Abstract
Details
Keywords
Barry Goldman, Dylan A. Cooper and Cagatay Koc
In this investigation, the authors aim to ask whether engineers, as a profession, share distinct characteristics in their attitudes and behaviors relating to negotiations. Based…
Abstract
Purpose
In this investigation, the authors aim to ask whether engineers, as a profession, share distinct characteristics in their attitudes and behaviors relating to negotiations. Based on a review of the literature, the authors answer in the affirmative. Generally speaking, the existing studies on individual differences of engineers conclude that they are more conscientious, more goal-driven, more competitive and less people-oriented than non-engineers. The authors suggest that these differences have significant consequences on how engineers engage in negotiations. In particular, the authors propose that engineers’ approach to negotiation includes differences related to distributive versus integrative negotiation, emotional intelligence, perspective-taking and preferred persuasion techniques.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper involves an integrated literature review, combining research in management, psychology and engineering to investigate whether engineers approach negotiations differently from non-engineers.
Findings
The authors suggest that individual differences between engineers and non-engineers have significant consequences for how engineers engage in negotiations. In particular, the authors propose that engineers’ approach to negotiation includes differences related to distributive versus integrative negotiation, emotional intelligence, perspective-taking and preferred persuasion techniques.
Research limitations/implications
The authors offer 11 research propositions in areas relating to how engineers engage in distributive versus integrative negotiations, emotional intelligence, perspective-taking and their preferred persuasive techniques.
Practical implications
There are important implications for how engineers and their supervisors should be aware of these differences between how engineers and non-engineers view negotiations and how these differences may affect them and their employing organizations. There are also cultural implications, particularly for organizations for which engineers comprise a majority or a minority of the workforce composition.
Social implications
There are important implications for diversity in the engineering profession, especially as it relates to the hiring of women in engineering (as they now comprise a small minority of the profession).
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that investigates how engineers negotiate. Because engineering is a hugely important contributor to society, the results of this have important implications for the society.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare three different principles – the culpability, capacity and concern principles – for allocating responsibility for governance in…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare three different principles – the culpability, capacity and concern principles – for allocating responsibility for governance in a multi‐level context of addressing sustainable development.
Design/methodology/approach
The principles are first analysed from a theoretical and normative standpoint, linking to earlier literature on for example, the contribution principle, subsidiarity and global citizenship. Then the three principles are analysed in an empirical setting. The selected case is the issue complex around the health and environmental concerns from pesticide use in developing countries. Document analysis and semi‐structured interviews were carried out with relevant stakeholders from local, national and global governance levels on themes which enabled analysis of the workability and justness of the principles and whether they were already applied to some degree.
Findings
Analysis of the case shows the mutual complementarity of the three principles for allocating responsibility for governance, especially when culpability and capacity are dispersed across different agents and levels. However, the concern and capacity principles emerged as more important and promising. The results indicated the need for moving the value basis of agents towards more selfless global concern in order to create an effective multi‐level governance system.
Practical implications
The results may help policymakers at different levels to analyse more systematically who should assume responsibility for sustainable development governance and why.
Originality/value
Extends the analysis of principles for allocating responsibility for global issues.
Details
Keywords
During the very short period of cultural evolution of mankind, the world has changed dramatically. Modern humans have modified the environment not only to satisfy their needs, but…
Abstract
During the very short period of cultural evolution of mankind, the world has changed dramatically. Modern humans have modified the environment not only to satisfy their needs, but also to please their greed. The forces that are united to destroy the last wildlands for short‐term economic benefits seem to be overwhelming. However, at least in some developed countries, values, preferences and political majorities have been changing over the last two decades in favour of alternative approaches. A new multiplicity of goals has sprung up, and it will not be an easy task to reconcile the diverging interests. What makes it even more difficult is that the means, by which the different goals are to be achieved, are barely known. The scientists, whose task might be to provide tools of measurement to enable political decision‐makers to set priorities, are facing serious methodological problems. Economists have not yet found practical and acceptable ways of valuing all commodities, biologists have not yet come up with proven environmental safety standards and sociologists and philosophers are far from providing a satisfactory method of integrating environmental values into the ‘social contract’.
This paper aims to examine the roots of public fear and often‐distorted reality of risk, and proposes methods by which emergency management agencies can successfully manage fear…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to examine the roots of public fear and often‐distorted reality of risk, and proposes methods by which emergency management agencies can successfully manage fear, should a terror‐based event occur within their jurisdiction.
Design/methodology/approach
The October 2002 sniper crisis in Washington, DC is used to identify the processes by which public fear is generated, maintained, and managed.
Findings
In the USA's post‐9/11 era of terror‐awareness, extreme actions of groups like Al Qaeda are no longer necessary to spark detrimental anxiety‐based social reactions. The two snipers who placed the nation's capital under siege for three weeks with one rifle and a box of bullets confirmed this fact. Washington, DC's duct tape and plastic panic buying spree, spurred by a Terrorism Threat Index increase, illustrated how the mere hint of a future event can induce irrational behavior.
Practical implications
Clearly, the emergency management community can no longer simply blame the media for such strong public sentiment. Controlling public fear is a public safety responsibility but fear management must be supported by the Federal government to be effective. There exists a rapidly‐growing need for agencies to adopt formal fear management capabilities staffed by appropriately‐trained, dedicated officials. In many cases of terrorism, fear is the greatest emergency that must be managed, and irresponsible or inadequate attempts to do so can actually increase public risk. This paper proposes methods by which emergency management agencies can successfully manage fear, should a terror‐based event occur within their jurisdiction.
Originality/value
This paper will assist emergency managers, administrators at the city, county, and national levels, and others involved in planning for the management of fear during emergencies that can occur in the aftermath of terror‐based events.