Search results

Creativity plays a crucial role in interpersonal conflict within organizations, yet little research has explored its antecedents in this context. This study aims to investigate power and gender as the main determinants of creativity in interpersonal conflict within organizational contexts.

Two studies were conducted. The first study involved 226 employees from various organizations (M_age = 39.39, SD = 10.39), whereas the second study used a conflict simulation with 160 participants (M_age = 36.90, SD = 10.45) forming dyads. Both studies investigated the impact of relative power (i.e. having more power than the other person) on creativity in conflict, with a focus on the moderating role of gender. Study 2 also manipulated contextual creativity, which served as an additional moderator in this relationship.

Results largely supported our hypotheses, indicating a positive relationship between relative power and creativity in conflict. Importantly, this relationship was stronger among women. Study 2 further focused on the distinct dimensions of creativity, highlighting differences between idea originality and effectiveness.

The findings hold practical significance for organizational leaders and conflict resolution practitioners, and they further underscore the importance of considering gender dynamics in conflict resolution processes within organizations.

This research contributes novel insights into the understanding of creativity within organizational conflicts, emphasizing the interplay between relative power, gender and creativity. Additionally, the exploration of different dimensions of creativity (i.e. originality and effectiveness) adds depth to existing literature in this area.

The literature regarding the effect of power on negotiation strategies remains scattered and inconsistent. This study aims to propose that the effect of power on negotiation strategies is contingent on contextual variables but also on individual differences among negotiators. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that creativity moderates the effect of power such that low-power, as compared to high-power negotiators, use more collaborative and less competitive strategies and further report lower fixed-pie perception (i.e. perception of a counterpart’s goals and interests as diametrically opposite to one’s own goals and interests) when they can be creative. Moreover, the authors hypothesize that negotiators’ age buffers the moderated effect of power.

The authors conducted two experiments and a cross-sectional field study. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 played a negotiation game in dyads. Study 1 manipulated power as status (manager vs employee), whereas Study 2 manipulated power as Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (i.e. power to exit the negotiation without a deal). Accordingly, participants in Study 2 had strong vs weak Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. In both studies, power was manipulated within dyads. Moreover, in both studies, the authors manipulated creativity (high vs low) between dyads. The chronological age of negotiators was measured in both studies and served as an additional moderator. Study 3 (preregistered) aimed to replicate the experiment results in the field.

Study 1 provided partial support for the hypothesis about collaborative strategies. Study 2 fully supported the hypothesis about the role of power and creativity on FPP and on collaboration (but not on competition). Study 3 did not support the power by creativity hypothesis. Interestingly, Studies 1 and 2 supported the power × creativity × age interaction hypothesis when predicting collaboration, while Study 3 supported the three-way interaction when predicting competition. Furthermore, Study 2 provided full support for the three-way interaction hypothesis when predicting FPP, while Study 3 provided partial support for this hypothesis. Altogether, the three studies largely replicated and complemented each other and revealed the robustness of the examined effects.

The findings of this research extend the literature on power on the one hand and negotiation and conflict management on the other and shed light on the inconsistent results regarding the role of power in collaboration and competition (De Dreu, 1995; De Dreu and Van Kleef, 2004; Overbeck and Park, 2001; Overbeck et al., 2006). Additionally, this research reconciles the inconsistent literature on creativity, conflict management and prosocial behavior (Gino and Ariely, 2012; Gino and Wiltermuth, 2014; Wilson and Thompson, 2014). Finally, the findings touch upon the aging literature as well and shed light on the role of age on conflict management (for a review, see Beitler et al., 2018) and on the interconnection between age, power and creativity.

The findings are relevant to organizations characterized by power asymmetries (e.g. employee/manager) and inform practitioners about the main determinants of collaboration-based negotiations at work.

The findings extend the literature on power on the one hand and negotiation and conflict management on the other and shed light on the inconsistent results regarding the role of power in collaboration and competition.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study investigating the moderating role of creativity in the relationship between negotiation power and negotiation strategies. Moreover, the moderating role of participant age in such relationships has been, to date, largely uninvestigated.

In this meta-analysis, the authors investigate the relationship between self-construal and conflict management strategies and shed light on the inconsistent findings in the literature. Moreover, they examine the mediating role of face concerns in this relationship. Importantly, the present meta-analysis is the first to test the assumptions of face-negotiation theory with the meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM), which enabled the authors to test the hypothesized relationships in one single model.

The authors used the method of MASEM to test the relationship between self-construal and conflict management and assess the mediating role of face concerns. In this regard, the authors employed one-stage meta-analytic structural equation modeling to perform MASEM and its moderators.

Two hundred fifty-four effect sizes based on thirty-three studies were pooled in this meta-analysis. The authors found that individuals with stronger independent self-construal and stronger self-face concerns were more likely to use forcing. Moreover, the relationship between independent self-construal and forcing was mediated by self-face concerns. Individuals with a stronger interdependent self-construal and individuals with stronger other-face concerns were more likely to use problem-solving and yielding. The relationship between interdependent self-construal and problem-solving and yielding was mediated by other-face concerns. Finally, interdependent self-construal also had an indirect effect, via other-face concern, on avoiding and compromising.

The present meta-analysis is the first effort that the authors are aware of to test the assumptions of face-negotiation theory (FNT) using MASEM method. The authors used one-stage meta-analytic structural equation modeling viewed as the state of the methods to perform MASEM and its moderators. They employed full information meta-analytic structural equation modeling to show the generalizability and heterogeneity of structural equation modeling parameters. They applied studentized deleted residuals to assess outlier analysis and also conducted different methods to perform MASEM to check the robustness of the findings resulted. Finally, the current study adds multiple methods of assessing for publication bias.

The purpose of this study is to examine two opposing approaches to the effects of power on negotiation: a “collaborative approach” of power and a “competitive approach” of power. Accordingly, the authors state oppositional hypotheses based on each approach. This study further investigates the mediating role of the perceived threat of the negotiation and the moderating role of negotiation topic (i.e. topics that touch on one’s power position versus topics that are related to the tasks one needs to perform) in this relationship. Finally, the authors state a moderated mediation hypothesis where they expected that the negotiation topic would moderate the indirect effect of power on negotiation strategies.

A vignette study (N = 279) and a negotiation game (N = 138) were conducted where the power within dyads was manipulated.

Study 1 showed that powerholders prefer collaborative strategies, whereas powerless negotiators prefer competitive strategies. Perceived threat of the negotiation mediated this effect. Furthermore, both Studies 1 and 2 showed that the negotiation topic moderates the effect of power on negotiation strategies providing further support for the collaborative approach of power. Finally, Study 1 provided partial support for the moderated mediation hypothesis.

Both Studies 1 and 2 are experimental studies. A field study should try to replicate these results in the future.

This study illuminates the effects of power on negotiation and addresses inconsistent findings in the negotiation literature. The results might be of great importance to large organizations where power asymmetries constitute an integral part of the employee/manager interactions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to show the moderating role of negotiation topic in the relationship between power and negotiation.