Suchergebnisse

PurposeIn this paper, the authors examine the role of idiocentric and allocentric cultural orientations in employees' preference for relationship help and for emotional help from third parties in two cross-cultural samples. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the psychological dynamics of cultural dimensions in relation to cross-cultural conflict intervention.Design/methodology/approachThe authors tested the theoretical assumptions by using questionnaire survey in two cross-cultural samples. Study 1 is a cross-cultural comparison within a country, including 83 Dutch employees and 106 Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Study 2 is a comparison between countries, including 123 Germany-based German employees and 101 Pakistan-based Pakistani employees.FindingsThe results show that employees' allocentric orientation, but not idiocentric orientation, explains the differences in preference for relationship help in both the within-country comparison (Study 1: individualistic Dutch culture vs collectivistic Turkish culture) and the between-country comparison (Study 2: individualistic German culture vs collectivistic Pakistani culture). However, only in the between-country comparison (Study 2), the findings reveal that the difference in preference for emotional help between individualistic German culture and collectivistic Pakistani culture is mediated by idiocentric orientation (not by allocentric orientation).Research limitations/implicationsThe study confirms that the extent to which disputants' preference for third-party help regarding social and personal aspects does differ across national cultures, and supports that the argument that social relationship is one of the paramount concerns in conflict handling in the collectivistic cultures. In addition, the study signals an alternative way of conducting two culture comparisons and expands our view on the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism.Practical implicationsThe findings have practical implications both for third-party intervention and for managing cultural diversity in the workplace.Social implicationsIn general, this study contributes to our understanding on how culture influences conflict handling and provides suggestions for third parties to be culturally adaptive.Originality/valueThe research demonstrates that culture plays an important role in determining the extent to which disputants favour relationship help and emotional help from third parties. The research is also valuable in terms of reliability. The authors tested the hypotheses in two cross-cultural samples both within a country and between countries.

Contents: 1 Introduction to human resource management process / Charmi Patel, Huadong Yang and Karin Sanders -- Part I: The state of hr process research -- 2. Hr attributions: A critical review and research agenda / Rebecca Hewett -- 3. Hr strength: Past, current and future research / Karin Sanders, Timothy C. Bednall and Huadong Yang -- 4. Perceptions of hrm: When do we differ in perceptions? When is it meaningful to assess such differences? / Yvonne G.T. van Rossenberg -- Part II: New applications -- 5. Team leaders' hr attributions and their implications on teams and employee-level outcomes / Yucheng Zhang, Zhiling Wang and Xin Wei -- 6. Putting perceived hr credibility into the hrm process picture: Insights from the elaboration likelihood model / Xiaobei Li -- 7. Hrm system strength implementation: A multi-actor process perspective / Anna Bos-Nehles, Jordi Trullen and Mireia Valverde -- 8. The hard problem: Human resource management and performance / Keith Townsend, Kenneth Cafferkey, Tony Dundon and Safa Riaz -- 9. Employee attributions of talent management / Adelle Bish, Helen Shipton and Frances Jorgensen -- 10. Change within organizations: An attributional lens / Karin Sanders and Alannah Rafferty -- Part III: Strengths, weaknesses and future directions -- 11. Reflections on the hr landscape / Cheri Ostroff -- 12. The role of line managers in the hrm process / David E. Guest -- Index.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to examine underlying linkages between employees' intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and their task/contextual performance in a Pakistani health care and educational context. Employees' affective occupational and organizational commitments were proposed as mediators to explain these relationships.Design/methodology/approach– Data were collected from 181 doctors from a Pakistani hospital and 135 academics from a Pakistani university and analyzed using Baron and Kenney (1986) approach and Preacher and Hayes (2008) bootstrapping approach for testing multiple mediators simultaneously.Findings– As expected, intrinsic motivation is related to task performance (TP) and this relationship is mediated by affective occupational commitment. Extrinsic motivation is related both to TP and contextual performance (CP) and these relationships are mediated by affective organizational commitment.Research limitations/implications– Research has implications both for practitioners and academicians. The results highlight how different motivational orientations can produce different results and managers need to understand the different needs of employees while devising their human resource strategies. Employees can differ in their motivational orientations depending on their level of need, and can accordingly differ in their subsequent attitudes, performance and behaviors. Employees also need to choose jobs carefully after evaluating their motivational orientations.Originality/value– The current study recognizes the multi-dimensional nature of motivation and differentiates the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations of employees by establishing the unique linkages between these orientations and employee task and CP. The study also examines differential role of two foci of employee commitment in analyzing the main effects.

Third parties often react to an interpersonal conflict by taking sides. However, under the assumption that third parties are to help disputants resolve their problems, the topic of side-taking has been overlooked in the literature of conflict management. In this theoretical paper, we propose self-interest, moral, and relationship motives to explain the psychological mechanism of sidetaking. We then discuss how disputant-related factors (in terms of the effects of status differences between third parties and disputants), dispute-related factors (in terms of conflict types), and contextual factors (in terms of individualism/collectivism) have an influence on the three types of side-taking motives to gain a deeper and broader understanding of side-taking. By focusing on sidetaking and analyzing its motives, our theoretical framework connects and extends the literatures on third-party intervention and coalition formation. It also bridges the gap between individuals, dyads, groups, and organizations at different levels of conflict processes.

Employees in the role of outsider can be faced with a dispute between colleagues. Taking sides is a crucially important, yet neglected tactic in handling disputes. In a study of 226 Chinese employees, we investigated the influence of employees' moral and expedient orientations on their siding intentions in a workplace dispute characterized by different distributions of legitimacy, negative sanctions and guanxi. Results indicate that legitimacy information leads moral-oriented employees to side with a legitimacy party whereas sanction information leads expedient-oriented employees to side with a sanction party. However, the Chinese employees also take guanxiinto account. Guanxias contrasting information decreased both the extent to which the strong-moral, weak-expedient-oriented Chinese employees sided with a legitimacy party, and the extent to which weak-moral, strong-expedient-oriented employees sided with a sanction party. Implications of these results for developing a universal theory of siding are discussed.