Search results

This observational and interview study investigated the role of caucusing (private meetings between the mediator and a disputant) in community mediation. The results from 73 cases at two mediation centers indicate that mediators are more likely to caucus when disputants have a history of escalation, are hostile toward each other during the hearing, and fail to engage in joint problem solving. Caucus sessions were found to discourage direct hostility between the disputants but to encourage indirect hostility. There was also evidence that caucus sessions foster disputant flexibility and problem solving between the disputant and the mediator. However, no relationship was found between the occurrence or nature of caucusing and the likelihood of agreement or the quality of the mediated outcome.

This research examined the relationships among a number of outcomes of mediation. The sample consisted of 73 hearings at two dispute settlement centers in New York State. Predictions from goal achievement theory were contrasted with predictions from procedural justice theory. In accordance with goal achievement theory, disputants who attained their goals in the agreement indicated immediate satisfaction with that agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. However, goal achievement was unrelated to long‐run success or long‐run satisfaction with the agreement, a result which may apply primarily to the mediation of interpersonal disputes. The predictions from procedural justice theory were more successful. Disputants who perceived that the underlying problems had been aired, that the mediator had understood what they said and that they had received a fair hearing also showed immediate satisfaction with the agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. In addition, these and related perceptions—especially in the eyes of the respondent—were predictive of several aspects of long‐run success.

Literature on power differentials within mediation sessions has indicated that when power imbalances are too great, mediation is not the proper venue for the resolution of these disputes. However, when there is not an incapacitating imbalance, it is possible that mediators can take steps to rectify this situation. A field study was conducted at two community dispute settlement centers in New York State, with the proceedings of 73 actual cases transcribed and then coded to: (1) determine the impact of unequal power on the outcome of interpersonal mediation; (2) examine how mediators deal with unequal power; (3) assess the impact of mediator efforts to balance power discrepancies, and (4) determine the impact of disputant characteristics on differences in power and outcome. It was found that the mediators in the present study did attempt to remedy power imbalances: by encouraging the more passive disputant to participate more in the hearing by criticizing aggressive disputants, and by asking embarrassing questions of more argumentative disputants and those taking a determined principled stance. However, contrary to expectations, it was found that mediator efforts to balance power discrepancies were not successful, power discrepancies did not lead to unequal agreements, and being a female or a minority did not lead to an unfair outcome.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate gender differences in the formation of mental models of firm strategies.

The specific research question is how gender, social interaction, team psychological safety and synergistic knowledge development influence certain characteristics – complexity and centrality – of an individual's mental model of firm strategies. A survey was conducted on a sample of US business students enrolled in strategic management courses. Social interaction, team psychological safety and synergistic knowledge development were measured by use of multiple‐item seven‐point Likert scales. Mental models were constructed by the causal mapping method. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses.

The regression analyses of the survey data support most of the hypotheses. Gender directly influences complexity and centrality in mental models of firm strategies and moderates the predictive influence of social interaction on synergistic knowledge development.

Possible limitations are the use of a student sample and of respondents as the sole data source. Future research could use managers as research subjects and multiple data sources and explore other determinants of the mental model of firm strategies.

The findings alert university educators about the importance of helping women develop high‐order knowledge and problem‐solving skills by understanding various business functions and synthesizing diverse perspectives. Corporate managers need to design and implement special mentoring and training programs for women with the aim of enriching their specific management knowledge. This study also suggests that women may increase their chance of developing strategic knowledge by proactively networking with senior managers.

This study on gender differences in accumulating management knowledge and skills helps us better understand the roots of and solutions to the gender gap in management and leadership positions. The most intriguing result is the demonstration of gender differences in the development of specific management knowledge. Biases against women not only contribute directly to the “glass ceiling”; more disturbingly, they negatively influence women's internal development of knowledge structures.