Disputant reactions to managerial conflict resolution tactics - A comparison among Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the United States
Abbreviated Journal Title
Group Organ. Manage.
MODERATED MULTIPLE-REGRESSION; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS; 3RD-PARTY; ROLES; FAIRNESS; PERCEPTIONS; MANAGEMENT; PREFERENCE; RESPONSES; SOPHOMORE; AMERICAN; Psychology, Applied; Management
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.
Group & Organization Management
"Disputant reactions to managerial conflict resolution tactics - A comparison among Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the United States" (1999). Faculty Bibliography 1990s. 2589.