Search results1 – 7 of 7
We review previous research on intergenerational conflict, focusing on the practical implications of this research for organizational leaders. We explain how the…
We review previous research on intergenerational conflict, focusing on the practical implications of this research for organizational leaders. We explain how the interaction between the interpersonal and intertemporal dimensions of intergenerational decisions creates the unique psychology of intergenerational decision-making behavior. In addition, we review the boundary conditions that have characterized much of the previous research in this area, and we examine the potential effects of loosening these constraints. Our proposals for future research include examination of the effect of intra-generational decision making on intergenerational beneficence, consideration of the role of third parties and linkage issues, investigation of the effects of intergenerational communications and negotiation when generations can interact, examination of the role of social power in influencing intergenerational interactions, investigation of the interaction between temporal construal and immortality striving, and exploration of the ways in which present decision makers detect and define the intergenerational dilemmas in their social environments.
Purpose – In this chapter, we seek to resolve the conflicting implications that emerge from status quo theories of justice, on the one hand, and theories of distributive…
Purpose – In this chapter, we seek to resolve the conflicting implications that emerge from status quo theories of justice, on the one hand, and theories of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on the other. Specifically, status quo theories depict individuals as resistant to perceptions of injustice in their social environments, whereas theories of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice depict individuals as quite sensitive to the justice that characterizes outcomes and treatment.
Methodology/approach – We build on previous research on the justice judgment process to consider ways in which the findings from these two research streams can be integrated.
Findings – We suggest that the two overarching streams of research have identified and empirically explored two distinct modes of justice evaluation: a system justification mode and a system critique mode.
Originality/value of chapter – We develop a model of the justice judgment process that specifies the circumstances under which each of the two modes is likely to operate.
The purpose of this article is to review and comment on recent and emerging trends in negotiation research, and to highlight the importance of the interactions between…
The purpose of this article is to review and comment on recent and emerging trends in negotiation research, and to highlight the importance of the interactions between various dimensions of negotiation.
Consistent with the behavioral negotiation framework, a two‐level structure is maintained consisting of the contextual characteristics of negotiation, on the one hand, and the negotiators themselves, on the other. The framework is supplemented with updated research, and the influence of culture in negotiation is commented upon – noting its increasing role in negotiator cognition, motivation, attribution, and cooperation. The paper also adds new themes to reflect the recent advancements in negotiation research. In particular, it focuses on the ways in which negotiator effects can mediate and/or moderate contextual effects, as well as the ways in which contextual effects can mediate and/or moderate negotiator effects.
The paper suggests that efforts to integrate the recent developments in negotiation research are necessary and that the behavioral negotiation perspective, due to its simultaneous simplicity and flexibility, is appropriate and effective for incorporating the various streams of negotiation research into a systematic framework. Critically, this framework highlights the dynamic interaction between the two levels and leaves much room for further exploration of these dynamics.
The paper identifies emerging areas of inquiry that can be especially fruitful in helping negotiation scholars to expand more traditional approaches to conflict in bold new ways and open up innovative avenues for thinking about the domain of negotiation. The paper offers a comprehensive model that integrates various dimensions of negotiation and illustrates the interaction among them.
Purpose – This capstone chapter introduces Amartya Sen's important and innovative theory of justice to researchers on fairness in groups and organizations. Here, I discuss…
Purpose – This capstone chapter introduces Amartya Sen's important and innovative theory of justice to researchers on fairness in groups and organizations. Here, I discuss how Sen's theory can provide grounding for both philosophical and social scientific work on justice and how social science research can inform and be informed by Sen's theory.
Design/methodology/approach – In this chapter, I discuss Sen's new book, A Theory of Justice, and explain the main aspects of Sen's theory of justice. I then draw conceptual linkages between Sen's theory and those introduced in each of the other chapters included in this volume.
Findings – I show that Sen's view of justice goes beyond social contract theories that attempt to identify ideal institutional arrangements to seek practical solutions that increase justice as experienced by actual people in the world. Rather than parallel endeavors, Sen's approach reveals philosophy and social science to be deeply connected to each other and to justice by providing a unifying theme by which various social scientific traditions are shown to study aspects of the same underlying phenomena. Further, I demonstrate how philosophy and social science together can increase justice in the world.
Originality/value – Sen's theory of justice, though influential in economic and policy circles, is largely unfamiliar to social psychologists and organizational scholars. I introduce these fields to Sen's theory of justice and show how it is useful for social psychological approaches to the study of fairness in groups and organizations.
Susan Brodt (PhD, Stanford University) is E. Marie Shantz associate professor of organizational behavior and associate professor of psychology at Queen's University. Her research examines aspects of effective work relationships and how psychological and organizational processes help or hinder their development. She is currently studying the dynamics of interpersonal trust – trust building, violation, and repair – and how factors external to a work relationship (e.g., personal blogs) can facilitate trust development and repair. Her work has been published in numerous scholarly as well as practitioner-oriented journals. Susan has served on Editorial Review Boards of several scholarly journals and has held leadership positions in both the Academy of Management (Program and Division Chair, Conflict Management Division) and the International Association for Conflict Management (Program Chair, Board of Directors). She is also an experienced executive educator and consultant on such topics as negotiation, executive leadership, interpersonal trust, and managing global teams.