LAQU9107 (1) (2) (1) (1)

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 73 | Comments: 0 | Views: 1341
of 19
Download PDF   Embed   Report






Ta Table ble of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................................2 Work Groups and Teams Identification...........................................................................................2 Conflict and negotiations Identification..........................................................................................4 Analyzing relationship beteen ork groups and teams! conflict and negotiations......................." #$aluating impact of ork groups and teams on organization culture............................................" #$aluating impact of conflict and negotiations on organization culture.........................................% Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................& 'eferences......................................................................................................................................() Appendi*........................................................................................................................................(+


Introduction This persuasi$e essay has been based on analyzing the nature of orking groups! teams! conflict and negotiation in an organization. Work groups and teams identification ill be pro$ided by the model of Wilfred gi$en on group e*periences ith respect to ,ruce Tuckman model. The de$elopment stages by -cott eck ill be e*plained as a model to understand group and team e*periences. /u /urt rthe herm rmore ore!! co conf nfli lict ct and ne nego goti tiat atio ions ns se sect ctio ion n i ill ll be e* e*pl plai ained ned by un under derst stan andi ding ng th thee relationsh relat ionship ip beteen them in order to analyze analyze their influence influence on groups and teams. Then focus ill be laid on understanding the influence of ork groups and teams on organization culture ith respect to influence on groups and teams in the management of employees 0#lden 2)((1. Critical analysis of each of these models using real e*amples ill be done in order to understand the true relationship of each of these attributes ith regard to organization culture and its structure in the globalized orld.

Work Groups and Teams Identification Defining Work groups: According to -chein! ork groups are employees of an organization

orking in aggregation to each other ith a focus on indi$idual goals. Defining teams: Teams on the other hand are defined as members of organization grouped

togeth tog ether er to focus focus on shared shared belief belief and goal. goal. Tea eams ms often often fai faill in organi organizat zation ionss and those those organizations implementing teams in their ork places reuire to ha$e a balanced perception on team benefits and its limitations 0Cotton 2))+1.  Analyzing the term “Teams”  “Teams” 

According to 'obinson! (&&4 and Thamhain! (&%%! a team can be defined as an aggregate of   people but e$ery group does not get ualified to be knon as a team 0'obinson et al (&&41. As per 3atzenbach and -mith! (&&4! hoe$er a team is a group of people consisting of $aried skills ha$ing an aim at a general purpose! goals of performance and general approach to hich each member is accountable in a mutual manner 03atzenbach and -mith! (&&41. Working in team! as per Thamhain! 2))4 is a process in$ol$ing symbiotic relationship that leads toards enhanced results that is e$en more than the


indi$idual performance integration.0Thamhain! 2))41 As per ,ailey et al 2)))! hoe$er! effecti$e teams are those hich produce results of high uality e$en in ad$erse conditions 0,ailey et al 2)))1.. Task oriented and characteristics such as oriented by people are only some of the features of an effecti$e team 0,ailey et al 2)))1. /rom this perspecti$e! it becomes important to analyze team ith the help of certain models such as ,ruce Tuckman Tuckman model of change 0Cordery 0Cordery et al 2)((1. 2)((1. This model as knon as the model of 4 stages designed to study the decision making process in ideal groups hich reuires to

occur in the form of 4 designed stages 0#lmuti 2)(1.

0/igure (5 Tuckman6s model of 4 stages5 Work Group1 0-ource5 0#lden 2)((11 Tuckman7s 0(&"+1 group impro$ement model attracts regard for uniue periods of gathering change and ad$ancement normally alluded to as the forming! storming! norming and performing stages. Tuckman 0(&"+1 accepts the group ad$ancement procedure can be sub8cognizant hoe$er  in the e$ent that the gathering g athering is mindful of the stages then the group can be more poerful all the more uickly. This snappier additional e*ecution is uite compelling in task administration. ioneers ought to ha$e the capacity to distinguish the cycle of their group to kno hen it is  prone to be the most astounding performing and additionally hen it ill ha$e a tendency to need inspiration. The forming stage includes distinguishing the undertaking and finishing it. The gathering accumulates data about the errands and other colleagues. There is e*change on the standard authoritati$e methodologies and indi$iduals are concerned ith schedules and


