Search results

The field of knowledge management (KM) is highly estimated in research and practice but at the same time relatively diffuse and scattered into diverging concepts, perspectives and disciplines. On that background, it was the aim of this delphi study to give more structure to the field of KM and to get an outlook on worthwhile developments for the next ten years. International experts of KM from natural/technical and social/business sciences as well as practicians of KM with a similar background were asked some basic questions onto the future of KM in two rounds. According to the experts, the future of knowledge management lies in a better integration into the common business processes, a concentration on the human‐organization‐interface and a better match of IT‐aspects to human factors whereas IT‐aspects rank low on this agenda. There are no broadly agreed theoretical approaches though something can be gained from the related organizational learning field; in general much more interdisciplinary and empirical research is needed. There are also almost no broadly agreed practical approaches besides communities of practice.

The purpose of this study is to examine two opposing approaches to the effects of power on negotiation: a “collaborative approach” of power and a “competitive approach” of power. Accordingly, the authors state oppositional hypotheses based on each approach. This study further investigates the mediating role of the perceived threat of the negotiation and the moderating role of negotiation topic (i.e. topics that touch on one’s power position versus topics that are related to the tasks one needs to perform) in this relationship. Finally, the authors state a moderated mediation hypothesis where they expected that the negotiation topic would moderate the indirect effect of power on negotiation strategies.

A vignette study (N = 279) and a negotiation game (N = 138) were conducted where the power within dyads was manipulated.

Study 1 showed that powerholders prefer collaborative strategies, whereas powerless negotiators prefer competitive strategies. Perceived threat of the negotiation mediated this effect. Furthermore, both Studies 1 and 2 showed that the negotiation topic moderates the effect of power on negotiation strategies providing further support for the collaborative approach of power. Finally, Study 1 provided partial support for the moderated mediation hypothesis.

Both Studies 1 and 2 are experimental studies. A field study should try to replicate these results in the future.

This study illuminates the effects of power on negotiation and addresses inconsistent findings in the negotiation literature. The results might be of great importance to large organizations where power asymmetries constitute an integral part of the employee/manager interactions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to show the moderating role of negotiation topic in the relationship between power and negotiation.

The aim of this paper is to address both the socio-moral climate and how teams process debate and decision comprehensiveness as pre-conditions for team innovation.

A total of 67 teams comprising 413 participants were surveyed. Data were analyzed with a multiple-step multiple-mediation procedure.

The socio-moral climate was positively related to innovation. The positive relation between the socio-moral climate and innovation was mediated stepwise through debate and decision comprehensiveness.

To overcome the limitations of a cross-sectional design, future research opportunities exist in the longitudinal evaluation of participatory socio-moral climates and comparisons between organizations. Debate and decision comprehensiveness can be further studied using behavior-based methodological designs, such as observation.

From this study, practitioners can learn of the needs and opportunities for participative approaches when managing innovation in teams. Promoting a socio-moral climate of cooperation, communication, openness, appreciation, trust and respect and leaving open the possibility that debating can help integrative decision comprehensiveness and thus innovation.

This paper expands the literature on organizational climate, debate, decision comprehensiveness, and innovation. On the one hand, the results empirically linked the socio-moral climate, a theoretically well-founded climate construct, to process variables. On the other hand, the literature on debate and decision comprehensiveness was expanded by adding the socio-moral climate as a pre-condition of debate and decision comprehensiveness. Furthermore, both were linked to a crucial outcome variable, innovation.