|مقالات مرتبط با این موضوع|
|مقالات ترجمه شده مدیریت|
کد محصول: M770
قیمت فایل ترجمه شده: برای اطلاع از هزینه و مدت زمان انجام ترجمه با پشتیبانی وب سایت تماس حاصل نمایید (۰۹۳۷۲۵۵۵۲۴۰)
تعداد صفحه انگلیسی: ۲۲
سال نشر: ۲۰۱۸
مقاله انگلیسی مدیریت ۲۰۱۸ : مدل های تعارض درون گروهی در مدیریت : بررسی ادبیات
Models of intragroup conflict in management: A literature review
The study of intragroup dynamics in management studies views conflict as a contingency process that can benefit or harm a group based of characteristics of the group and con- text. We review five models of intragroup conflict in management studies. These models include diversity-conflict and behavioral negotiation models that focus primarily on con- flict within a group of people; social exchange and transaction cost economics models that focus primarily on conflict within a group of firms; and social dilemma models that fo- cus on conflict in collectives of people, organizations, communities, and generations. The review is constituted by summarizing the insights of each model, foundational papers to each model; the most recent uses and developments of the models in the last decade; the complementarity of these models; and the future research directions.
Keywords: Behavioral negotiation, Conflict ,Diversity, Intragroup conflict, Intra-organizational relationships ,Social exchange, Social dilemmas, Transaction costs economics
The study of conflict in management began at the field’s inception with Dubin (1957) observing power conflicts be- tween labor unions and managers within organizations. Thompson (1960) brought the study of conflict to the forefront when he observed that conflict is something ever-present in organizations and is to be avoided and controlled. Cyert and March’s (1963) seminal book, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , built on Thompson’s ideas, observing that conflict stems from incompatible goals and information among people who constitute an organization. Litterer (1966) agreed with Thompson, Cyert, and March on the ubiquity and often burdensomeness of conflict in organizational life, but also noted that, because it “energizes people to activity”(p. 180), conflict can be a positive thing for organizations –especially when innovation and change are wanted. Consequently, Litterer urged organizations, and those who study them, to find ways to harness the good and avoid the bad of conflict.
Pondy (1967) complemented Litterer’s work by observing that conflict may be studied between or within organizations, suggesting that models of conflict may have different assumptions and uses depending on the level of analysis. Since these early works, many fruitful research areas on conflict arose; focusing on the positives and negatives conflict brings to organizations. Fig. 1 provides an estimate of the rise and steady state of conflict research in top-tier management journals. 1 The management field studies conflict at different levels of analysis. Conflict can be studied within a person such as when modeling role conflict (e.g. Rizzo et al., 1970 ) and cognitive dissonance (e.g. Festinger, 1962 ). Conflict can also be studied among groups such as in the modeling of team competition (e.g. Johnson et al., 2006 ), network competition (e.g. Das and Teng, 2002 ), and firm sustainability in resource-constrained environments (e.g. Hart and Ahuja, 1996 ). Lastly, conflict can be studied within a group or a collective of agents who are interdependently connected ( Sullivan, 2002 ) such as in modeling team diversity and alliance cooperation (e.g. Jehn, 1995 ; Zeng and Chen, 2003 ).
The current review focuses on five models about conflict within a group or intragroup conflict. The models are diversity- conflict, behavioral negotiation, social dilemma, social exchange, and transaction cost economics models. There are several reasons for focusing on intragroup conflict models. 2 First, while previous reviews focus primarily on the negatives (e.g. Rubin et al., 1994 ) or positives of conflict (e.g. De Dreu and Van De Vliert, 1997 ), there is has been little attempt to discuss complementarity among intragroup conflict models. The absence of such integration may be because the models are used in distinct areas of management with little crosstalk. Second, the research that reviews specific models of intragroup conflict is primarily descriptive in findings and not theoretical insights. 3 It is therefore our intention to highlight the foundational papers of the models reviewed and explain why the papers are critical and go one step further by reviewing some of the most recent contributions to these models.