hierarchical issues. Tuckman 0(&"+1 does not accept that there is much errand achie$ement a chie$ement at this stage! so maybe not the best stage for a task administration group to ait in. As the group  propels into the storming stage! the gathering parts contend among themsel$es! hether they concur or not on the uick errands to be performed. There is dissension! strain and poerplays. po erplays. uckman  ere forming ming,, storming storming,, norming norming and Thesee stages according to Tuckman Thes ere inclu inclusi si$e $e of for performing as described in the abo$e figure 0#lloy et al 2)()1. The model e*plains that as development in a team takes place! it mo$es toards maturity! attains enhanced capabilities!

establishes relationships and se$eral leadership style changes take place 09ion 2))&1. This is the time in team6s de$elopment stage hen a successor leader may be produced by a team and the leaders pre$iously made can mo$e toards de$elopment of another ne team 0Cotton 2))+1. Stage 1 is forming here there is high dependence of the team on leaders and there is less

agreement on the goals of the team hen not suggested by the leader 0Costa 2)()1. There is also no clear idea about team roles and responsibilities. A lot of doubts in team members e*ist hich the leader needs to address ithout ignoring processes. The second stage is storming  herein decision making begins but making decisions is difficult.

This is also the stage hen conflicts arise and the leader needs to clarify e$ery uestion imposed  by the team members in order to pre$ent conflicts from groing. Compromising should be kept as a priority by coaching being gi$en by the leader 09e$ine 2)()1. Stage 3 is norming  herein agreement begins to form and leader facilitation is enhanced.

Indi$idual team members acknoledge their roles and responsibilities due to hich conflict does not arise. erforming is the fourth stage  here teams are aare strategically and ha$e knoledge of 

hat they further need to do. There is a shared $ision of the team members and they do not reuire consistent super$ision of the leader. !d"ourning is the # th stage of the model  herein team break8up takes place hen successful

completion of team task has been attained 0Idrissou et al 2)((a1. The leadership style in this stage is empathetic. Insecurity is a common feeling amongst team members in this stage leading toards an*iety and anger hich may often become conflict.


 Analyzing work groups

According to -cott eck! on the contrary to Tuckman6s model! is the de$elopment model of  groups. A group ith se$eral strangers aggregated together for creating a group has to be face  differ dif ferent ent phases phases 0Idris 0Idrissou sou et al 2)((a1 2)((a1.. The first first phase phase is pseudo8 pseudo8com commun munity ity herei herein n the important dynamic lies in a$oidance of conflict. Group members are in harmony to each other  and try to a$oid any conflict. Group members deliberately try to beha$e as good as possible to let e$erything function in a smooth manner. The stage can be characterized by generalization and  platitudes 0,onito et al 2))21. Chaos is the second phase of this model here the indi$idual differ dif ference encess slight slightly ly start start to emerge emerge.. /urthe /urtherr in the stage stage the group group mo$es mo$es int into o confli conflict ct of  deliberate nature in order to sho superiority of one group member o$er the other. :embers in this phase often blame the leader and try to get him or her replaced. #mptiness is the third phase and it is only by this phase that a group can finally mo$e to its final phase of forming a true group 0Craps et al 2))41.

$onflict and negotiation negotiationss Identificatio Identification n Accord Acc ording ing to Gray et al! 2));! 2));! $onflict is defined traditionally as the incompatible acti$ity  perception beteen ork groups ith regard to aims! perceptions and beliefs hich can cause a  barrier toards effecti$e goal g oal achie$ement 0Grey et al! 2));1. The basis of conflict 0as cited in ,onito et al 2))21 is on interaction. utnam ut nam!! (&%+! (&%+! led toard toardss delineat delineating ing conflic conflictt managem management ent to be ter termed med as negoti negotiati ation on characterized charact erized through e*changing e*changing propos proposals als or counterpropo counterproposals sals as a ay to reach a settlement settlement hich satisfies the ork groups and in$ol$ed teams 0,ailey 2));1. Conflict in$ol$es different  perceptions according to <eitt et e t aall 2 2)() )() hich are inclusi$e of traditional perception! human relations and conflicting interactionist $ies 0Craps et al 2))41. According to /igure 2! $onflict %esolution stages by negotiation are not only essential for an organization but also for indi$idual members in a team or a group. The figure clearly illustrates that there are + stages by hich conflict can be resol$ed. =oe$er! there are fi$e stages of  conflict itself 0,onito et al! 2))21. The first stage is the latent stage here people can be under  conflict ithout knoing that they are.


