Search results

The purpose of the paper is to develop a theoretical framework with testable propositions discussing the role of counterfactual thinking in fostering accurate decision-making in groups and preventing catastrophes, being mediated by information searching, sharing, task conflict and conflict management mechanisms, moderated by task complexity, cognitive complexity, cognitive closure and tolerance of ambiguity.

A theoretical framework is formulated and propositions are postulated involving independent, mediating, moderating and dependent variables.

This paper recommends a helpful framework for understanding of how counterfactual thinking affects information searching, sharing and decision-making accuracy in groups, thereby preventing catastrophes.

The proposed framework might be of assistance in managing complex group decision-making and information sharing in organizations. Decision-makers may become aware that activating counterfactual mind-set enables them to search for critical information facilitating accurate decision-making in groups leading to catastrophe prevention.

This paper adds value to the field of counterfactual thinking theory applied to group decision-making. Moreover, the paper provides a novel framework for group decision-making which sheds light on pertinent variables, which can either ameliorate or exacerbate the accuracy of decision-making by information searching and sharing in groups under varying context of high/low task complexity. The ramifications of task conflict, conflict management mechanisms, team diversity and size are explored alongside the moderating role of cognitive complexity, cognitive closure and tolerance for ambiguity.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of two moderators of the relationships between affective conflict and cognitive conflict and team performance: the cultural context and the level of team‐oriented behaviors.

Survey questionnaires were administered to a sample of 143 Mexico‐ and US‐based learning teams. Regression analysis was used to test hypotheses.

In both cultural contexts, cognitive conflict more positively affected performance when team‐oriented behaviors were high. This effect was stronger for Mexican teams. Affective conflict more negatively affected performance in Mexican teams than US teams, particularly when team‐oriented behaviors were high.

The results have implications for managing conflict to improve team effectiveness in the USA and in Mexico and for training managers who work across these cultural contexts.

The paper demonstrates the joint role of the cultural context and team behaviors in how conflict influences team performance.

Over the past decades, growing interest in the behaviour of boards of directors has brought forth empirical studies on actual board behaviour. An important stream within this research followed the model proposed by Forbes and Milliken in 1999 in which the board processes, effort norms, cognitive conflict and the use of knowledge, are hypothesized to influence the performance of boards of directors. This paper aims to take stock of the results from this stream of research. The sometimes inconsistent results, and assumed methodological flaws of this research, leave open the question whether it makes sense to continue with this line of research.

Through a research synthesis of 17 primary studies on (parts of) the model proposed by Forbes and Milliken (1999), this question is addressed directly by clarifying what is known from the research done so far and by identifying possible distorting methodological moderators.

Strong empirical support is found for the effect of effort norms and the use of knowledge and skills on board task performance. The evidence for cognitive conflicts however was found to be inconclusive. Common method and respondent bias seem to be a lesser concern than often stated.

Future studies should not only look closely at the construct validity of conflict, but should also have to account for the multidimensionality of conflicts and the interdependency and endogeneity in the relationship between behaviour and performance in boards.

This is the first paper that systematically integrates and reviews the empirical results of the research following the Forbes and Milliken model and sketches roads for future research on board behaviour.

Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) has become one of the most influential information sources for consumers' purchase decision-making. Based on construal-level theory and from the perspective of cognitive effort, this study investigated the effects of eWOM social media types and conflicting eWOM on consumers' purchase intentions and validated the mediation role of social psychological distance, perceived value, and perceived cognitive effort.

Two scenario-based experiments were conducted to validate the research model. Specifically, a 2 (eWOM social media type: strong-tie vs weak-tie) × 2 (conflicting eWOM: with vs without) between-subjects design was used. ANOVA, multiple regression analysis with PROCESS, and partial least squares (PLS) were employed to test the hypotheses.

The results showed that eWOM social media types had significant effects on both social psychological distance and perceived value. The significant chain mediating effects of social psychological distance and perceived value between eWOM social media types and consumers' purchase intentions were found. In addition, conflicting eWOM had significant effects on both perceived value and perceived cognitive effort. Indirect effects of conflicting eWOM on purchase intention through perceived cognitive effort were discovered.

These results contribute to the eWOM literature by investigating the influences of eWOM social media types and conflicting eWOM on consumers' purchase intentions. They also contribute to construal-level theory by extending its applicability to the field of eWOM.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the influence of managers' leadership styles (transformational, transactional and laissez‐faire) on both the level and the nature of workplace conflicts (cognitive and relational in nature).

Data are collected from hospital employees in Canada. A total of 1,031 completed questionnaires are received, representing a response rate of 46 percent. The hypothesis is tested using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple regressions.

The results indicate that the two conflict dimensions do not derive completely from the same mechanisms, since only two out of the eight leadership dimensions evaluated influence both cognitive and relational conflicts. On the one hand, inspirational motivation has a negative impact on cognitive conflicts while intellectual stimulation and passive management by exception seem to foster it. On the other hand, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration negatively influence relational conflicts whereas management by exception‐active and management by exception‐passive impact it positively.

