Search results

In these times of globalisation, distances are getting smaller, enhancing the interactions between people of different cultural backgrounds. This is especially true in the area of tourism, a field that is shaped by manifold communication activities. The enormous increases in the numbers of Chinese tourists visiting Europe and other Western destinations require building up intercultural competencies to minimise conflicts and promote mutual understanding. It is therefore necessary to question one’s own cultural view, which is why the debate surrounding de-Westernisation is of crucial importance. The metaphor of the atmosphere – in Chinese qifen – offers a helpful access point to strengthen mutual understanding, because it creates a bridge between eastern and western thinking. Paul Watzlawick (1967) developed his well-known five axioms of communication, the second of which states that every communication has both content and a relational aspect, and the latter classifies the former. This chapter shows why the atmospheric dimension of communication should be established as the third axiom in order to understand communication holistically.

Develop an integrated model to analyze conflicts at work and apply it to a case study. The core of the conceptual model is constituted by the interpersonal relationships modalities using the Palo Alto school theorization (symmetrical and complementary relations framework in people's relative positioning). This model also articulates inside this interpersonal relationships structure five other dimensions: Perception processes, Life dynamics, Habitus from Bourdieu and developed by Lahire, psychosociological processes and sociological factors (including cultural ones). We apply this model to the case study of a Community center in a French city where a serious conflict happens with the final consequence of the closure of the center.

In-depth case study by long conversations (more than interviews) with the main protagonists of the Community center and of the conflict. These talks have been completed by secondary sources and extended review of newspaper articles.

Our model revels to be pertinent to enlighten the multiple dimensions of the conflict. In particular, we show that the dynamics of interpersonal relationships is central in the conflict development and is embedded in multiple psychosociological processes (perceptions processes with deep perceptive divergences between people, personal construction of Social Identity by protagonists, group thinking, active minority construction, etc.). The sociological factors, as well of personal habitus, have an effect but are not determinants of people's behavior. People are partially conscious of the occurring phenomena but cannot be considered as omniscient, purely strategic actors.

1-Application of the conceptual model is applied only on one case study. 2-More attention should be given to prospective dimension of stories and storying (antenarrative).

The case analysis based on our reactional model of conflicts leads to point out several mistakes in the management of the considered organization and more precisely in the management of the conflictual relationships. Change of level 2 has been misconducted by the top manager of the Community center and we show which alternative decisions could have been made in order to avoid the burst of the conflict. More general conflict management methods can be deduced from our analysis.

Articulation of these different concepts in an integrated model has never been previously made neither applied in a case study.

Many French organisations have recently chosen to decentralise their management control systems, extending them into the middle‐management level. This “irrigation” of management structure by management control systems called for a study of the articulation between central management control practices (at the head‐office level) and local management control practices (at the unit level). This exploratory study investigates the meaning that the actors in the organisational units‐local controllers and operational managers‐give to their practices aimed at implementing the central management control system. Starting from the standpoint of the subjectivist contingency theory, this research is founded on an interpretive epistemology and is based on a comparative analysis of eight case studies conducted at the regional level of a large French bank’s distribution network. The “Findings” section shows that the central management control system, developed at the bank’s head office, conveys a good many “contradictory injunctions”. A typology of the differentiated regional implementation practices is proposed. Next, the interactions between local actors exert a complex influence on these practices. Finally, a qualitative typology of the relational systems in play between management controllers and operational managers is proposed.

One challenge for multinational organizations is to manage inter‐organizational relationships with customers, collaborators, competitors, governments and other important stakeholder organizations. Negotiations can be seen as a process to manage interdependence and conflicts of interests between parties. As a result, negotiation analysis and theory provide a useful framework to analyze dynamics of relationship‐ and trust‐building and hence are increasingly important for the understanding of inter‐organizational relationships. This paper explores the set of strategies managers can implement in negotiations to establish relationships based on mutual understanding and trust in order to reach satisfactory agreements and manage inter‐organizational dependencies and its associated threats.

Despite today’s accelerating rate and extent of change, the needed improvements within many areas of performance and quality of life have not taken place. Posits that productivity is remaining the same or even going down in many areas. Infers that learning and change have not been effective. Change involves a subject or self, who is acting, and an object which is acted on. Until now there has been an imbalanced focus on the object. In order to achieve more effective learning ‐ through a synergy of objective and subjective approaches to change ‐ suggests a comprehensive model of change where the emphasis is shifted from the object to the subject. In higher stages of human development, the subject increasingly experiences an enhanced capacity for accomplishment. Argues that this transformation of the actor provides the stable premiss for overcoming many of the shortcomings of contemporary learning and change strategies. In order to implement in practice the expanded change conception, introduces a mental technique ‐ transcendental meditation ‐ which systematically fosters human growth to higher stages of development, as shown by scientific research.

Change is a constant of organizational life today, so we are told. Yet few, if any, writers on the subject define what they mean by change. It is assumed that all change is the same. Sets out to correct this omission in the literature by describing first two, and then three, types of change with the aim of clarifying what managers and other professionals concerned with this subject need to take into account when planning a change intervention. Without proper understanding of the type of change that is being planned, poor diagnosis and inadequate formulation and implementation will result. Finally, implications for organizations are spelt out and a distinction between changes and transitions is made, which, it is hoped, will enable managers to understand some of the frustrations about change when things do not go as planned.

It’s been nearly 30 years since the original articulation of Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry (AI), as well as well as the enormous impact and reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary we have decided to issue a reprint the early article by David L. Cooperrider and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with contemporary comments embedded. To be sure the comments offered are brief and serve principally to add points of emphasis to ideas we may have too hurriedly introduced. My comments – placed in indented format along the way – are focused on the content and themes of furthermost relevance to this volume on organizational generativity. In many ways I’ve begun to question today whether there can even be inquiry where there is no appreciation, valuing, or amazement – what the Greeks called thaumazein – the borderline between wonderment and admiration. One learning is that AI’s generativity is not about its methods or tools, but about our cooperative capacity to reunite seeming opposites such as theory as practice, the secular as sacred, and generativity as something beyond positivity or negativity. Appreciation is about valuing the life-giving in ways that serve to inspire our co-constructed future. Inquiry is the experience of mystery, moving beyond the edge of the known to the unknown, which then changes our lives. Taken together, where appreciation and inquiry are wonderfully entangled, we experience knowledge alive and an ever-expansive inauguration of our world to new possibilities.

This article presents a conceptual refiguration of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline's steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.

It’s been thirty years since the original articulation of “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article – first published in Research in Organization Development and Change – generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry, as well as well as the enormous impact and continuing reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary I am presenting the article by David Cooperrider (myself) and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with new horizon insights. In particular I write with excitement and anticipation of a new OD – what my colleagues and I are calling the next “IPOD” that is, innovation-inspired positive OD that brings AI’s gift of new eyes together in common cause with several other movements in the human sciences: the strengths revolution in management; the positive pscyhology and positive organizational scholarship movements; the design thinking explosion; and the biomimicry field which is all about an appreciative eye toward billions of years of nature’s wisdom and innovation inspired by life.

This article presents a conceptual refigurationy of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline’s steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.