0/igure 25 Conflict 'esolution -tages by >egotiation1 0-ource5 09a$is et al 2)((11 2 )((11

Ther Th eree comes comes a po poin int! t! ofte often n af afte terr a stal stalema emate te is re reac ached hed!! he here re th thee pa part rtie iess de deci cide de to tr try y negotiation to attempt to resol$e the conflict. The process of initiating negotiation can be difficult as it may be interpreted as a sign of eakness. This is one reason hy it is often useful for third  parties to become in$ol$ed. The timing of this step is crucial. 'esolution can only be achie$ed if the parties are illing to negotiation. In order for the conditions to be ripe! there must be both a perception on all sides that the present course is unsustainable! and a perception that there is a suitable ?ay out? of the conflict. In some instances! participants realize their course of action cannot succeed and they initiate discussion. At other times! outside inter$eners may bring the parties to the negotiating table. The timing is critical hoe$er! because if negotiation is started too early! before both  parties are ready! it is likely to fail. And repeated failed negotiation efforts reinforce the notion that the conflict is intractable and can make resolution more difficult by discouraging further  efforts.  >egotiation may lead to a settlement! but may also simply lead to a pause in the conflict. If the latter! there is a relati$ely good chance the conflict may cycle c ycle back to escalation at a later time.


 >egotiations generally go through a series of stages5 each group decides on its position@ determ det ermine iness its altern alternati ati$es $es.. nce nce togeth together er ith ith the other other party party!! they share share their their positi positions ons!! consider options! e*change concessions! perhaps reach an accord! and implement it. A number number of theori theories es ha$e ha$e emerge emerged d to underst understand and negoti negotiati ating ng tactic tactics! s! their their str streng engths ths and eaknesses! as ell as ho to respond eaknesses! respond to them. Generally Generally speaking! negotiations negotiations are comple*! comple*! dran8out processes and a broad range of factors make each somehat uniue. Their shape depends upon the procedures that ha$e become institutionalized! the number of parties and number of representati$es present! the scope of issues under discussion! the degree to hich it is  part of a broader frameork of negotiations! and the e*tent to hich they are taking tak ing place in the  public eye. &'ample: An employee from customer care department rongly acknoledges the complaint of 

a client. This is still not knon to the customer nor the manager and the conflict has not arisen still but it ill 09a$is et al 2)((1. The second stage is the percei$ed stage of conflict. /elt stage is the third stage after hich are the stages namely! manifestation and aftermath. As per figure 2! the first stage to resol$e conflict is to analyze first the condition and situation 0,odtker et al! (&&;1. The second stage lies in cognition and personalization. The third! fourth and fifth stages are connected to each other and ithout the completion of third! the fourth and fifth stages cannot follo because at the third stage the initial conflict barriers are remo$ed.

!nal()ing relationship *et+een +ork groups and teams, conflict and negotiations Acco Ac cord rdin ing g to u utn tnam am an and d 'olo 'oloff ff!! ne negot gotia iati tion on ta takes kes pl plac acee hen hen more more th than an one pa part rtie iess interdepende inter dependently ntly percei$e the goals of ork groups to be incompatible incompatible 0Aarts 0Aarts et al 2)(1. This leads lea ds toard toardss the reuir reuireme ement nt to negoti negotiate ate in the sit situat uation ion to reach reach a mutual mutual satisf satisfact action ion  perception. /isher et al! (&&( 0as cited in ,aron et al 2))"1! describe negotiation to be characterized through interdependence hich e*ists at the time of conflict beteen to or more