The sample comprises a single organization and the data are collected at one point in time. Also, the model's variables are assessed by the same source (employees).

The results of this research highlight the importance of a supervisor's ability to introduce a common vision and demonstrate individualized consideration to reduce workplace conflict during periods of organizational change.

Although researchers stress that conflict management represents an important role for leaders, very few empirical studies have examined how leadership influences workplace conflicts.

Meeting the demands for increased effectiveness of schools cannot occur without systemic change. But the natural reaction to change is typically tension, resistance, and conflict. This analysis distinguishes between constructive and destructive conflict. First, conflict is conceptualized in terms of cognitive and affective types. Then organizational formalization is considered in terms of enabling or coercive procedures. A typology of change is created by cross‐partitioning the two types of conflict and formalization. The framework is useful in predicting the impact of change: from situations that catalyze and facilitate change to those that frustrate and inhibit it. Finally, the analysis summarizes key factors that administrators should consider as they attempt to use conflict to facilitate rather than inhibit constructive change and as they try to avoid and limit destructive change.

As the prioritization of family goals depends on the resolution of family conflict, this study's purpose is to explain how a dominant coalition (DC) of parental family members prioritizes their family economic and non-economic goals when faced with different types of family conflict.

A conceptual framework is developed drawing on a socio-cognitive approach to explain a family's goal formation process. This socio-cognitive approach extends the stakeholder salience underpinnings of family influence/essence theory. It shows that family conflict arises from the complex and novel social settings of a family business and that a DC prioritizes their family's goals by drawing on heuristic biases to resolve such family conflict.

A key finding of this study is the introduction of a distinct type of agency to family influence/essence research. Unlike the salient explanations, a family's goal formulation process is attributed to a DC's heuristic response in resolving their family business conflict.

Scholars have called for a greater need to investigate the social and cognitive underpinnings of a family's goal formation process. While the social settings of a family business are often explained in terms of family conflict, an understanding of the sources of such conflict and their resolution have received limited attention. This study opens new avenues to understanding the sources of such family conflict and the cognitive mechanisms needed to overcome them. This understanding is critical not only to the prioritization of a family's goals but also to the idea that “influence” defines the essence of a family business.

The purpose of this paper is to examine Koslowsky and Schwarzwald’s (2009) recent conceptualization of the interpersonal power interaction model which assumed that the choice of power tactics in conflict situations is a sequential process including antecedents, mediators, and the choice of influence tactics. The mediation process is the new component of the model, thus the authors tested two potential mediators – perceived damage and negative emotions – in the choice process.

Managers (n=240) were presented with conflict scenarios involving one of their subordinates (low/high performing) and differed by conflict type (relations/task and principle/expediency). They indicated the influence tactics they would utilize in the given situation for gaining compliance and completed a series of questionnaires: perceived damage engendered by disobedience, resultant emotion, cognitive closure, and demographics.

Results indicated that perceived damage, directly and through the mediation of resultant negative emotions, influenced the tendency to opt for harsh tactics. This trend was further affected by the managers’ gender and cognitive closure.

The discussion addresses the empirical validity of the model, the role of rationality and emotion in the process of choosing influence tactics. Practical implications concerning the usage of harsh and soft tactics and the limitation of the self-report method were also discussed.

The contribution of the study is twofolded: proving the empirical validity of the new conceptualization of the model and explaining the dynamic involved in the choice of influence tactics.

Research into the antecedents of TMT conflict has become increasingly popular in light of the effects that conflict can have on strategic decision making and organizational performance. Of course, such performance becomes a part of the contextual backdrop against which future decisions are made. Thus, organizational performance is itself an important antecedent of TMT conflict. Using data drawn from the TMTs of 44 mid‐sized public firms, we demonstrate that cognitive and affective conflict relate differently to past performance. The implications of this research for efforts to effectively manage conflict during strategic decision making are discussed.

In order to shed light on whether and how leaders should help manage group members' emotions related to intragroup conflict, the aim of this paper was to investigate the effects of several outcomes associated with two cognitive emotion regulation strategies, cognitive reappraisal and distraction, in the presence of two distinct types of conflict, relationship or task-oriented.

A 2×3 between subjects' experimental design was employed to investigate the influence of intragroup conflict and emotion regulations strategies on individual-level discrete emotions and group processes and outcomes.

Results suggest that emotion regulation plays an important role in moderating the negative consequences associated with relationships conflict. Specifically, distraction served a critical function to those in the relationship conflict conditions such that both cohesion levels and task performance levels were elevated when group members used distraction as a means of regulating emotions.

This study extends research in the area of emotion regulation into a group context and extends other research that suggests distraction may have potential as a means of regulating emotion. Long-term groups with experience in problem solving may have behaved in different ways than participants in this study.

Emotion regulation strategies have been studied only in an individual context. This study is particularly valuable in understanding how emotion regulation strategies work differentially when applied to multiple individuals in a shared setting. Additionally, it incorporates the use of distraction as a viable regulation strategy.