IACM 2008 Chicago Conference (Archive)最新文献

{"title":"The Team Negotiation Challenge: Defining and Managing the Internal Challenges of Negotiating Teams","authors":"Kristin Behfar, R. Friedman, J. Brett","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1298512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1298512","url":null,"abstract":"Negotiation teams are widely used to negotiate on behalf of organizations, yet relatively little is known about how they overcome the challenges posed by within team dynamics to create a sound across-the-table team bargaining strategy. This paper presents a two phase analysis of accounts of negotiating team experiences collected from 45 executives. In the first phase we present a qualitative categorization of negotiating team challenges and management strategies. In the second phase we demonstrate that the match between challenges and management strategies and the quality of team process largely depends on how teams manage within team dynamics. Teams are more likely to be able to implement management strategies that match the challenges they face when teams also engage in substantive debates about negotiating team goals; teams are less likely to implement strategies that match team challenges when teams also engage in personality conflicts. Thus, substantive conflict helps rationalize team processes, while personality conflict undermines the development of appropriate team management strategies if not addressed appropriately.","PeriodicalId":244948,"journal":{"name":"IACM 2008 Chicago Conference (Archive)","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134446404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The View from Above and Below: The Effects of Power Symmetries and Interdependence on Conflict Dynamics & Outcomes","authors":"Peter T. Coleman, Christine Chung, Katharina G. Kugler, Naira Musallam, Adam Mitchinson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1298492","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1298492","url":null,"abstract":"Amidst the vast literature on social conflict, there are a few basic theoretical models that have helped advance the understanding and practice of constructive conflict resolution. Among these, one of the most important and influential is Deutsch's theory of conflict resolution (1973, 2006). Based on his earlier work on cooperation and competition in groups (Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b), it specified the basic conditions and processes involved in constructive versus destructive conflict. However, the original formulation of the theory assumed equal power of the parties in conflict (Johnson and Johnson, 2005). Thus, the dynamics and outcomes observed in a majority of the empirical studies supporting the theory occurred under conditions of relatively equal power between the parties. The assumption of equal power therefore constrains both the theoretical scope and practical implications of the theory. Although there have been important advances in research on the dynamics of asymmetries of power and conflict (see Blalock, 1989; Deutsch, 1973; Kim, Pinkley, and Fragale, 2005; Rouhana and Fiske, 1995; Rubin and Brown, 1975; Tjosvold, 1981, 1985, 1989, 1991; Tjosvold, Coleman and Sun, 2003; Zartman and Rubin, 2002), the findings in this area have been replete with contradictions and have resulted in a good deal of conceptual confusion (Zartman and Rubin, 2002). This paper will present three studies investigating a new social-psychological model of the dynamics of power and conflict. The model builds on the works of Lewin (1951), Deutsch (1949a, 1949b, 1973, 1982, 1985), and Kelly and Thibaut (Thibaut and Kelly, 1959; Kelly and Thibaut, 1978; Kelly, 1979, 1984, 1991) on interdependence, and of McClelland (1975) on social power. The three studies presented in this paper will include: 1) an exploratory study of survey data on how conflict behaviors differ when negotiating across different levels of power, 2) qualitative research with focus groups exploring the implications of differences in power and interdependence for conflict rules and behaviors, and 3) an experimental study that will test hypotheses derived from the theoretical model. This paper will have three sections: (1) a summary of the main principles and limitations of Deutsch's theory of conflict resolution, (2) a presentation of the main propositions of the model of power and conflict, and (3) a discussion of the implications of the research for future work in the area.","PeriodicalId":244948,"journal":{"name":"IACM 2008 Chicago Conference (Archive)","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130481436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The S.A.F.E. Model of Negotiating Critical Incidents","authors":"Mitchell R. Hammer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1298603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1298603","url":null,"abstract":"These are violent times we live in. Each and every day, internet sites, newspapers, and television and radio stations report the gruesome details of violence run amok. The majority of critical incidents reported by the media are human-made situations (although critical incidents also arise from natural disasters as well). Such human-induced incidents can range from a disgruntled employee barricaded in the lunchroom at work to a cult confrontation such as the tragedy in Waco, Texas that resulted in the fiery deaths of 81 Branch Davidians. A critical incident can also include a single, suicidal individual with a gun to mass casualty scenarios, such as the calculated and planned bombings on the London mass transit system on July 7, 2006 in which fifty-six people were killed (including four homicide bombers) and 700 injured and the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C., resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 innocent victims. Critical incidents can be planned to the smallest detail or impulsively ignited (e.g., road rage). They can arise from any type of unsatisfactory encounter, including a robbery, a domestic dispute, an angry confrontation in the workplace, a family argument, and even a casual misunderstanding in a restaurant, bar, or sporting event. A critical incident can involve a subject who is reported to have a weapon and has barricaded him/herself in a room or building. An incident can also be a hostage situation whereby individuals are held against their will in order to attain some identified, instrumental goal or a non-hostage event in which individuals