than to parties as these parties essentially reuire to ork cooperati$ely e$en though they are fighting to meet different ends 0,ean et al 2))"1.  =air et al! 2)()! hoe$er presented in their  resear res earch ch that that there there e*ists e*ists a relati relations onship hip betee beteen n negoti negotiati ation on and commun communica icatio tion n to sol$e sol$e confli con flicts cts betee beteen n ork ork groups groups and teams teams 0,iBls 0,iBlsma ma et al 2)((1. 2)((1. With With proper proper planni planning ng and communication in a structured manner! it becomes possible to negotiate 0<eicki et al 2)((1. =oe$er! according to <ee et al! 2))+! ork group6s influences in effecti$e management of  employees hich as pro$ed by using dominant patterns of beha$ior! ork group6s dynamics and elaborate conflicts leading toards ad$erse impact on the organization culture 0Andisani 2))%1. The impact of ork teams and groups orks is either ad$erse or positi$e! depending upon the manner in hich teams are managed effecti$ely ithin organization cultures. #mpirical e$idences ha$e helped in supporting the relationship e*isting beteen conflicts and  producti$ity of team along ith team satisfaction but 0,anker et al (&&"1! these conflicts cannot  be resulted into effecti$e management of employees unless negotiation process is made applicable 0Cohen 2))41. The relationship beteen ork group and conflict as described by the researchers resea rchers of Columbian Columbian ni$ersity ni$ersity states states that ork groups ha$e group dynamics dynamics in$ol$ed in$ol$ed in them but ithout effecti$e management of these ork groups and team orks! conflict is bound to e*ist 0Carron et al 2))1.

&valuating impact of +ork groups and teams on organi)ation culture :ost issues in ork places arise not because employees do not ha$e the capability of performing their ork appropriately but because employees in ork groups and teams often cannot get along ith other employees 0Caron et al 2)()1. This is the main impact of +ork groups and teams on effective management of emplo(ees ithin an organization culture. Teams and ork groups

are often di$ersified in nature and employees react differently to this di$ersification. #*periences of life and culture are to factors that in turn influence ork groups and teams and these to factors are actually responsible for the reaction of each member in the group and team 0Argyris 2));1. The problem of di$ersity is a significant one and this has also been e*plained ith the help of a conceptual problem.


!ccording to o)lo+ski and lein, -... ! an impact of conceptual problem is faced by groups

and teams orking together to achie$e a goal. This impact is negati$e in nature and it affects the  performance and producti$ity of g group roup members and team members. Additionally! Additionally! 3ozloski et al! 2))) it has been clearly stated that coordination lacking beteen members of team mostly lead le adss toar toards ds team team fa fail ilur ures es an and d inef ineffi fici cient ent manag managem emen entt of te team am.. In addit additio ion! n! th ther eree is a significant impact of team ork and group ork on the ay in hich team members and group members are managed effecti$ely 0,ailey et al 2)))1. When orking in a team! members in a team can ha$e $arious perceptions! some team members may ork more hile others don6t ork  at all and in some situations team ork may often take more time 0,ailey et al 2)))1. These are some barriers imposed by orking in teams and groups on effecti$e team member or group member management 0Aarts et al 2)(1.

0/igure +5 Team effecti$eness model1 0-ource5 Caron et al 2)()1 The /igure + represents team effecti$eness model herein it is clearly e$ident that ithin the competiti$e en$ironment of an organization! design and processes allocated to a team are the  basics that lead toards finally effecti$eness in team management manag ement 0Andisani 2))%1. This model helps in analyzing the basic elements such as enhanced systems of communication and proper 


style of leadership can be implemented as per the size and composition of a team by de$eloping and norming the team for effecti$e management 0Caron et al 2)()1. An e*ample here can be uoted here of Apple hich has been knon across the orld in all competiti$e realms to be a culture mediator as the organization has been founded on strong  beliefs! set of patterns! responsibilities and $alues 0Carron et al 2)()1. In this globalized orld! the reuirement is to a$oid cultural clash because teams and ork groups are formulated of  di$erse backgrounds and cultures 0Asah et al 2)(21. Apple on the contrary has managed to imbibe the cultural perspecti$e in the minds of its members that it is important to focus on a shared goal 0Andisani 2))%1. When teams and ork groups conflict ith each other at Apple! a negotiation process is implemented such as arbitration or mediation hich are both third party models of negotiation to manage conflict.

