Conflict Management CM

 View Only

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research - August 2018 Now Online

  • 1.  Negotiation and Conflict Management Research - August 2018 Now Online

    Posted 07-26-2018 12:30

    **Apologies for Cross Postings** 

     

    Negotiation and Conflict Management Research
     © The International Association for Conflict Management (IACM) and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

     

    Michael A. Gross, Editor-in-Chief

    Colorado State University

    NCMR Volume 11, Issue 3
    August 2018
    Now Online 

     

    Special Issue on Conceptual Reviews

     

     

    Conceptual Articles:

     

    Unpacking the Meaning of Conflict in Organizational Conflict Research

     

    Elisabeth Naima Mikkelsen1 and Stewart Clegg2, 3

    1Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    2Centre for Management and Organization Studies, University of Technology Sydney Business School, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    3Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisbon, Portugal

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12127

     

                   Abstract

    In this conceptual essay, we review the field of organizational conflict to unpack how it has been constructed genealogically and with what consequences by investigating three major shifts in theorization that have occurred over the past six decades. First, a move away from viewing conflict as dysfunctional to viewing it as constructive. Second, a shift from normative prescriptions to descriptions of what disputants do in conflict. Third, a shift from psychological functional analyses to studying conflict as an organizational phenomenon. We find that three distinct and essentially contested conceptions frame studies of conflict at work: conflict as a distinct behavioral phenomenon, conflict as an instrumental means of achieving something else, and conflict as a social construction contingent on how reality is perceived. This conceptual essay adds to current thinking in organizational conflict research by emphasizing how philosophical and political assumptions about conflict can be seen to have framed knowledge production within the field when it is viewed historically.

     

    Peacemaking at the Workplace: A Systematic Review

     

    Xiaolei Zhang1, Katalien Bollen2, Rong Pei3, and Martin C. Euwema1

    1KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    2University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    3Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12128

     

    Abstract

    Research on third party interventions in conflict has mostly focused on formal interventions by professional mediators or supervisors. Studies on informal and voluntary third party interventions by peers or someone else in a nonhierarchical position are very limited. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate empirical studies on peacemaking to (a) define the concept; (b) search for scales that measure peacemaking; (c) and identify outcomes of peacemaking. In total, our search led to 713 unique hits of which 12 were retained based on the predefined selection criteria. Based on the findings from the reviewed articles, we propose a definition of peacemaking and identify four components of peacemaking: relational, procedural, emotional, and content help. This study contributes to the current conflict management literature by focusing on informal and voluntary helping behavior in the context of conflicts (instead of formal interventions), while linking the literature on organizational citizenship behavior and research on third party interventions in the context of conflict. In practice, peacemakers play a crucial role in solving conflicts constructively and contribute as such to both individual and team functioning.

     

    Conflict and Decision-Making: Attributional and Emotional Influences

     

    Kevin J. Hurt1 and Jennifer Welbourne2

    1Department of Management and Marketing, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA, U.S.A.

    2Department of Management, The University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, U.S.A.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12133

     

    Abstract

    There is general consensus among conflict scholars that cognitive conflict's impact within the organization is functional, whereas affective conflict's impact is dysfunctional. Inconsistent findings in the literature suggest that additional factors impact these relationships. In this study, we integrate theories of conflict, affect, and attribution within the domain of decision-making to gain a greater understanding of how and why organizational conflicts are at times positive, negative, or neutral. Specifically, we posit that the conclusions individuals reach as a result of their attributions, and their subsequent emotions and behavioral responses, play a significant role in determining conflict's effects. We apply theories of team-level emotional convergence to propose how the individual emotional responses of team members may converge into a collective emotional response at the team level. Finally, we propose that the team-level emotional responses initiated by the attribution process are significant moderators of the relationship between conflict type and decision outcomes.

     

     

    Original Articles:


    Robert McKersie: Integrative Scholar

     

    Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld1 and Thomas A. Kochan2

    1Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, U.S.A

    2Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12117

     

    Abstract

    This article is a tribute to Robert McKersie. It focuses on his career journey as an integrative scholar and touches on his scholarship, which among many honors included the 1995 International Association of Conflict Management (IACM) Lifetime Achievement Award. As the article suggests, Bob is integrative in multiple ways-as a teacher and facilitator integrating diverse concepts and interests; as a scholar lifting up Mary Parker Follet's concept of integration from the 1920s and, along with coauthor Richard Walton, giving it a new life in the 1965 Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations; and as a friend and colleague bringing out the best in everyone he encounters.

     

    Raiffa Transformed the Field of Negotiation–and Me

     

    Max Bazerman

    Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, U.S.A.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12121

     

    Abstract

    Howard Raiffa was a role model, friend, and inspiration. He transformed the field of negotiation, and he transformed my career. This brief article provides a recollection of how Howard revolutionized the field of negotiation, and how those insights are now affecting broader areas of the of the social science. Howard received the 1999 Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Association for Conflict Management.

     

    NCMR Journal Home Page: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1750-4716

     

     

    Michael A. Gross, Ph.D.

    Professor of Management

    Editor-in-Chief, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research| E-mail: cob_ncmr@Mail.Colostate.edu 

    College of Business | Rockwell Hall #219 | Colorado State University | Fort Collins, CO 80523-1275
    Office: (970) 491-6368 | FAX:  (970) 491-3522 | E-mail:  Michael.Gross@colostate.edu