Suchergebnisse

PurposeThis paper aims to add to the current knowledge about conflict management by examining the relationships between conflict type, conflict expression intensity and the use of the conflict management approach.Design/methodology/approachThe authors test theory-based hypotheses using a field study of new product development teams in an interdisciplinary Masters program (Study 1) and an experimental vignette study (Study 2).FindingsResults show that people are more likely to respond to task conflict and conflicts expressed with less intensity using collectivistic conflict management approaches (i.e. problem-solving, compromising and yielding), and to relationship conflicts and conflicts expressed with higher intensity through forcing, an individualistic conflict management approach. Information acquisition and negative emotions experienced by team members mediate these relationships.Practical implicationsKnowing how the characteristics of the conflict (type and expression intensity) affect conflict management, managers can counteract the tendency to use dysfunctional, forcing conflict management approaches in response to high intensity conflicts, as well as to relationship conflicts and support the tendency to use collectivistic conflict management approaches in response to low intensity conflict, as well as task conflicts.Originality/valueThe authors examine an alternative to the prevailing view that conflict management serves as a moderator of the relationship between conflict and team outcomes. The research shows that conflict type and intensity of conflict expression influence the conflict management approach as a result of the information and emotion they evoke. The authors open avenues for future research on the complex and intriguing relationships between conflict characteristics and the conflict management approach.

Individualized work arrangements ("i-deals") negotiated by employees are increasingly common in contemporary employment. Existing research largely focuses on phenomena emerging after the creation of i-deals, particularly their consequences for employees and organizations. This focus overlooks the fundamental processes associated with negotiating i-deals in the first place. I-deals research originating in the last two decades can benefit from the more advanced body of research on negotiations, particularly in its attention to negotiation preparation and the bargaining process. We examine how negotiation research and theory inform our understanding of the dynamics operating in the creation of i-deals. In doing so, we identify key features of negotiation research that apply to i-deal formulation and use these to develop an agenda for future research on i-deals.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the role of enriched group work design and objective and perceived expertise diversity in interdisciplinary research groups with a focus on two critical group processes: task conflict and idea sharing.Design/methodology/approachSurvey data were collected from 148 researchers and their advisors in 29 research labs at two doctorate-granting universities. The study tested the hypothesized model using hierarchical ordinary least squares regression and hierarchical linear modeling.FindingsResults showed that objective and perceived (salient) expertise diversity jointly influenced task conflict. In addition, whether task conflict had a positive or negative impact on idea sharing depended on group work design enrichment and expertise diversity salience. Idea sharing improved group outcomes over and above the effects of task conflict.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough this study could not test the causal relationships owing to a cross-sectional nature of data, it provides theoretical implications for the group work design, diversity and conflict literature.Practical implicationsGroup work design represents an important tool for stimulating idea sharing in research groups. The findings suggest that managers should consider and manage the level of expertise diversity salience and the level of task conflict to increase the effectiveness of group work design.Originality/valueThe study provides insights on when task conflict may help creative groups. Work design and diversity salience represent important contextual features. The paper also examines both the objective and perceived diversity and disentangles task conflict and idea sharing.

This research proposes and evaluates hypotheses about patterns of communication in a multi‐party, multi‐issue negotiation. Data were from 36 four‐person groups. We found that the majority of groups initiated negotiations with a distributive phase and ended with an integrative phase—strong support for Morley and Stephenson's (1979) rational model of negotiation. We identified transitions between both strategic orientations (integration, distribution) and strategic functions (action, information), but found that the first transition was more likely to result in a change of orientation than of function and that negotiators were more likely to change either orientation or function (single transition) than to change both aspects of the negotiation simultaneously (double transition). Finally, we determined that negotiators used process and closure strategies to interrupt distributive phases and redirect negotiations to an integrative phase.