&valuating impact of conflict and negotiations on organi)ation culture impact act of $onflic $onflictt and negotia negotiation tion  is e$id process ss of effective emplo(ee emplo(ee The imp e$iden entt on the proce 0Argyris is 2));1. This This influe influence nce is caused caused by the conflicting interests of team management  0Argyr mem*ers and group mem*ers that does not allo the group or team to produce something

 positi$e to reach to the goal oriented 0Dan 0Dan aassen 2)((b1. The first impact of conflict on effecti$e management of employees is deteriorated performance of emplo(ees/  =oe$er! conflict and negotiation are both processes that do slo the general functions of an organization 0Dan aassen 2)((b1. The relationship beteen conflict and negotiation is e$ident from this perspecti$e but this relationship ad$ersely affects management of di$erse employees  because members of the groups as ell as the teams ha$e a tendency to fall into conflict hen cultural di$ersity is present 0,iBlsma et al! 2)((1. In such a situation! it is the duty of a leader to negotiate the conflict and resol$e it. 0egotiation on the other hand! impacts management of emplo(ees *( distracting their focus

from organizational goals and their indi$idual goals. >egotiation from the perspecti$e of Thibaut and Walker! (&;+ paradigm! can be best done by adopting mediation and arbitration as third  party processes of >egotiation 0Dan 0Dan aassen 2)((b1. An An e*ample here can be of #nron hen the company as only a company dealing ith pipelines and it mainly lost the contract of setting up itself in India because authorities in the local en$ironment of India felt that the organization is trying the fasten up the negotiation process 0=amilton et al 2)()1.


$onclusion Indi$idual members of organizations that are either orking ithout ork group collaboration of  team ork! all in$ol$e different perspecti$es and beliefs but hen orking under the same organization! culture of an organization often influences the ay in hich people think! belie$e and respond 09rucker 2))%1. As e$ident from the perspecti$e of this persuasi$e report! there e*ists an e$ident relationship beteen culture of an organization ith attributes such as discussed i.e ork groups and teams! conflict and negotiation 0/rancois et al 2));1. Work groups and teams are different to each other e$en though they are often used interchangeably 0Andrisani 2))%1. In a orking group! each member orks on their shared $isions and goals rather than orking to achie$e indi$idual goals hereas in a team ork! the focus of indi$idual members is on their goals and obBecti$es. Conflict and negotiation on the other hand are both related to group ork and team ork 0Applebaum 2)(41 0,ean et al 2))"1. The influence of orking groups and team ork is e$idently e$idently seen as positi$e positi$e as ell as negati$e 0Antoni 2)()1. When members members in a team or a group are not managed effecti$ely then it leads toards de$elopment of conflict hich not only hampers the producti$ity of a team but also an organization on the hole. Groups ought to be percei$ed and coordinated inside their associations 0earce E 'a$lin (&%;1. Associations need to unmistakably characterize their desires and instruments of responsibility for  all groups 09e :euse E /utrell /utrell (&&)1. =ierarchica =ierarchicall society society needs to change imparted imparted uali ualities ties into beha$ioral standards 0,rill (&;"1. /or instance! group achie$ement is encouraged by a society societ y that fuses imparted imparted encounters encounters of achie$ement. achie$ement. In times of financial financial realism! realism! there may  be social clash and conflict beteen standards of keeping up clinical benchmarks and holding fast to the health aareness association7s mission 0/irth8Cozens (&&%1. Colleagues ith higher  status likeise ha$e less respect for group standards and may intensify inard clash 03ane (&;+1. Collab Col labora oratio tion n is a comple* comple* sensat sensation ion.. -trong -trong author authorita itati$ ti$ee str struct ucture uress and ideal ideal indi$i indi$idual dual commitments set the scene for compelling collaboration. =ealth aareness groups reuire a reasonable reason that fuses particular symptomatic gatherings and parts of patient consideration. At the point hen groups ha$e an acceptable reason that is steady ith the association7s mission! they can be all the more ob$iously coordinated! backed and resourced. /urther! key arranging  procedures can elucidate the arrangement of different groups inside human ser$ices associations.


