Search results

This study presents an investigation of the communicative behaviors and strategies employed in the stimulation and management of productive and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups. Using communication accommodation theory (CAT), we argue that the type and course of conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups is impacted by the communicative behaviors and strategies employed by group members during interactions. Analysis of data from participant observations, non‐participant observations, semi‐structured interviews, and self‐report questionnaires support CAT‐based predictions and provide fresh insights into the triggers and management strategies associated with conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups. In particular, results indicated that the more groups used discourse management strategies, the more they experienced productive conflict. In addition, the use of explanation and checking of own and others' understanding was a major feature of productive conflict, while speech interruptions emerged as a strategy leading to potential destructive conflict. Groups where leaders emerged and assisted in reversing communication breakdowns were better able to manage their discourse, and achieved consensus on task processes. Contributions to the understanding of the triggers and the management of productive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups are discussed.

Using a multi‐method approach, this paper presents both a qualitative and quantitative examination of workplace conflict, the emotional reactions to bullying and counterproductive behaviors. Three studies were undertaken for the present research. Data for Study 1 emerged from semi‐structured interviews conducted with 50 group leaders and members from six workgroups in two large organizations. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using systematic interpretative techniques. Findings from Study 1 showed that conflict induced a variety of emotional and behavioral responses. Data from Study 2 were collected from 660 employees from 7 public sector organizations using a structured open‐ended survey. Results from Study 2 revealed that the majority of respondents perceived their managers as bullies. Study 3 surveyed 510 staff in 122 workgroups from five organizations. Regression analysis revealed that differing conflict events were associated with bullying, emotional reactions and counterproductive behaviors. In particular, prolonged conflict increased incidents of bullying. Higher levels of bullying were predictive of workplace counterproductive behaviors such as purposely wasting company material and supplies, purposely doing one's work incorrectly and purposely damaging a valuable piece of property belonging to the employer.

The purpose of this study is to identify across a number of workplace variables the similarities and differences in attitudes between three key frontline hotel worker groups: housekeepers, front office employees and food and beverage front-of-house staff.

A qualitative study was conducted using 25 semi-structured interviews with frontline workers employed in full-service hotels across Eastern Australia. Analysis was augmented through the Leximancer® software package to develop relational themes in the aggregation and disaggregation of the occupations.

Although work/life balance was a common theme across the three occupations, several distinct attitudinal differences emerged, in particular regarding perceptions of one occupational group towards another.

This study highlights the importance of hotel managers being cognisant of occupational differences and collecting data capable of assisting in the identification of these differences. Several practitioner relevant recommendations are made.

This exploratory study challenges assumptions regarding a “pan-industrial” hospitality occupational community and applies an emerging qualitative software package to highlight occupational differences and relational perceptions.

Workplace mavericks are often labeled as non-conformists. They are perceived to be the employees who disregard organizational policies and procedures, and who invite huge risks in the pursuit of goals that sit outside what the organization dictates as the core business or practice. While this may be accurate to a degree, it is not the complete story. Guided by recent conceptualizations of non-conformity and positive deviance, this qualitative study interviewed 27 observers of mavericks (observer-types) in the workplace, and 28 interviews with mavericks (maverick-types). Results highlight that while maverick individuals do challenge organizational norms, they do so for the benefit of others, including the organization. Additionally, they are not wildcard non-conformists as they do in fact conform. However, they are conforming positively to higher level hyper-norms or organizational goals, and therefore operate in what could be termed as bounded non-conformity. Understanding the form that this bounded non-conformity takes is key for organizations to mitigate perceptions of the risk posed by maverick individuals, while maximizing the rewards that maverick employees can offer to organizations, especially for informing ideas and plans around more radical change and innovation. In this way, organizations can benefit from the numerous and unique contributions of mavericks in the workplace, such as innovative, unorthodox, and out-of-the-box thinking, while at the same time still ensuring the effective governance and risk management of the organization.

The purpose of this paper is to confirm predictions that employee reports of psychological climate, appraisals of change and levels of adjustment during a change programme would be more positive for employees in higher status groups (operationalized as hierarchical level in the organization and occupational role).

