给和平一个机会?管制焦点如何影响棘手冲突环境下的组织冲突事件

IF 0.7 Q4 MANAGEMENT
L. Weber, Angelique Slade Shantz, Geoffrey M. Kistruck, Robert B. Lount
{"title":"给和平一个机会?管制焦点如何影响棘手冲突环境下的组织冲突事件","authors":"L. Weber, Angelique Slade Shantz, Geoffrey M. Kistruck, Robert B. Lount","doi":"10.1177/01492063231196556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An intractable conflict environment (ICE) is an extreme context in which deep, unsolvable conflict between groups is central to the actors within it. While non-ICEs are typically assumed in organizational research, ICEs are increasingly common contexts for organizations. Moreover, this context influences peoples’ interpretation of potential organizational conflict incidents inside the organization and therefore the likelihood and emotional intensity of organizational conflict events. Whereas a potential conflict incident, such as a disagreement over how to complete a task, may be perceived as benign in a more typical environment, the same incident is more likely to be interpreted as much more negative and emotionally intense when taking place in an ICE, increasing the frequency of conflict events (conflictual behavior). Prior work suggests that, in a typical environment, promotion-framed (achieving positives) interventions reduce conflict more than prevention-framed (avoiding negatives) interventions by temporarily inducing promotion orientations that reduce the likelihood of interpreting conflict. However, we argue an ICE induces a strong prevention focus, which overrides promotion-framed interventions. Instead, we argue in an ICE, a prevention- rather than promotion-framed intervention is likely to be more effective because it “matches” the strong prevention focus. To test this prediction, we examine the difference in number of conflict events in farming cooperatives in rural Ghana (an ICE) after instituting prevention- versus promotion-framed interventions aimed at addressing conflict. Quantitative and qualitative findings from a 9-month field experiment support our hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":52018,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Management","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Give Peace a Chance? How Regulatory Foci Influence Organizational Conflict Events in Intractable Conflict Environments\",\"authors\":\"L. Weber, Angelique Slade Shantz, Geoffrey M. Kistruck, Robert B. Lount\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01492063231196556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An intractable conflict environment (ICE) is an extreme context in which deep, unsolvable conflict between groups is central to the actors within it. While non-ICEs are typically assumed in organizational research, ICEs are increasingly common contexts for organizations. Moreover, this context influences peoples’ interpretation of potential organizational conflict incidents inside the organization and therefore the likelihood and emotional intensity of organizational conflict events. Whereas a potential conflict incident, such as a disagreement over how to complete a task, may be perceived as benign in a more typical environment, the same incident is more likely to be interpreted as much more negative and emotionally intense when taking place in an ICE, increasing the frequency of conflict events (conflictual behavior). Prior work suggests that, in a typical environment, promotion-framed (achieving positives) interventions reduce conflict more than prevention-framed (avoiding negatives) interventions by temporarily inducing promotion orientations that reduce the likelihood of interpreting conflict. However, we argue an ICE induces a strong prevention focus, which overrides promotion-framed interventions. Instead, we argue in an ICE, a prevention- rather than promotion-framed intervention is likely to be more effective because it “matches” the strong prevention focus. To test this prediction, we examine the difference in number of conflict events in farming cooperatives in rural Ghana (an ICE) after instituting prevention- versus promotion-framed interventions aimed at addressing conflict. Quantitative and qualitative findings from a 9-month field experiment support our hypothesis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Irish Journal of Management\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Irish Journal of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231196556\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231196556","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

棘手的冲突环境(ICE)是一种极端的环境,在这种环境中,群体之间深刻的、无法解决的冲突是其中参与者的核心。虽然在组织研究中通常假设非ice,但ice在组织中越来越常见。此外,这种背景影响人们对组织内部潜在组织冲突事件的解释,从而影响组织冲突事件的可能性和情绪强度。然而,一个潜在的冲突事件,比如在如何完成任务上的分歧,在一个更典型的环境中可能被认为是良性的,同样的事件在ICE中发生时,更有可能被解释为更加消极和情感强烈,增加了冲突事件(冲突行为)的频率。先前的研究表明,在一个典型的环境中,促进框架(实现积极的)干预比预防框架(避免消极的)干预更能减少冲突,通过暂时诱导促进取向来减少解释冲突的可能性。然而,我们认为ICE诱导了一个强有力的预防重点,它超越了促进框架的干预措施。相反,我们认为,在ICE中,预防而不是促进框架的干预可能更有效,因为它“匹配”了强有力的预防重点。为了验证这一预测,我们研究了加纳农村农业合作社(ICE)在制定旨在解决冲突的预防与促进框架干预措施后冲突事件数量的差异。一项为期9个月的实地实验的定量和定性结果支持了我们的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Give Peace a Chance? How Regulatory Foci Influence Organizational Conflict Events in Intractable Conflict Environments
An intractable conflict environment (ICE) is an extreme context in which deep, unsolvable conflict between groups is central to the actors within it. While non-ICEs are typically assumed in organizational research, ICEs are increasingly common contexts for organizations. Moreover, this context influences peoples’ interpretation of potential organizational conflict incidents inside the organization and therefore the likelihood and emotional intensity of organizational conflict events. Whereas a potential conflict incident, such as a disagreement over how to complete a task, may be perceived as benign in a more typical environment, the same incident is more likely to be interpreted as much more negative and emotionally intense when taking place in an ICE, increasing the frequency of conflict events (conflictual behavior). Prior work suggests that, in a typical environment, promotion-framed (achieving positives) interventions reduce conflict more than prevention-framed (avoiding negatives) interventions by temporarily inducing promotion orientations that reduce the likelihood of interpreting conflict. However, we argue an ICE induces a strong prevention focus, which overrides promotion-framed interventions. Instead, we argue in an ICE, a prevention- rather than promotion-framed intervention is likely to be more effective because it “matches” the strong prevention focus. To test this prediction, we examine the difference in number of conflict events in farming cooperatives in rural Ghana (an ICE) after instituting prevention- versus promotion-framed interventions aimed at addressing conflict. Quantitative and qualitative findings from a 9-month field experiment support our hypothesis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
20.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信