Disputant reactions to managerial conflict resolution tactics - A comparison among Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the United States

    Authors

    R. Cropanzano; H. Aguinis; M. Schminke;D. L. Denham

    Comments

    Authors: contact us about adding a copy of your work at STARS@ucf.edu

    Abbreviated Journal Title

    Group Organ. Manage.

    Keywords

    MODERATED MULTIPLE-REGRESSION; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS; 3RD-PARTY; ROLES; FAIRNESS; PERCEPTIONS; MANAGEMENT; PREFERENCE; RESPONSES; SOPHOMORE; AMERICAN; Psychology, Applied; Management

    Abstract

    This study examined disputants' preferences for supervisory conflict resolution tactics. We identified three research needs, previous work has (a) been mostly from the manager's (and not the subordinate's) perspective, (b) examined only a limited set of possible intervention tactics, and (c) tended to be confined to North American samples. In this role-playing study, we addressed these three needs by examining disputant reactions to five different conflict resolution tactics. In addition, we included participants from Argentina the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the United States. The results provide evidence pertaining to the efficacy of some tactics and the problems of others. In particular, managers seem to engender the most positive responses when they act either as impartial facilitators or as inquisitorial judges.

    Journal Title

    Group & Organization Management

    Volume

    24

    Issue/Number

    2

    Publication Date

    1-1-1999

    Document Type

    Article

    Language

    English

    First Page

    124

    Last Page

    154

    WOS Identifier

    WOS:000080638900002

    ISSN

    1059-6011

    Share

    COinS