Search results

Organizational buying decisions are characterized by conflict which can be studied through the use of coalition theory. It appears, however, that conceptual and methodological problems with coalition theory based on game theory and social psychology have limited its usefulness in helping us understand how such conflict can be managed. This paper proposes the group influence approach to conflict management in organizational buying. The main contribution of this approach is that by treating individuals as representatives of coalitions, sellers and buyers can focus on coalition leaders rather than focus on individuals who, in any case, have to conform to group expectations. Theoretically, the group influence approach recognizes that power and politics are basic forces that affect most spheres of organizational activity. Within such a framework purchase decisions are shown to be politically negotiated settlements between those coalitions involved in making the buying decision.

Social movements are made up of organized groups and individuals working together to accomplish shared objectives. Under what circumstances do active groups build and break their coalitions? Five conditions have been identified in the literature as influencing coalition formation: common identity, resources, organizational structure, historical connection, and institutional setting. Whereas coalition dynamics within a movement wave are best understood in terms of institutional opportunities and threats, further research is needed to determine how and to what extent these contextual elements influence coalitions. This chapter examines how threats posed by indiscriminate and selective repression affect the shape and structure of interorganizational coalitions during the 2019 Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill (Anti-ELAB) protests in Hong Kong. The analysis relies on an original political event dataset and an organization-event network dataset. These datasets were produced utilizing syntactic event coding techniques based on Telegram posts, which Hong Kong protesters used to distribute information, plan future actions, and crowdsource news. Furthermore, Telegram provides detailed information about state activities, event-level coalitions, and violent groups, which is difficult to access from other sources. This study investigates the coalition networks across the movement's four stages, each of which was marked by a particular type and degree of repression. The findings indicate that indiscriminate and selective repression have varied effects on coalition networks. A wide coalition disintegrates as a result of indiscriminate repression. Selective repression, however, leads to the formation of coalitions around activist groups targeted by repression.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the extent to which dominant coalition members’ values and perceptions influence their perceptions of public relations participation in organization-level decision making. Research in this area has largely focussed on the relationship between practitioner roles and decision-making inclusion.

The population of interest was dominant coalition members of for-profit, government, and nonprofit organizations in the USA. Data were collected through a national survey to a nonrandom sample of 201 dominant coalition members.

Results indicate that dominant coalition members’ values of organizational openness to the environment and perceived substantive autonomy of the organization positively predicted perceptions of public relations participation in organizational decision making. Perceived manager role potential of the public relations department also had significant predictive power.

While research has focussed primarily on the characteristics that public relations practitioners can develop to earn a seat at the management table, little is known about the characteristics of dominant coalition members that influence whether or not a seat is made available or the degree to which public relations is perceived to participate in decision making.

Purpose – We review how team members’ identities and interests affect team functioning, paying special attention to subgroup dynamics triggered by faultlines and coalitions. This review sets the stage for describing novel pathways through which identities and interests, when considered together, can affect team processes and outcomes.

Design/approach – We use an extended example of a hypothetical team's decision-making process to illustrate how team members’ identities and interests intertwine to affect the distribution and flow of information, subgroup dynamics, and team decisions.

Findings – We develop three specific ideas to demonstrate the utility of this integrative approach. First, we show how the formation of identity-based subgroups can shape information sharing to create a hidden profile where there was none initially. Second, we describe how individual defection can weaken subgroup competition and, paradoxically, increase the chance that a team will optimize its collective welfare. Third, we analyze how shared identities can shape team members’ side conversations in ways that create shared interests and information among those with similar identities, even before the team begins its formal meetings.

Originality/value – By identifying new routes through which identities and interests can affect team functioning, we provide a foundation for scholars in this domain to theoretically develop and empirically test these and related ideas. More generally, we encourage scholars to study the interplay among identities, interests, and information in their own research to paint a more complete picture of how individuals, subgroups, and teams perform.

The medium negotiators choose for communication will influence both process and outcome. To understand how medium influences power expression, this paper aims to compare value claiming by asymmetrically powerful negotiators, using face-to-face and computer-mediated messaging across two studies. Following up on long-standing conjectures from prominent coalition researchers, the authors also directly tested the role of the apex negotiator's personality in coalition formation and value expropriation.

The authors conducted two laboratory experiments which manipulated communication medium (computer-mediated vs face-to-face) in three- and four-person bargaining. They also varied asymmetry of power so the apex negotiator either could not be left out of a winning coalition (Study 1) or could be (Study 2). The authors measured trait assertiveness along with multiple indicators of hard bargaining behavior.

Communicating using instant messages via a computer interface facilitated value claiming for powerful negotiators across both studies. Trait assertiveness correlated with hard bargaining behavior in both studies. An index of hard bargaining behavior mediated the effect of assertiveness on value expropriation but only in the context where the powerful negotiator held a genuine monopoly over coalitions.