Two questionnaire studies were conducted and data were analysed using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). Study one examined differences among 669 public sector employees as a function of status (organizational hierarchal level). Study two examined differences among 732 hospital employees as a function of role (occupational group) and status (managerial responsibility).

The results of study one revealed that upper level staff reported more positive attitudes during change, across a range of indicators. The results of study two showed that non‐clinical staff reported more negative attitudes during change than other occupational groups. In addition, managers appraised change as more stressful than non‐managers, but felt more in control of the situation.

A limitation of the paper is the cross sectional and self‐report nature of measurement. Future research could utilize a longitudinal design and collect alternative sources of data to indicate the constructs of interest, e.g. supervisor ratings of employee adjustment during change.

Together, the results of both studies highlighted the importance of implementing change management interventions that are targeted at the sub‐group level.

The findings of the paper add empirical evidence to the emerging literature on group differences in adjustment during organizational change. The paper will be of interest to academics and practicing managers, particularly those concerned with the effective management of change programmes.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of organizational level on employees' perceptions and reactions to a complex organizational change involving proposed work force redesign, downsizing and a physical move to a new hospital.

Participants included executives, supervisory and non‐supervisory staff in a major tertiary hospital. Recorded in‐depth interviews were conducted with 61 employees about the positive and negative aspects of the change.

A total of 12 themes were identified from content coding, including emotional responses and attitudes toward the change, issues about the management of the change process and about change outcomes. Supervisory and non‐supervisory staff referred more to conflict and divisions, and expressed more negative attitudes toward the change, than did executives. Executives and supervisory staff focused more on planning challenges and potential outcomes of the change than did non‐supervisory staff. Finally, compared to other staff, executives focused more on participation in the change process and communication about the change process.

This study examines the organizational change at only one time point in one organization. Perceptions of the change may change over time, and other identities like professional identity may influence perceptions.

These findings suggest that change agents should consider the needs of different organizational groups in order to achieve effective and successful organizational change.

This study clearly shows the impact of organizational level, identifying similarities and differences in perceptions of change across level.

The purpose of this paper is to add to the understanding of how transformational leaders influence R&D team outcomes around being more innovative. In particular, the study aims to focus on the role of group identification in mediating innovative outcomes.

In total, 104 participants in a large Australian R&D organization were surveyed twice during a 12 month period of major restructuring and change. These matched respondents came from 29 different teams.

Results revealed that group identification and perceived support for creativity exerted equal independent effects in fully mediating the relationship between transformational leadership and team innovation.

The potential for leadership to influence innovation through identification raises interesting alternative possibilities. Future research may generate new insights by investigating alternative samples, leadership styles or using qualitative methods.

Findings point to how a more transformational style of leadership influences team climate and identification, and in turn innovation in the context of scientific R&D teams. Such styles do produce better outcomes, both for the organization around more innovative products and processes, but also for team members who engage in more creative team environments.

These findings add to the conceptual understanding of processes through which transformational styles of leadership promote innovation, and highlight the benefits gained by promoting more transformational styles of leadership to generate more innovative outcomes from teams and employees.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of the charismatic dimension of transformational leadership on team processes and innovative outcomes in research and development (R&D) teams.

Data are collected by surveying 34 teams that totalled 178 participants. Surveys measured charismatic leadership style, team identity, cooperative strategies and team innovation.

Results reveal the importance of managers assuming a charismatic style of leadership to encourage innovation. Charismatic leaders promote team innovation by supporting a sense of team identity and commitment, and encourage team members to cooperate through the expression of ideas and participation in decisions.

The study is conducted in a single R&D organization and future research should explore the influence of these factors in other settings. The measures of team innovation are based on the perceptions of the team members, and future research needs to include a wider variety of data sources over time.

Successful team leaders who employ a more charismatic style facilitate more cooperative interactions in teams. Teams with a strong team identity combined with the exercise of cooperative behaviours are more innovative.

The preliminary model tested enhances the understanding of the importance of the leaders in influencing team processes and innovation. Leaders who are more transformational in style influence followers by affecting their sense of identity. This sense of identity influences how well teams adopt and follow more cooperative strategies to resolve issues and to make decisions. In turn, the model shows how these factors influence team innovation.