Friend or Foe? A Reversal of Ingroup Bias
In: Group decision and negotiation, Band 27, Heft 4, S. 593-610
ISSN: 1572-9907
8 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Group decision and negotiation, Band 27, Heft 4, S. 593-610
ISSN: 1572-9907
In: Population: revue bimestrielle de l'Institut National d'Etudes Démographiques. French edition, Band 11, Heft 1, S. 170
ISSN: 0718-6568, 1957-7966
In: Group & organization management: an international journal, Band 41, Heft 3, S. 375-406
ISSN: 1552-3993
Conventional wisdom from the popular and scholarly literatures consistently suggests that positive humor by leaders can be beneficial, but that negative humor should be avoided at all costs. To explore the boundaries of that conventional wisdom, we draw on leadership and humor theory to develop and test a conceptual model describing the relationships between leader humor, leader–subordinate relationship quality, the subordinate's tenure with the leader, and subordinate job satisfaction. Analysis of multilevel data from 241 subordinates nested within 70 leaders in 54 organizations revealed that the relationship between leader humor and job satisfaction was dependent on the quality of the leader–subordinate relationship, and not the positive/negative tone of the leader's humor. Specifically, both positive and negative (i.e., affiliative and aggressive) leader humor styles were positively associated with job satisfaction when the relationship was positive, but both types were negatively associated with job satisfaction when the relationship was negative. Our results also suggested that the effects of positive humor increased with increasing subordinate tenure. We discuss the practical implications of these findings, including the importance of understanding the relational context of humor.
In: Conflict resolution quarterly, Band 29, Heft 2, S. 127-150
ISSN: 1541-1508
AbstractThis study investigates the effects of three mediator strategies—neutral, evaluative, and pressing—upon agreement and satisfaction in 100 civil case mediations. The authors found a significant difference in that a neutral strategy resulted in agreement only 28 percent of the time, whereas the evaluative strategy had an agreement rate of 69 percent and the pressing strategy a 57 percent rate. They also found that consistent use of each strategy throughout the mediation increased the agreement rate. When producing high agreements, the two assertive strategies—evaluative and pressing—modestly reduced disputant satisfaction. The study also disclosed that mediators obtained more agreements in motor vehicle, medical malpractice, and personal liability cases than in contract and employment disputes.
In: The Economic Journal, Band 66, Heft 261, S. 151
In: Group decision and negotiation, Band 27, Heft 3, S. 375-391
ISSN: 1572-9907
In: Corporate reputation review, Band 20, Heft 1, S. 105-122
ISSN: 1479-1889
In: International Geology Review, Band 39, Heft 9, S. 788-829