This study investigates cycles of planning, enacting, and reviewing activities over time in teams engaged in creative projects. Drawing on longitudinal case studies of two interactive media development teams, two distinct cycles of planning, enacting, and reviewing activities are identified: experimentation cycles and validation cycles. Experimentation cycles are discovery-oriented processes where teams gather insights into project requirements, constraints, and design specifications through trial-and-error. Validation cycles are correction-oriented processes where teams align their output with project requirements through incremental modifications. These findings are then built on to develop testable propositions about the relationship between the duration of planning, enacting, and reviewing activities and the innovativeness and quality of team outcomes.

AbstractWhen involved in disputes, people's stereotypes about one another and the situation can influence their attributions of motives and effectiveness at resolving the dispute. Stereotypes may be of particular concern when disputing parties have little knowledge about the individual across the table. In this study, we examined how respondents from different cultures evaluated the economic and relational goals of two disputing merchants - one from the West and the other from the Middle East. We tested the extent to which respondents' expectations of the targets' goals were driven by: 1) cultural information about each disputant (whether the merchant-disputant comes from the West or from the Middle East) and 2) the respondent's own culturally-based mental model for approaches to resolving work-related disputes. We found very little evidence of cultural stereotyping in that respondents views of the Target Merchants' goals were largely independent of the said culture of the Target Merchant. We did however find strong evidence that respondents from the United States, Turkey and Qatar hold different mental models about the goals a party has when resolving a work-related dispute. In particular, US respondents had a more variable-sum orientation than the other cultural groups, especially Qataris, whose mental model evidenced a fixed pie assumption regarding economic and relational goals. For example, Qataris and Turks viewed a goal of Maximizing one's Own Gain as impeding a goal of Maximizing the Other Party's Gain. Similarly, Qataris viewed Defending Honor as incompatible to the goals of Relationship Building and Giving Face, whereas Americans and Turks did not hold such a view. These differences, based on the country of the respondent, are discussed in detail.

When involved in disputes, people's stereotypes about one another and the situation can influence their attributions of motives and effectiveness at resolving the dispute. Stereotypes may be of particular concern when disputing parties have little knowledge about the individual across the table. In this study, we examined how respondents from different cultures evaluated the economic and relational goals of two disputing merchants -- one from the West and the other from the Middle East. We tested the extent to which respondents' expectations of the targets' goals were driven by: 1) cultural information about each disputant (whether the merchant-disputant comes from the West or from the Middle East) and 2) the respondent's own culturally-based mental model for approaches to resolving work-related disputes. We found very little evidence of cultural stereotyping in that respondents views of the Target Merchants' goals were largely independent of the said culture of the Target Merchant. We did however find strong evidence that respondents from the United States, Turkey and Qatar hold different mental models about the goals a party has when resolving a work-related dispute. In particular, US respondents had a more variable-sum orientation than the other cultural groups, especially Qataris, whose mental model evidenced a fixed pie assumption regarding economic and relational goals. For example, Qataris and Turks viewed a goal of Maximizing one's Own Gain as impeding a goal of Maximizing the Other Party's Gain, Similarly, Qataris viewed Defending Honor as incompatible to the goals of Relationship Building and Giving Face, whereas Americans and Turks did not hold such a view. These differences, based on the country of the respondent, are discussed in detail. Adapted from the source document.

We examine the effect of friendship in triads on retaliatory responses to unfair outcomes that originate from a group member. Drawing on Simmel's classic discussion of relationships in social triads versus dyads, we hypothesized that the effect of unfairness on retaliation between friends is stronger when the third party in the triad is a mutual friend, rather than a stranger. We also draw on social categorization theory to hypothesize that the effect of unfairness on retaliation between strangers is stronger when the third party is a friend of that stranger than when the triad consists of all strangers. Hypotheses were tested in an experiment where participants negotiated with one another in a three-person exchange network. The results supported our hypothesis that between friends, the increase in retaliation was stronger following an unfair deal when third parties were mutual friends, rather than strangers.