringelmann Medium

The decline of individual effort as group size grows — "social loafing" — was first observed by:

  • ASolomon Asch
  • BMax Ringelmann (1913)
  • CBibb Latané
  • DMarvin Shaw
View solution
Correct Option: B
Max Ringelmann (1913) — French agricultural engineer; rope-pulling experiment. Latané, Williams & Harkins (1979) rediscovered it as *social loafing*.
Q 04 Asch Medium

Solomon Asch's classic 1951 experiment demonstrated:

  • AObedience to authority
  • BConformity to group judgement
  • CBystander effect
  • DCognitive dissonance
View solution
Correct Option: B
Asch's *line-length* experiments demonstrated conformity — 75 % of subjects went along with a clearly wrong majority at least once. Milgram studied obedience; Latané studied bystander effect.
Q 05 Zimbardo Medium

The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) demonstrated:

  • APower of roles to shape behaviour
  • BEffect of money on motivation
  • CDiffusion of responsibility
  • DSpread of rumours
View solution
Correct Option: A
Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) — randomly assigned "guards" and "prisoners" rapidly internalised their roles, leading to abuse. Shows roles shape behaviour.
Q 06 Groupthink Medium

"Groupthink" was articulated by Irving Janis in:

  • A1948
  • B1965
  • C1972
  • D1985
View solution
Correct Option: C
Irving Janis, *Victims of Groupthink* (1972). 8 symptoms; classic cases include Bay of Pigs.
Q 07 Belbin Hard

Belbin's team-role inventory identifies how many roles?

  • A5
  • B7
  • C9
  • D12
View solution
Correct Option: C
Belbin (1981) — nine team roles in 3 clusters (action / people / thinking).
Q 08 Lewin styles Easy

Kurt Lewin's classification of leadership styles (1939) includes:

  • AAutocratic · Democratic · Laissez-faire
  • BSelling · Telling · Delegating
  • CTrait · Behavioural · Contingency
  • DTransactional · Transformational · Charismatic
View solution
Correct Option: A
Lewin, Lippitt & White (1939): Autocratic · Democratic · Laissez-faire.
Q 09 Grid Medium

In Blake-Mouton's Managerial Grid, (9,9) is called:

  • ACountry Club Management
  • BTeam Management
  • CMiddle-of-the-Road
  • DAuthority-Compliance
View solution
Correct Option: B
(9,9) = high concern for people + high concern for production = Team Management. Blake & Mouton (1964).
Q 10 Fiedler Hard

Fiedler's Contingency Model uses which instrument to measure leader style?

  • AMBTI
  • BLPC scale (Least Preferred Co-worker)
  • CFIRO-B
  • DBig Five inventory
View solution
Correct Option: B
Fiedler's LPC (Least Preferred Co-worker) scale. Low-LPC = task-oriented; high-LPC = relationship-oriented.
Q 11 Situational Medium

Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership style for a follower who is "able but unwilling" (R3) is:

  • ATelling
  • BSelling
  • CParticipating
  • DDelegating
View solution
Correct Option: C
R3 (able + unwilling) → S3 Participating (low task, high relationship). R1→Telling, R2→Selling, R4→Delegating.
Q 12 Path-Goal Medium

House's Path-Goal Theory of leadership identifies how many leader behaviours/styles?

  • A2
  • B3
  • C4
  • D5
View solution
Correct Option: C
Robert House (1971) — four styles: Directive · Supportive · Participative · Achievement-oriented.
Q 13 Burns-Bass Medium

Bass's *Four I's* of transformational leadership are:

  • AIdealised Influence · Inspirational Motivation · Intellectual Stimulation · Individualised Consideration
  • BInnovation · Integrity · Inclusion · Impact
  • CInspire · Influence · Inform · Implement
  • DIdentity · Information · Initiative · Interaction
View solution
Correct Option: A
Bernard Bass (1985) — 4 I's: Idealised Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualised Consideration.
Q 14 Servant Medium

"Servant leadership" was articulated in 1970 by:

  • ARobert Greenleaf
  • BBernard Bass
  • CBill George
  • DGeorge Graen
View solution
Correct Option: A
Robert Greenleaf, *The Servant as Leader* (1970). Bill George — Authentic Leadership (2003).
Q 15 LMX Hard

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory was proposed by:

  • ARobert House
  • BGeorge Graen
  • CBernard Bass
  • DFred Fiedler
View solution
Correct Option: B
George Graen (1975) — LMX (Vertical Dyad Linkage). Leaders form *in-group* and *out-group* relationships.
Q 16 Power Easy

French and Raven's bases of power that derive from the *person* (not the position) are:

  • ALegitimate and Reward
  • BCoercive and Legitimate
  • CExpert and Referent
  • DReward and Coercive
View solution
Correct Option: C
Expert (knowledge) and Referent (charisma) are *personal* power. The first three (Legitimate, Reward, Coercive) are position power.
Q 17 Thomas-Kilmann Medium

In the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode, the style that scores HIGH on both assertiveness and cooperativeness is:

