Search results

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.

Purpose – This chapter provides a framework that captures the fundamental impacts of power at the individual, dyadic, small group, and organizational levels. Within each level, we trace the psychological, cognitive, and behavioral consequences of having or lacking power.

Approach – We integrate theoretical approaches from psychology, sociology, behavioral economics, and organizational theory to underscore the far-reaching effects that power has.

Findings – We review theoretical and empirical evidence that demonstrate that (a) power leads people to take action, increases their general sense of control, and shape the way they construe the world; (b) power anesthetizes people to other people's emotions and immunizes them from the pressures of conformity; and (c) power differences within groups may facilitate group functioning by creating order, reducing conflict, and facilitating coordination. In addition to providing a framework for existing research on power, we also provide three research directions in hope of generating fruitful future research.

Originality/value – Through a careful review of the literature, we demonstrate that power helps people know who does what, when, and how.

This chapter introduces the volume’s theme by describing the challenges of sustainability in the agri-food industry and the critical role of agri-food supply chains. Following a description of traditional and sustainable supply chain management practices, we discuss the likely characteristics of sustainability-oriented innovations and how organizations pursuing higher levels of economic, social, and environmental performance will need to adapt their capabilities.

Drawing on the emerging concepts and practices from sustainable supply chain management as well as traditional and emerging concepts from innovation, we develop general propositions and expectations about how organizations might address sustainable effectiveness in their supply chains. The importance of the agri-food industry to all three pillars of sustainable effectiveness and predictions about the inability to feed future populations gives the discussion a certain urgency.

Sustainability-oriented innovations in the agri-food supply chain are different from traditional innovations. We develop propositions regarding the driving motivations, their nature and scope (i.e., more radical and systemic than incremental and focused), and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach. The 10 cases presented in the volume are summarized.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of enriched group work design and objective and perceived expertise diversity in interdisciplinary research groups with a focus on two critical group processes: task conflict and idea sharing.

Survey data were collected from 148 researchers and their advisors in 29 research labs at two doctorate-granting universities. The study tested the hypothesized model using hierarchical ordinary least squares regression and hierarchical linear modeling.

Results showed that objective and perceived (salient) expertise diversity jointly influenced task conflict. In addition, whether task conflict had a positive or negative impact on idea sharing depended on group work design enrichment and expertise diversity salience. Idea sharing improved group outcomes over and above the effects of task conflict.

Although this study could not test the causal relationships owing to a cross-sectional nature of data, it provides theoretical implications for the group work design, diversity and conflict literature.

Group work design represents an important tool for stimulating idea sharing in research groups. The findings suggest that managers should consider and manage the level of expertise diversity salience and the level of task conflict to increase the effectiveness of group work design.

The study provides insights on when task conflict may help creative groups. Work design and diversity salience represent important contextual features. The paper also examines both the objective and perceived diversity and disentangles task conflict and idea sharing.