Search results

This paper considers whether negotiation outcomes and processes of groups of males and females differ. Previous research examining such differences has had mixed results, in part because of “cueing” effects contained in typical, high‐conflict negotiation cases. Low‐conflict negotiation cases, such as the one used in this study, provide an opportunity to observe a wider range of negotiation behaviors than are commonly revealed in negotiation research. Fifty advanced undergraduate students negotiated funding in a low‐conflict, public policy negotiation case. Analysis of the negotiated outcomes revealed that females allocated less than males. Content coding of audio transcripts revealed very different negotiation processes and styles underlying these different outcomes. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Using a dictator game, we examine the other‐regarding behavior of allocators, who are given the responsibility of unilaterally making an allocation decision without consultation on behalf of a two‐person group between their group and another group. We then contrast the behavior of the same individuals in an analogous interindividual situation. We also explore other‐regarding perceptions of passive recipients, who are asked to give behavioral forecasts of how they would behave if assigned the allocator role and how they think their allocators would behave. Gender differences are found in both behavior and perceptions. Males are significantly more self‐interested and less other‐regarding when they are responsible for a group, while females behave similarly under both conditions. Female recipients' forecasts of their own behavior are significantly higher than both their expectations of allocators and the actual female behavior observed in the experiment. Both male and female recipients underestimate the other‐regarding behavior of allocators.

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.

The first paper in this issue is an invited paper by Carsten De Dreu, Dirk van Dierendonck and Maria Dijkstra, addresses the timely topic of Conflict at work and individual well being. The relationship between conflict at work and well being has received very little research attention, yet its importance is immediately obvious. When workers leave their organizations, it is difficult for them to divest themselves of the frustrations and emotions that have plagued their day as they shut the office door. As the authors state, “it is obvious that conflict and health are strongly intertwined.” Researchers interested in exploring the relationship between workplace conflict and well‐being have been provided with a solid platform for initiating a program of research, towards the ultimate end of helping identify the policy implications and potential prescriptions for reducing the negative impacts on workplace conflict.

This study samples 78 business decision‐makers whose cases were part of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process, i.e., the Public Construction Commission (PCC), which operates under the government in Taiwan, between 1997 and early 2000. The authors propose an interaction between two variations of trust—category‐based trust and experience‐based trust—and hypothesize that decision‐makers’ perceived identity with new versus old government ideology and past justice experiences (with the PCC) would jointly affect their decision preferences. The results partially support these hypotheses. The authors emphasize the critic role of trustworthiness of the third‐party ADR providers. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings.

Conflict theory and research largely ignored the possible relationships between conflict at work, and individual health, well‐being, and job satisfaction. We present a model that argues that poor health and well‐being can trigger conflict in the workplace, and reduce the extent to which conflict is managed in a constructive, problem solving way. The model further proposes that conflict, especially when managed poorly, can have negative long‐term consequences for individual health and well‐being, producing psychosomatic complaints and feelings of burnout. We review research evidence and conclude, among other things, that the model is more likely to hold up when conflict involves relationships and socio‐emotional, rather than task‐related issues. Avenues for future research and implications for policy and organizational design are discussed.

This paper develops the argument for analyzing negotiations from an institutional perspective. A major theme of the argument being advanced in this paper is that the institutional perspective provides a more comprehensive understanding of the negotiation process in its entirety. The negotiation process can be broken down into three distinct components, namely (a) the pre‐negotiation phase; (b) the negotiating phase; and (c) the post negotiation evaluation. Each of these phases is critically influenced by a specific component or components of the institutional environment. Scott's distinction between the regulative, the normative, and the cognitive dimension of the institutional environment is drawn upon to illustrate the usefulness of this perspective. The framework is applied to assess the similarities and differences between Indian and Chinese institutional environments and their implications for negotiating processes in the countries discussed. Choosing India and China to illustrate the utility of this framework is justified by the fact that India and China are both in the process of transforming their economies, and although confronted with similar challenges, they have dealt with them in very different ways. This comparison is thus useful, not only for illustrating the value of the institutional perspective, but also for understanding the dynamics of the negotiation process in these countries.

Psychological contract violation has gained the attention of both practitioners and academics in recent years. Critical commentaries have questioned whether breaching such a contract has implications for employee attitude and behaviour, and ultimately organisational performance. This paper addresses the question “To what extent does psychological contract breach impact on employee attitude and behaviour?”. The study is based on an industrial textiles company and draws on quantitative and qualitative data. The findings suggested that triggers of violation impinged on employee attitudes but not on behaviour, trends substantiated by analysis of the organisation's absenteeism records. The qualitative data helped explain this trend and have highlighted two contextual issues. The first of these is labour market conditions and perceptions of job insecurity and second of these is a sense of collegiality and pride in the job.