Authority styles and e*amples need to be uneui$ocal and suitable to the group7s formati$e stage. In a perfect orld! the group pioneer ought to be properly gifted and all colleagues reuire unmistakably outlined and $ital parts. Groups are more effecti$e ith the base number of p parts arts to meet their moti$ation and participation ought to be consistently cleared up in light of patient needs. Colleagues should at the same time percei$e and esteem their commitment to the group. With sufficient sufficient self knoledge!  people can trust and admiration ad miration the commitments of their partners. Consistent formal and casual contact helps parts to percei$e their on and an d others7 commitments to patient consideration. At the  point hen people feel sure of the reuirement for all colleagues! they comprehend the profits of  filling in as a group. $er the long haul! duty fortifies compelling cooperation. When groups ha$e created clear structures! they ha$e to keep up e*press techniues through concurred and formal frameorks of correspondence and co8appointment. redictable training and backing for group building and impro$ement ought to be a$ailable for all social insurance specialists. At At the point hen all colleagues are strong! make choices mutually and o$ersee clash! the the grou group p is more more po poe erf rful ul.. ,oth ,oth pe peop ople le an and d th thee gr grou oup p ne need ed st stan anda dard rd cr crit itic icis ism m an and d distinguis dist inguishment hment of their ad$ancement ad$ancement toards the group7s group7s obBecti$es. obBecti$es. At last! last! there is a need to manufacture and keep up poerful groups to amplify the master abilities of social insurance e*perts in gathering comple* patient needs. Group ad$ancement and e*ecution can be ad$anced through training if there is learning of the most essential attributes of cooperation in human ser$ic ser $ices es setti settings ngs.. atien atientt consid considera eratio tion n ill ill at last last be upgrade upgraded d through through the co8ord co8ordina inated ted endea$ors of compelling health aareness groups.

'obinson! 'obins on! G.! E 'obinso 'obinson! n! -.! (&&4! (&&4! >otes >otes and handout handoutss for proBec proBectt managem management ent course course sponsored by the -chool of #ngineering -cience and presented by the department of Continuing -tudies! -imon /raser ni$ersity! pp."8(4. Thamhain! =.F.! 2))4! <inkages of proBect en$ironment to team performance5 <essons for team leadership. International Fournal of roBect :anagement! 220;1! pp +8+44.


%eferences (. Aarts! Aarts! >.! Do Dodouhe! -.! E <eeuis! <eeuis! C.! 2)(! Trust Trust and and hidden conflict conflict in participato participatory ry natural resources management5 The case of the endBari national park 0>1 in ,enin. /orest olicy and #conomics. 2;! "+8;4. 2. Asah! -. T.! T.! ,engston! ,engston! 9. >.! >.! Wen Wendt! dt! 3.! E >elson! >elson! 3. C.! 2)(2! 9iagnost 9iagnostic ic reframing reframing of  intrac intractabl tablee en$ironm en$ironmenta entall problem problems5 s5 case case of a contest contested ed multip multipart arty y public public land8u land8use se Conflict! Fournal of #n$ironmental :anagement! ()%! ()%8((&. . Argyr Argyris! is! C.! 2));! 2));! ersonali ersonality ty and organi organizati zation5 on5 The conflict conflict beteen beteen system system and the indi$idual. >e ork5 =arper and 'o. 4. Andrisa Andrisani! ni! . F.! F.! 2))%! 2))%! Work Work attitudes attitudes and labor market market e*perie e*perience5 nce5 #$idenc #$idencee from from the longitudinal >e o ork5 rk5ic raeger. +. national Antoni! Antoni! C. =.! 2)()! sur$eys. -ocial -ocial and econom economic effects effects of introduci introducing ng semi8autonom semi8autonomous ous ork  groups. Heitschrift fur Arbeits and nd rganisationspsychologie! 4(01! ((8(42. ". Appleba Applebaum! um! #. E ,att! ,att! '.! 2)(4! The ne Americ American an orkplac orkplace5 e5 Trans Transfor formi ming ng ork  systems in the nited -tates. Ithaca! >5 Cornel I<' ress. ;. ,ailey ,ailey!! T.! T.! ,erg! ,erg! .! and 3alleber 3alleberg! g! A.! 2)))! 2)))! :an :anufa ufactur cturing ing ad$antage5 ad$antage5 Why higher   performance ork systems pay off. Ithaca! >5 >5 Cornell ni ni$ersity $ersity ress. %. ,and ,andur ura! a! A.! 2)(2 2)(2!! -e -elf lf8e 8eff ffic icac acy y mech mechan anis ism m in hu huma man n ag agen ency cy!! The The Amer eric ican an sychologist! ;021! (228(4; &. ,anker ,anker!! '. 9.! /ield! /ield! F. :.! -chroede -chroeder! r! '. G.! G.! E -inha! -inha! 3. 3. 0(&&"1. 0(&&"1. Impact Impact of ork  ork  teams on manufacturing performance. Academy of :anagement Fournal! 2&041! %";8%&). (). ,aron! ,aron! '. :. E 3enny 3enny!! 9. A.! 2))"! 2))"! The moderato moderator8 r8med mediat iator or $ariabl $ariablee distin distincti ction on in social psychological research5 Conceptual! strategic and statistical considerations. Fournal of ersonality and -ocial -o cial sychology! +(! ((;8((%2. ((. ((. ,ea ,ean! n! C. F.! E =amilt =amilton! on! /. #.! 2))"! 2))"! <eader <eader framing framing and folloer folloer sense making5 making5 'esponse to donsizing in the bra$e ne orkplace. =uman 'elations! +& 01! 2(84&. (2. ,iBlsma! ,iBlsma! '. :.! ,ots! . W. W. G.! Wolters! olters! =. A.! E =oekstra! =oekstra! A.. A..! 2)((! 2)((! An empirical empirical analys anal ysis is of st stakeh akehold olders ers77 influe influence nce on policy policy de$elop de$elopmen ment5 t5 The role role of uncerta uncertaint inty y handling.





