Search results

In this observation study the theory of conglomerated conflict behavior is tested. The impact of seven conflict behaviors on substantive and relational conflict outcomes is examined through multiple independent observations of 103 Dutch nurse managers handling a standardized conflict. Results show that process controlling is most important for achieving substantive outcomes, whereas problem solving, confronting, and forcing are most important for relational outcomes. In addition, substantive and relational outcomes are positively related. Implications for managerial practice and training are discussed.

Do accommodative or integrative components make contentious conflict behavior more effective? A questionnaire study shows that Japanese subordinates (N = 136) handle interpersonal conflicts with superiors more effectively to the extent that they complement high contending with high accommodating. By contrast, prior research shows that high contending by Dutch subordinates and superiors is more effective if complemented with high integrating. Together, these findings support the notion that the most effective conglomeration of contending with other components of conflict behavior is society‐specific.

A hidden issue is whether the more de‐escalatory behavior of cooperatively‐motivated compared to competitively‐motivated conflict parties is the result of less concern for one's own goals, more concern for the other's goals, or both. A scenario study and a simulation experiment among undergraduate students confirmed the hypothesis that the difference in other‐concern is the critical explanator. The stronger other‐concern of cooperatively‐motivated compared to competitively motivated parties fostered more accommodating, more problem solving, more compromising, and less forcing, resulting in more de‐escalation or less escalation.

To enhance the quality of group decision making, to promote affective acceptance of decisions by all participants involved, or to increase joint outcomes, a principal party or a third party may stimulate social conflict. We argue that when conflict focuses on identity issues, when tension level is high, and when disputants' goals are negatively interdependent, conflict stimulation generally decreases joint performance. However, conflict stimulation enhances performance when conflict focuses on task issues, when tension level is low, and when disputants' goals are positively interdependent. We conclude by arguing that conflict may be stimulated either by creating or extending conflict issues, or by promoting contentious conflict behaviors.

This report of an intervention in a mental health care institution illustrates that exchanging distorted group images is an effective strategy for improving situations of intergroup conflict. The intervention is especially effective if the group images are not attacked, which tends to reinforce rather than mitigate them, but if they are undermined in a nondirective way instead The implementation of this nondirective process intervention is discussed in depth to demonstrate how the original intervention technique is enriched in several respects.

This study explores the impact of person information about an alternative negotiator in dyadic negotiation in which one of two individuals is able to exit the negotiation to further negotiate with the alternative party. Individualistic negotiators were expected to be influenced more by information about the alternative party's strength than prosocial negotiators. Forty‐nine dyads were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions in a 2 (Potency of the Alternative Negotiator: Low vs. High) by 2 (One's Own Motivational Orientation: Individualistic vs. Prosocial) factorial design. Face‐to‐face interactions were audiotaped and transcribed In line with our expectation, individualistically orientated negotiators engaged in problem solving to a lesser extent and communicated more threats and putdowns when the alternative party was perceived as weak and submissive rather than strong and dominant. Within negotiation dyads power asymmetry evoked power struggle. Eventually, however, negotiators with an alternative party outperformed parties lacking an alternative. As expected, prosocially orientated negotiators were less influenced by both the mere presence of an alternative negotiation partner and potency information about the alternative party. Implications and directions for further research are discussed.

Sternberg and his co‐workers developed a new taxonomy of conflict management styles that ignores an earlier, related model proposed by Blake and Mouton, Thomas, and Rahim. Following a critical review of Sternberg's taxonomy, the present paper presents a reanalysis of some of Sternberg's data that attempts to integrate the two taxonomies. The results confirm Thomas's identification of integrative and distributive dimensions underlying the typology of conflict styles. Sternberg's style of involving outsiders is interpreted as a “Pyrrhic victory,” which loads low on the integrative dimension and high on the distributive dimension. The study is interpreted as providing evidence for the need to replace the concept of conflict style as a specific form of behavioral tendency by treating style as a broad pattern of behavioral tendencies.

Research has shown that negotiators are more cooperative when they code their prospective outcomes as gains (gain frame) instead of as losses (loss frame). Supplementing this prior research that focused exclusively on the effects of negotiator's own frame on his or her own behavior, we argue that frames are communicated and that negotiators are influenced not only by their own frames, but by other's communicated frame as well. This proposition was tested using a 2 X3 design, manipulating the negotiator's own frame (gains/losses) and other's communicated frame (gains/losses/not given). As predicted, other's communicated gain frame reinforced the negotiator's gain frame but did not alter the negotiator's loss frame into a gain frame. Other's communicated loss frame, however, both reinforced the negotiator's own loss frame and altered the negotiator's gain into a loss frame. As a result, other's communicated gain frame, compared to other's communicated loss frame, induced lower demands and higher concessions when negotiators had a gain frame themselves. Loss framed negotiators, however, were not significantly influenced by other's communicated frame.

Most studies of conflict handling styles in organizations analyze these styles separately. These studies assume that individuals are oriented towards the use of one of the styles of conflict management. As a result, different styles are compared one by one as if they were independent. In contrast, from a more all‐embracing perspective people are seen as adopting configurations of styles. The interest in this alternative perspective lies in exploring the relations between these styles, how they combine and form patterns of conflict styles. This article presents an exploratory study that seeks to identify empirically the specific combinations of conflict handling styles that result in differentiated patterns within groups of managers. By using hierarchical and non‐hierarchical cluster analyses of a sample of managers, different patterns of conflict management were identified. The effectiveness of each of the resulting patterns was analyzed in terms of its influence on the parties' joint substantive outcomes and their mutual relationship. Results show that patterns using multiple conflict handling styles were more effective than patterns based on a single style.

One of the most important role conflicts with which organization members are concerned is when a supervisor does not agree with a direct subordinate about what the latter ought to do. It is therefore surprising that this type of role conflict has seldom been systematically studied. In order to gain insight into and be able to control the role conflict situation, it is important to know which Factors cause the role conflict between supervisor and subordinate and which factors are allowed by the subordinate to determine his role behaviour in such conflict. Empirical data have been collected on both issues, which will be presented after a review of the theoretical basis and the research done.