Search results

Problematic attributes of providing development aid in International Service-Learning (ISL) placements exist with its paternalistic implications. Broadening the discussion of ISL by shifting the focus toward prioritizing the incorporation of goals of cross-cultural learning and fostering cultural humility addresses these problematic attributes. Approaching ISL placements with a learning mindset inverts the service-learning model by emphasizing learning over helping. Additionally, cultivating a deeper self-awareness and learning from the host communities prior to offering service encourages cultural humility, enhances the ability to remain open to different perspectives, and sustains engagement as a lifelong learner. A framework for developing international education experiences with a systems-oriented approach is proposed: one that acknowledges the interdependent relationships with others in global social and economic structures. The proposed framework applies Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti’s HEADS UP educational tool for critical engagement in global social justice issues. Transformative learning theory guides the process of perspective transformation and invites students to critically reflect on their own values, assumptions, and cultural beliefs. The intent is to establish a model for ISL placements which invites respectful collaboration across cultural differences and imbalances in power relations.

Educational pedagogy is concerned about student-centered learning that engages students and involves them in a meaningful manner to enhance critical thinking and creativity. Creative teaching and learning methods are a catalyst that can improve the learning experiences of students. Good teaching and the experience associated with it helps to connect students, faculty and the subject that is being taught to the students (Palmer, 2007). Many subjects till today are taught with a purely fact-based approach, and such traditional methods overlook the need to bring the subject to life and to make learning meaningful. Multi-dimensional methods are used to encourage students and convert them to successful learners with the ability to think creatively. The issue of student’s disconnectedness is a matter of much academic pursuit and using non-traditional methods such as plays, narratives and even humor are on the rise and have gained popularity due to their success in classroom teaching (Dunn, 2000). This book will help to highlight various case studies and interventions that have used innovative ways to improve the teaching-learning methods and engage students in the classroom. Academicians, through the chapters in this volume, have argued that education does not only mean teaching, learning and research but also the emotional connection and commitment that involves a dialogical process between the faculty and students. It is the responsibility of the faculty members to ultimately create an environment that provides the students with tools that are socially engaging, interactive and meaningful (Dunn, 2000).

This paper suggests that motives for engaging in affiliative‐promotive “helping” extra‐role behavior is related to cross‐cultural differences. The cultural dimensions of in‐group collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, performance orientation, and humane orientation, and their differential effect on helping extra‐role behavior in a diverse workforce are examined. Theoretical implications provide guidance for future empirical research in this area, and provide managers with more realistic expectations of employee performance in the workplace.

Purpose – Although extensive research shows that power affects negotiator performance, few efforts have been made to investigate how status conflict among negotiators affects negotiation. This chapter addresses this limitation and explores the question that when groups experience status conflict while simultaneously conducting negotiations, how this status conflict affects negotiator behavior and negotiation outcome.

Approach – We define three basic forms of status contest and develop 12 propositions about the impact of status conflict on between-group negotiator behavior and negotiation outcome.

Findings – We propose that when negotiating with an outgroup, negotiators who experience within-group status conflict will use the outgroup to increase their status within group by demonstrating their value to their own group. In the situation of wholly within-group status conflict and within-group negotiation, individual negotiators will use group concern to gain status. This group concern leads to more value-creating behaviors, but lessens the likelihood of reaching an agreement. When groups experience intergroup status conflict alongside intergroup negotiation, the likelihood of agreement, and the likelihood of integrative agreement, decreases and this is due to an increase in contentiousness.

Value – This chapter suggests that status conflict is an important, albeit neglected, aspect of negotiation and it can affect the outcome of the negotiation. Greater research attention toward status conflict in negotiation should help to improve negotiation effectiveness and the quality of agreements.

We offer a new perspective on group affective diversity by introducing the construct of mixed group mood, denoting co-occurring positive and negative mood states between different members of a group. Mixed group mood is characterized by four facets, namely members’ distribution between two positive and negative subgroups, subgroups’ average mood intensity, subgroups’ mood intensity heterogeneity, and individual members’ mood ambivalence. Building on information/decision-making and social categorization/similarity–attraction perspectives, we explore the performance consequences of mixed group mood along these four facets and we discuss implications and directions for future research.

This paper aims to identify whether emotional intelligence relates to counterpart outcome satisfaction in negotiation contexts.

A negotiation simulation and a pre‐established measure of emotional intelligence were employed.

In Study 1, multi‐level models revealed that a participant's ability to understand emotion positively predicted his or her counterpart's outcome satisfaction. Study 2 replicates and extends this finding by showing the counterpart's outcome satisfaction, assessment of liking, and desire to negotiate again with the participant.

The mechanisms identifying how participants with high levels of understanding emotion induced their counterparts with positive affect were not examined.

This is the first empirical article to show a relationship between emotional intelligence and counterpart outcome satisfaction in a negotiation context.

Purpose – We consider the question of when teams are an asset at the negotiating table and when they are a liability.

Methodology – We center our review on three key “empirical truths” about teams. First, teams are better than individuals at solving problems. Second, teams are more self-interested than individuals. Third, teams are trusted less and are less trusting than individuals.

Findings – Teams have an advantage over solo negotiators when there is unshared information and multiple issues on the table. Teams have an advantage in these contexts because of their superior problem-solving abilities. However, teams are more likely than solos to suffer from costly and uncertain legal action due to failures in dispute resolution and earn lower profits than solos in negotiations with a prisoner's dilemma structure. Thus, because teams are more self-interested and less trusted than individuals, they can be a liability in negotiations in which the parties' interests are opposed.

Implications – To the leverage the positive effects of teams in negotiation, it is critical that negotiators determine whether the context is one that allows for coordination and integrative tradeoffs, such as multi-issue deal-making negotiations, versus one that is characterized by noncorrespondent outcomes and incompatible interests, such as disputes and prisoner's dilemma interactions.

Value of the paper – The term “negotiation” has been applied rather broadly to a complex assortment of mixed-motive tasks. Our review indicates that distinguishing among these tasks is paramount to meaningfully address questions of individual versus group performance in negotiation.

Purpose – Recent research has highlighted the importance of individuals' beliefs regarding the malleability or fixedness of negotiator characteristics as key determinants of negotiation processes and performance. In this chapter, we examine how these implicit negotiation beliefs affect negotiation at the team level.

Approach – We explore the effects of implicit negotiation beliefs on team negotiation by articulating a model that considers their impact on important group processes such as goal setting, conflict, and communication.

Findings – We propose that individuals' beliefs regarding the fixedness of negotiator characteristics affect team negotiation processes and outcomes, in particular through their effect on interpersonal processes within a negotiation team. We expect that individuals who believe that negotiator characteristics are malleable will focus on long-term success, will devote relatively high levels of effort toward the team's goals, and will share and discuss important information with other members of the team. In contrast, individuals who believe that negotiator characteristics are fixed will focus on short-term goals, will dedicate relatively low levels of effort to the team, and may put their own self interest ahead of the team by withholding key information from other team members. In light of these differences, teams characterized by heterogeneity in team members' implicit negotiation beliefs may experience high levels of intrateam conflict.

Value – This chapter suggests that implicit negotiation beliefs may have a powerful influence on team-level negotiation. Through our review and model development, we aim to stimulate research on implicit negotiation beliefs within groups and teams.