Search results

The purpose of this study is to extend Bippus and Young’s (2005) study and examine the effectiveness of the “I-you,” “I,” “You,” “We,” “But” and Question-based “Why” statements from Winer’s (2021) verbal coding program of conflict management using Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory (SLT).

Mixed methods were used using 175 university students from Texas and New York. A cross-sectional convenience sampling approach was conducted. Survey data was collected using Qualtrics.

Descriptive results demonstrated that the “We” statement was the most passive, the “I-you” statement was the most assertive and the “But,” “I,” “You” and Question statements were perceived to be aggressive. In addition, assertive “I-You” statements were perceived to be more effective in resolving the conflict and maintaining a relationship, whereas aggressive statements were less likely to resolve the conflict and maintain the relationship. Qualitative themes also support the “I-You” statement as the most assertive, while the “But,” “You” and “I” statements were found to be the most aggressive statements.

Implications and applications are discussed to stimulate future research among researchers and practitioners when addressing conflict. Being aware of the verbal statements that de-escalate conflict may be helpful in solving conflict in interpersonal, family and professional relationships. Future trainings can adopt effective verbal statements to resolve conflict when experiencing anger issues. Future research can continue to investigate verbal communication statements using SLT to help practitioners and managers address conflict in interpersonal relationships.

This study examines verbal statements in relation to communication styles and conflict management.

Globalization and increased outsourcing have contributed to increased supply chain complexity, exposing firms to greater vulnerability in the areas of product safety and supply chain security. Meanwhile, stakeholders pressure firms to ensure that their products are safe, and their supply chains are secure. Drawing from stakeholder theory, this paper aims to explore how the supply chain characteristics of distance and power affect the adoption of consumer protection (CP) practices, which ensure product safety and supply chain security.

Using primary survey data from a sample of Canadian manufacturing firms, this research examines the relationships among supply chain characteristics, adoption of CP practices and firm performance.

Analysis supported the use of two practices related to product safety (consumer education and product design) and three practices for supply chain security (packaging, tracking and authenticity). Greater cultural distance between the focal firm and its suppliers was positively associated with investments in safer design practices, while increased geographical distance between the focal firm and the customer was significantly related to increased consumer education. Moreover, as power of a focal firm relative to its suppliers increased, so too did investments in supply chain security. Finally, CP practices were related to improved operational performance along multiple dimensions.

This research focuses on the critical role of two key stakeholder groups in improving product safety and supply chain security: suppliers and customers. The authors add to the theoretical discussion of product safety and supply chain security by identifying critical differences between suppliers and customers for the focal firm. Second, the research informs the managerial community of the potential benefits of investments in CP practices.