http5KK.ecologyandsociety.or ecologyandsociety.orgK$ol("Kiss(Kart+(K gK$ol("Kiss(Kart+(K http5KK.






(. ,odtker! A. :.! E Fameson! F. 3.! (&&;! :ediation as mutual influence5 'ee*amining the use of framing and reframing. :ediation Luarterly! (4 01! 2;M24&. (4. ,onito! F. A.! A.! E -anders! '. #.! 2))2! -peakers7 footing in a collaborati$e riting riting task5 A resource for addressing disagreement hile a$oiding conflict. 'esearch on <anguage and -ocial Interaction! + 041! 4%(8+(4. (+. ,ailey! 9. #.! 2));! What makes teams ork5 Group Group effecti$eness research from tthe he shop floor to the e*ecuti$e suite! Fournal of :anagement! :anag ement! 201! 2&82&). (". ,rill ,rill >I (&;"! (&;"! Tea eamo mork5 rk5 Worki Working ng Togeth ogether er in the =uman =uman -er$ic -er$ices! es! F, <ippin <ippincot cott! t! hiladelphia. (;. Craps! Craps! :.! E 9ercon 9ercon!! G.! 2))4! =o issues issues get framed framed and refram reframed ed hen hen differ different ent communities meet5 A multi8le$el analysis of a collaborati$e soil conser$ation initiati$e in the #cuadorian Andes. Fournal of Community E Applied -ocial sychology! (4 01! (;;8 (&2. (%. Carron! A. D. D.! ,raley! <. '.! #ys! :. A.! ,ray! -.! 9orsch! 3.! #stabrooks! .! .! =all! C. '.!=ardy! F.! =ausenblas! =.! :adison! '.! aske$ich! 9.! E atterson! :. :.! 2))! 9o indi$idual perceptions of group cohesion reflect shared beliefsN! -mall Group 'esearch! 4041! 4"%84&". (&. Cohen! -. G.! 2))4! 9esigning 9esigning effecti$e effecti$e self8managing self8managing ork teams. In :. :. ,eyerlei ,eyerlein n and 9. A. Fohnson! 0#ds.1! Ad$ances in Interdisciplinary -tudies of Work Teams! (! Greenick! CT5 FIA ress! ()8((%. 2). Cordery! F. <.! :ueller! :ueller! W. W. -.! E -mith! <. :.! 2)((! Attitudinal Attitudinal and beha$ioral effects of  autonomous group orking5 A longitudinal longitudinal field study! Academy of :anagement :anagemen t Fournal! 4021! 4"4. 2(. Costa! C. C.! 2)()! Work Work team trust and effecti$eness! ersonnel 'e$ie 'e$ie!! 20+1! ")+842. 22. Cotton! Cotton! F. <.! 2))+! articipation7s articipation7s effe effect ct on performance performance and satisfaction! satisfaction! Academy Academy of  :anagement 'e$ie! 2)021! 2;"82;%. 2. 9a$is! 9a$is! '.! and /ranks! G.! 2)((! The Costs of Conflict Conflict ith <ocal Communit Communities ies in the #*tracti$e Industry! resented at the /irst International -eminar on -ocial 'esponsibility in :in :ining ing55 -antia -antiago! go! Chile! Chile! A$ailabl ailablee at5 http5KK.shiftproBect.orgKpublicationKcosts8 conflict8local8communities8e*tracti$e8industry 24. 9e :euse 3 E /utrell 9 (&&)! OWork OWork Teams5 Teams5 Applications Applications and #ffecti$eness6! American sychologist! $ol 4+! no 2! pp (2)8(. 2+. 9eulf! 9eulf! A.! E ,ouen! ,ouen! '.! 2)(2! Issue framing framing in con$ersation con$ersationss for change5 9iscursi 9iscursi$e $e interaction strategies for ?doing differences?. The Fournal of Applied ,eha$ioral -cience! 4% 021! ("%8(&.