  • ACompeting
  • BCollaborating
  • CCompromising
  • DAvoiding
View solution
Correct Option: B
Collaborating — high assertiveness + high cooperativeness = win-win. Compromising sits at the middle.
Q 18 Pondy Hard

Pondy's stages of conflict — in order — are:

  • ALatent → Perceived → Felt → Manifest → Aftermath
  • BForming → Storming → Norming → Performing → Adjourning
  • CAntecedent → Trigger → Escalation → Resolution → Healing
  • DPlan → Issue → Negotiate → Settle → Reflect
View solution
Correct Option: A
Louis Pondy (1967): Latent → Perceived → Felt → Manifest → Aftermath.
Q 19 BATNA Medium

In negotiation, **BATNA** stands for:

  • ABest Approach To Negotiated Agreement
  • BBest Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement
  • CBargaining Around The Negotiation Agreement
  • DBilateral Agreement Through Negotiated Action
View solution
Correct Option: B
Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement — Fisher & Ury, *Getting to Yes* (1981). Your fallback if the deal falls through.
Q 20 Match leaders Hard

Match the leadership theorist with the theory:

(i) Fiedler (a) Servant leadership
(ii) House (b) Contingency model / LPC
(iii) Bass (c) Path-Goal
(iv) Greenleaf (d) Transformational (4 I's)
  • A(i)-(b), (ii)-(c), (iii)-(d), (iv)-(a)
  • B(i)-(a), (ii)-(b), (iii)-(c), (iv)-(d)
  • C(i)-(c), (ii)-(d), (iii)-(b), (iv)-(a)
  • D(i)-(d), (ii)-(a), (iii)-(c), (iv)-(b)
View solution
Correct Option: A
Fiedler — Contingency/LPC; House — Path-Goal; Bass — Transformational/4 I's; Greenleaf — Servant Leadership.

18.10.1 Advanced Format Questions

AR 1Assertion-ReasonHard

A: Tuckman's model has 5 stages.
R: Adjourning was added later to the original 4-stage model.

  • ABoth true; R explains A
  • BBoth true; R does not explain A
  • CA true, R false
  • DA false, R true
View solution
Correct Option: A
AR 2Assertion-ReasonMedium

A: Groupthink harms decision quality.
R: Janis identified Bay of Pigs as a classic example.

  • ABoth true; R explains A
  • BBoth true; R does not explain A
  • CA true, R false
  • DA false, R true
View solution
Correct Option: B
S 1Statement-basedMedium

Tuckman stages: (i) Forming. (ii) Storming. (iii) Norming. (iv) Performing. (v) Adjourning.

  • AAll five
  • B(i), (ii), (iii) only
  • C(iv) only
  • D(i), (ii), (iv) only
View solution
Correct Option: A
S 2Statement-basedHard

Group dynamics phenomena: (i) Social loafing (Ringelmann). (ii) Risky shift. (iii) Conformity (Asch). (iv) Obedience (Milgram).

  • AAll four pairings correct
  • B(i) and (ii) only
  • C(iii) and (iv) only
  • D(i), (iii), (iv) only
View solution
Correct Option: A

18.11 Quick Recall

ImportantQuick recall
  • Group — interacting + interdependent + objective (Robbins-Judge). Schein adds felt membership.
  • Types: Formal (command, task, committee, project) · Informal (interest, friendship, reference, membership).
  • Tuckman (1965+1977): Forming → Storming → Norming → Performing → Adjourning. Alternative — Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium (1988) with mid-point transition.
  • 5 group properties: Roles · Norms · Status · Size · Cohesiveness.
  • Iconic group experiments: Asch (1951 — conformity) · Zimbardo Stanford Prison (1971 — roles) · Milgram (obedience) · Ringelmann (1913 — social loafing) · Latané (1979 — social loafing rediscovered).
  • Groupthink — Janis 1972; 8 symptoms; cases: Bay of Pigs, Challenger, Iraq WMD.
  • Group decision techniques: Brainstorming (Osborn) · NGT (Delbecq-Van de Ven) · Delphi (Helmer-Dalkey) · Devil’s Advocate · GDSS.
  • Team vs Group: positive synergy + mutual accountability + complementary skills.
  • Belbin’s 9 team roles in 3 clusters (action / people / thinking).
  • Leadership families: Trait · Behavioural (Ohio · Michigan · Blake-Mouton 9,9 Team Mgmt) · Contingency (Fiedler LPC, Hersey-Blanchard 4 styles by R1-R4, House Path-Goal 4 styles, Vroom-Yetton-Jago 5 styles) · Transformational (Bass’s 4 I’s) · Contemporary (Servant — Greenleaf 1970, Authentic — George 2003, LMX — Graen 1975).
  • Lewin 3 styles: Autocratic · Democratic · Laissez-faire.
  • Power bases (French-Raven): Legitimate · Reward · Coercive (position) + Expert · Referent (personal) + Informational (Raven 1965).
  • Thomas-Kilmann conflict modes: Competing · Collaborating · Compromising · Avoiding · Accommodating. Pondy stages: Latent → Perceived → Felt → Manifest → Aftermath.
  • Negotiation: Distributive vs Integrative; BATNA — Fisher-Ury 1981.