are held against their will and are victims to the subject's emotional state (G.W. Noesner, 1999). Common across this wide variety of incident characteristics, however, is that these potentially deadly situations are often resolved either through negotiation or through a tactical solution. When a crisis incident is resolved tactically, however, there is increased public scrutiny as to whether a tactical assault was necessary to resolve the potentially violent event. With this scrutiny has come increased demands for law enforcement to employ the latest and most effective negotiation approaches for peacefully resolving potentially violent encounters that include prison riots, criminal actions, terrorist acts, suicide attempts, and hostage taking situations (Hammer, 2007). Yet not all efforts at negotiating a crisis situation result in a peaceful surrender of the subject. When negotiation fails, hostages, bystanders, police officers and the subject him/her self are at elevated risk of being injured or killed. In this chapter, I focus on the role of negotiation in resolving critical incidents. Specifically, I present, in summary form, the S.A.F.E. crisis negotiation model that is grounded in quantitative research (Hammer & Rogan, 2004; Rogan & Hammer, 1994, 1995, 1998) and more recent discourse analytic investigati","PeriodicalId":244948,"journal":{"name":"IACM 2008 Chicago Conference (Archive)","volume":"366 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125737719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Constructive Controversy: The Value of Intellectual Conflict","authors":"David W. Johnson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1298645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1298645","url":null,"abstract":"Conflict is inherent in decision making and learning situations. It is a procedure for ensuring that effective decision in which all alternatives are given serious consideration and critically analyzed before deciding on which alternative to implement. It is also a procedure for maximizing learning in training and learning situations. In well structured controversies, participants make an initial judgment, present their conclusions to other group members, are challenged with opposing views, become uncertain about the correctness of their views, actively search for new information and understanding, incorporate others' perspectives and reasoning into their thinking, and reach a new set of conclusions. This process results in significant increases in the quality of decision making and problem solving (including higher-levels of cognitive and moral reasoning, perspective taking, creativity, and attitude change about the issue), motivation to learn more about the issue, positive attitudes toward the controversy and decision making processes, the quality of relationships, and self-esteem. A recent meta-analysis summarizes these results. Practical procedures for decision making and learning groups exist based on a foundation of theory and research.","PeriodicalId":244948,"journal":{"name":"IACM 2008 Chicago Conference (Archive)","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117000390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Crooked Conflicts: The Effects of Conflict Asymmetry in Mediation","authors":"K. Jehn, Joyce Rupert, A. Nauta, Seth N. J. van den Bossche","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1298620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1298620","url":null,"abstract":"Our main research question is how will the asymmetry of conflict between two parties involved in mediation affect the outcomes of the mediation? Conflict asymmetry is the difference in perceptions of conflict among the parties; that is, one person experiences high levels of conflict whereas the other person perceives that there is little or no conflict. In this multimethod study of 54 individuals involved in matched-pair mediations in an organizational setting, we examine the effects of conflict asymmetry on satisfaction with the process and results of the mediation, as well as their recommendation of mediation to others. We find that when the two people involved in mediation have asymmetrical conflict perceptions, there is less satisfaction with the result and the process and this is partly owing to their view of the mediator being biased. In addition, we find that the person who experienced more conflict is more likely to recommend mediation as a successful process to coworkers. The results of this study should be taken cautiously and replicated in future studies because our real-life data has limitations. Therefore, the main contribution of this paper is that it provides a theoretical perspective for studying conflict asymmetry in mediations.","PeriodicalId":244948,"journal":{"name":"IACM 2008 Chicago Conference (Archive)","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116078173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Getting Even vs. Being the Odd One Out: Conflict and Cohesion in Even and Odd Sized Groups","authors":"Tanya Menon, Katherine Williams Phillips","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1298497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1298497","url":null,"abstract":"Contrary to people's intuitive theories about even and odd numbers and groups, this paper argues that odd-sized groups are often more harmonious than even-sized groups. Study 1 found that people view even numbers more favorably than odd numbers and predict that even-sized groups are more peaceful than odd-sized groups. However, Study 2 found that three- and four-person groups without conflict did not differ, but three-person groups with coalitions (two vs. one) produced more positive relationships than four-person groups with coalitions (both two vs. two and three vs. one). Finally, Study 3 involved a natural experiment at Harvard University, and found that White freshmen assigned to odd-sized rooming groups (three or five persons) maintained relationships with White roommates more than did White freshman assigned to even-sized rooming groups (four or six persons), but these patterns did not emerge when Whites roomed with Asians and Blacks. We suggest that a group's even or odd size is an important situational variable that affects its coalitional structure, conflict management, and cohesion.","PeriodicalId":244948,"journal":{"name":"IACM 2008 Chicago Conference (Archive)","volume":"334 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132050722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}