Search results

To avoid (costly) conflict, it is imperative to uncover when negotiators cooperate. The previous study has shown that negotiators’ cooperative or competitive behavior is oftentimes guided by cues about their counterpart; information about his/her traits or behavior. Using regulatory focus theory, this paper aims to investigate when this is likely to happen. The authors hypothesize and test that because prevention focus (rather than promotion focus) is associated with concerns for safety and concrete surroundings, it strengthens the impact of counterpart cues.

The authors used two scenario studies and one behavioral negotiation study to test the general hypothesis. The authors measured or manipulated participants’ regulatory focus, manipulated counterpart cues by varying the information negotiators received about their counterpart’s traits and behavior, and measured participants’ cooperative or competitive concession making behavior.

Results from the studies confirmed that under prevention focus, negotiators’ cooperative behavior depended on whether they received cooperative versus competitive counterpart cues more than under promotion focus. Furthermore, results also showed that under prevention focus, negotiators’ behavior was relatively unaffected by their own social motivation – i.e. their personal goal to obtain favorable outcomes for oneself or for both negotiation parties.

By showing that regulatory focus determines when counterpart cues affect negotiation behavior, this paper furthers the understanding of when contextual factors affect negotiators' behavior. In addition, it contributes to the understanding of the complex effects of prevention focus in interpersonal behavior.

Scholars and practitioners alike wish to understand what makes workplace conflict beneficial or injurious to, for example, performance and satisfaction. The authors focus on parties’ personal experience of the conflict, which is complementary to studying conflict issues (i.e. task- or relationship-related conflict). Although many authors discuss the personal experience of conflict, which the authors will refer to as conflict personalization, different definitions are used, leading to conceptual vagueness. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to develop an integrative definition of the concept of conflict personalization.

The authors conducted a systematic literature review to collect definitions and conceptualizations from 41 publications. The subsequent thematic analysis revealed four building blocks that were used to develop an integrative definition of conflict personalization.

The authors developed the following definition: Conflict personalization is the negative affective as well as cognitive reaction to the self being threatened and/or in danger as a result of a social interaction about perceived incompatibilities.

The integrative definition of this study enables the development of a measurement instrument to assess personalization during workplace conflict, paving the way for developing effective research-based interventions.

Conceptual vagueness hampers theoretical development, empirical research and the development of effective interventions. Although the importance of conflict personalization is mentioned within the field of workplace conflict, it has not been empirically studied yet. This paper can serve as the basis for future research in which conflict issue and personal experience are separated.

A quasi‐experiment tested the effects of honor values and the use of insults by the other party on perceived conflict, negative emotions, and intentions to behave distributively and integratively during a workplace conflict. After honor values were measured, participants read a scenario in which a conflict was described. In the scenarios, we manipulated whether the other party used an insult by describing the other party's statements such that either an insult was uttered or no insult was uttered. Consistent with our hypotheses, results showed that conflicts in which the other party used an insult lead to higher ratings of perceived conflict, more negative emotions, and stronger intentions to engage in distributive behavior than conflicts in which the other party did not use an insult in high‐honor‐value participants, but not in low‐honor‐value participants. Mediation analyses showed that the interactive effect of honor values and other party's insults on intentions to behave distributively could be explained by perceived conflict and negative emotions.

This experiment examined the effects of motivational orientation (prosocial versus egoistic) on interpersonal trust, negotiation behavior, amount of impasses, and joint outcomes in three‐person negotiations. Students participated in a joint venture negotiation, in which motivational orientation was manipulated by allocating individual incentives (egoistic motive) vs. team incentives (prosocial motive). Results indicated that prosocially motivated negotiators achieved more integrative agreements and fewer impasses, and reported higher trust, more problem solving, and less contending behavior than egoistically motivated negotiators. Hierarchical regression suggested that the finding that prosocial groups achieved higher joint outcomes can be explained by higher levels of trust, more problem solving behavior, and less contending behavior in prosocial groups.

The current paper aims to argue that it is important for conflict management research to start focusing on leader–follower conflict as a “special case” of conflict because the relationship between leaders and followers is, by definition, characterized by divergence of interest and, second, because it is asymmetric in terms of power and vulnerability. Moreover, it is argued that conflict management research should start to examine the various behaviors that people engage in as a response to conflict, in a broader sense, than has been done until now. Research on conflict management increasingly recognizes the significance of interpersonal relations in the workplace.

As a case in point, a survey study among 97 Dutch police officers is presented. Leaders’ conflict management behaviors as assessed by followers is measured. In addition, followers’ experienced interactional justice and the extent to which they indicated that they would engage in negative and/or positive gossip about their leader was measured.

Results demonstrate that more forcing and avoiding leader conflict management behavior was related to more negative and less positive gossip about leaders. Moreover, more problem-solving and yielding leader conflict management behavior was related to less negative and more positive gossip. All relationships between leader conflict management behavior and follower gossip were mediated by followers’ experienced interactional justice.

It is hoped that the findings put research on the broader implications of interactional justice in leader–follower interactions, and on gossip, on the research agenda of conflict researchers.

Group communication as an area of intellectual interest had its beginnings in communication pedagogy with the goal of helping students to become more effective decision makers. A by-product is that group decision making became and remained a central research focus for many years. In the last 20 years, group communication research has facilitated the development of theory, research methods, and technology. Since 2000, group communication scholars have developed research lines on (1) virtual/digital team communication; (2) information sharing, hidden profile, and transactive memory systems; and (3) group participation. This chapter also explores the way in which group communication scholars have become connected with other disciplines that study groups and teams. The chapter concludes with current research methods trends, including interaction analysis, multilevel modeling, and qualitative methods.

This study aims to investigate resistance to change and change management through a micro-level interpersonal perspective. Specifically, this paper addresses in what way external change experts, such as coaches, identify distinctive emotional and behavioural indicators of resistance and facilitate individuals to develop positive strengths and motivation to change.

The authors drew upon critical realism and abductive research methodology to understand connections between coaching intervention and individual change resistance through 21 in-depth interviews with independent coaches listed in coaching associations in Germany.

This study first re-evaluates the implications of resistance and extends its meaning from negative obstacles into natural emotional responses of individuals and constructive resources for change. In addition, the study results indicate resistance can be distinguished through both explicit behaviours, body language along with implicit emotional reactions, like being tired or making small jokes. Moreover, several micro-level interpersonal approaches for coaches to apply in dealing with resistance, including understanding coachees' cognitive status and working environment, adapting varied communication styles as well as drawing upon coachees' strengths.

The research results offer organisations (e.g. managers and human resource professionals) essential guidelines in micro-level change management strategy by considering external coaching as a valuable option to deal with varied individual, social and contextual factors (e.g. organisational power and politics). From the organisational investment perspective, indicators of resistance and approaches to facilitate coachees' emotional reactions can be served as a preliminary protocol for stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of their change management schemes. Moreover, the framework outlined in this research can be considered in the future coaching education and professional development programmes.

Overall, this study demonstrates that external coaching is one of the valuable approaches in responding to individual resistance in organisational change management. The research findings widen existing bipolar paradigms of resistance (either change obstacles or positive resource) into a neutral spectrum that holds an impartial view on emotional reactions to change. Furthermore, individual differences and contextual factors play essential roles in the change process, e.g. coachees' personality, personal experiences, knowledge, interpretations to change process and topics as well as organisational context (e.g. power, hierarchy and culture) need to be considered into change management strategy.