The authors contribute to the literature on multiparty negotiations by demonstrating persistent media effects on power utilization and by finally confirming the conjectures of prominent coalition researchers regarding personality. Though personality traits generate consistent effects on behavior, their influence on negotiation outcomes depends on the power structure. Negotiation theory needs to incorporate structural and situational factors in modelling effects of enduring traits. Negotiation research should move beyond a rigid focus on dyads.

The purpose of this paper is to build theory and present a model of the development of conflicts in teams.

The paper develops a conceptual model based on past theory and research.

The model brings a multi-level perspective to the process of intragroup conflict by showing the mechanisms by which an interpersonal, dyadic conflict can spread to other team members over time through a process of conflict contagion.

This study provides a new model for conflict escalation and it sheds light on factors which can either ameliorate or exacerbate the speed and extent of conflict contagion. The repercussions of different degrees of conflict involvement within a team are discussed.

Social movement scholarship convincingly highlights the importance of threats, political opportunities, prior social ties, ideological compatibility, and resources for coalition formation. Based on interviews with Palestinian, Israeli, and international activists involved in two transnational coalitions in Israel/Palestine, this chapter illustrates the emergence of transnational coalitions, particularly those that cross polarized ethno-national divides, depends not only on such facilitators, but also, and critically, on the belief that such diverse cooperation is strategic. I argue these unique coalitions intentionally formed with individuals and organizations situated in different national communities out of a strategic decision by the Palestinian initiators, given the closed political opportunity structure they faced domestically, to enlarge the scope of conflict by drawing in new people and communities who may have some leverage on the Israeli government. Consequently, this chapter also makes clear that partners in the Global South make intentional choices about who to partner with, and that the agency is not solely linked with their more privileged partners in the Global North (cf., Bob, 2001; Widener, 2007). Finally, it illustrates that coalition partners are recruited not only because of social ties, prior histories of interaction, ideological similarity, and shared organizational framing, but also due to key considerations including perceptions of what the ethno-national diversity, varying networks, and differing privileges make available.

This paper aims to determine whether a combined set of process models for university contributions to social innovation can be effectively used to describe how higher education institutions facilitate and disseminate research for social value.

The author applies Cunha and Benneworth’s (2013) social innovation process model, with additions from the Nichols et al. (2013) model of campus-community collaboration and the Jain et al. (2020) social value framework, to a pair of case studies at Portland State University about research projects on homelessness. Information was gathered through primary sources, observation and secondary texts.

Applying the models to the case studies provides additional detail on the types and value of Portland State University’s contributions to addressing homelessness through social innovation. The models are found to be effective in describing and providing guidance for social innovation research projects at other higher education institutions.

The models may have widespread applicability in understanding or designing university contributions to social innovation, but additional case studies and analysis are needed to understand the full range of project types and institutional contexts to which they can be successfully applied.

The projects described in the paper’s case studies have not been analyzed elsewhere using social innovation frameworks and are valuable in their own right as social innovations worthy of replication. The findings of the paper extend the applicability of a process model for university contributions to social innovation.

Union‐community collaboration is an increasingly common practice in industrialised nations where union power and density have declined. This paper proposes a framework for defining and evaluating community unionism, through a definition of the term “community.”

The author explores this framework drawing on campaigns in Sydney and Chicago.

It defines the term community in three discrete but mutually reinforcing ways, as (community) organisation; common interest identity, and local neighbourhood or place. The term is used to then define community unionism as three discrete union strategies, and finally to examine one type of community unionism – coalition unionism. Successful coalition practice is defined by partner organisational relationships (coalition structure, bridge brokers, and coalition offices); common concern (common interest operates as mutual direct interest of organisation and members), and the element of scale (where success increases as coalitions operate at multiple scales such as the local, as well as the scale of government and/or business decision makers).

The paper identifies three elements of coalition unionism.

In this chapter, the authors outline some of the history of the role of diversity in research and research management, how this has changed and the consequences it has for a workable definition of diversity. We describe the benefits and challenges when working with diversity as research managers and administrators (RMAs) in international research producing organisations (RPOs). The challenges differ in different parts of the world which brings new complexities to navigate. It is shown how the agendas of internationalisation and diversity do not always work well together due to cultural and political perspectives in areas including race, age, gender identity, sexual orientation and other characteristics. The authors suggest how ‘Cultural Intelligence’ (CI) can be used as a frame for RMAs working with diversity and internationalisation both in a pre- and post-award phase and outline some specific steps and initiatives RMAs can take to create equitable and inclusive research and research environments based on their practical experience in the sector.