Search results

Conflict theory and research largely ignored the possible relationships between conflict at work, and individual health, well‐being, and job satisfaction. We present a model that argues that poor health and well‐being can trigger conflict in the workplace, and reduce the extent to which conflict is managed in a constructive, problem solving way. The model further proposes that conflict, especially when managed poorly, can have negative long‐term consequences for individual health and well‐being, producing psychosomatic complaints and feelings of burnout. We review research evidence and conclude, among other things, that the model is more likely to hold up when conflict involves relationships and socio‐emotional, rather than task‐related issues. Avenues for future research and implications for policy and organizational design are discussed.

This study explores the impact of person information about an alternative negotiator in dyadic negotiation in which one of two individuals is able to exit the negotiation to further negotiate with the alternative party. Individualistic negotiators were expected to be influenced more by information about the alternative party's strength than prosocial negotiators. Forty‐nine dyads were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions in a 2 (Potency of the Alternative Negotiator: Low vs. High) by 2 (One's Own Motivational Orientation: Individualistic vs. Prosocial) factorial design. Face‐to‐face interactions were audiotaped and transcribed In line with our expectation, individualistically orientated negotiators engaged in problem solving to a lesser extent and communicated more threats and putdowns when the alternative party was perceived as weak and submissive rather than strong and dominant. Within negotiation dyads power asymmetry evoked power struggle. Eventually, however, negotiators with an alternative party outperformed parties lacking an alternative. As expected, prosocially orientated negotiators were less influenced by both the mere presence of an alternative negotiation partner and potency information about the alternative party. Implications and directions for further research are discussed.

To enhance the quality of group decision making, to promote affective acceptance of decisions by all participants involved, or to increase joint outcomes, a principal party or a third party may stimulate social conflict. We argue that when conflict focuses on identity issues, when tension level is high, and when disputants' goals are negatively interdependent, conflict stimulation generally decreases joint performance. However, conflict stimulation enhances performance when conflict focuses on task issues, when tension level is low, and when disputants' goals are positively interdependent. We conclude by arguing that conflict may be stimulated either by creating or extending conflict issues, or by promoting contentious conflict behaviors.

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.

Research has shown that negotiators are more cooperative when they code their prospective outcomes as gains (gain frame) instead of as losses (loss frame). Supplementing this prior research that focused exclusively on the effects of negotiator's own frame on his or her own behavior, we argue that frames are communicated and that negotiators are influenced not only by their own frames, but by other's communicated frame as well. This proposition was tested using a 2 X3 design, manipulating the negotiator's own frame (gains/losses) and other's communicated frame (gains/losses/not given). As predicted, other's communicated gain frame reinforced the negotiator's gain frame but did not alter the negotiator's loss frame into a gain frame. Other's communicated loss frame, however, both reinforced the negotiator's own loss frame and altered the negotiator's gain into a loss frame. As a result, other's communicated gain frame, compared to other's communicated loss frame, induced lower demands and higher concessions when negotiators had a gain frame themselves. Loss framed negotiators, however, were not significantly influenced by other's communicated frame.

Two experiments investigated negotiators' information search strategies as a function of other's personality (cooperative vs. competitive vs. unknown) and own social value orientation (pro‐social vs. selfish). In Experiment 1, participants selected questions about other's intention to cooperate or to compete. In Experiment 2, participants generated questions themselves, which were coded as asking about cooperation or competition. Consistent with the false‐consensus hypothesis (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977) and inconsistent with the triangle hypothesis (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970), selfish negotiators who had no information about the other's personality asked more questions about other's intention to compete, and pro‐social negotiators asked more questions about other's intention to cooperate. Furthermore, both selfish and pro‐social negotiators engaged in confirmatory information search. Implications in terms of a self‐fulfilling prophecy are discussed.

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.

Do accommodative or integrative components make contentious conflict behavior more effective? A questionnaire study shows that Japanese subordinates (N = 136) handle interpersonal conflicts with superiors more effectively to the extent that they complement high contending with high accommodating. By contrast, prior research shows that high contending by Dutch subordinates and superiors is more effective if complemented with high integrating. Together, these findings support the notion that the most effective conglomeration of contending with other components of conflict behavior is society‐specific.