2". 9ruckman! 9ruckman! 9.! 2))&! :essage framing surroundin surrounding g the slo I accords! The Fournal of  Conflict 'esolution! + 0(1! pp ((&8(4+. 2;. 9rake! 9rake! <. #.! E 9onohu 9onohue! e! W. A.! (&&"! (&&"! Communic Communicati ati$e $e framin framing g theory theory in conflic conflictt resolution. Communication 'esearch! 2 01! pp 2&;822. 2%. 9onohue! 9onohue! W. A.! A.! 2))! The promise of an interaction8bas interaction8based ed approach approach to negotiation! negotiation! International Fournal of Conflict :anagement! (4 0K41! pp (";8(;". 2&. 9onohue! 9onohue! W. A.! A.! 2)((! An interactionis interactionistt approach to frames. frames. In W. A. 9onohue! 9onohue! '. G. 'ogan E -. 3aufman 0#ds.1! /raming matters5 erspecti$es on negotiation research and  practice in communication! pp. 48+)! >e ork5 ork5 eter < <ang ang ). 9e$ine! 9e$ine! 9. F.! 2)()! A re$ie re$ie and integration integration of classification classification systems systems rele$ant to teams in organizations. Group 9ynamics5 Theory! 'esearch and ractice! "041! 2&(8(). (. 9ion! 3. <.! 2))&! Group cohesion5 cohesion5 /rom Pfield Pfield of forcesQ forcesQ to multidimens multidimensional ional construct! construct! Group 9ynamics5 Theory! 'esearch! and ractice! 40(1! ;82". 2. 9orman! 9orman! C. E Hapf! 9.! 2))&! -ocial support! support! social stressors stressors at ork! and depressi$e depressi$e symptoms5 Testing for main and moderating effects ith structural euations in a three a$e longitudinal study. Fournal of Applied sychology! %40"1! %;48%%4. . 9rucker! .! .! 2))%! The coming of the ne organization. =ar$ard ,usiness 'e$ie! ""0(1! 4+8 +. 4. #lden! :.! 2)((! olitical olitical efficacy efficacy at ork5 The connection beteen more autonomo autonomous us forms for ms of orkpl orkplace ace organi organizat zation ion and a more more parti particip cipato atory ry politi politics! cs! The Ameri American can olitical -cience 'e$ie! ;+0(1! 48+%. +. #lloy! #lloy! 9. /. /.!! and Terpenin Terpening! g! W.! W.! 2)()! A causal causal model of burnout among self8manage self8managed d ork team members. Fournal of sychology! (+01! 2(84. ". #lmuti! #lmuti! 9.! 2)(! Impact of Internet aided self8managed self8managed teams on uality of ork8life ork8life and performance. Fournal of ,usiness -trategies! 2)021! ((&. ;. /arrell! /arrell! A. 9.! 2))4! -tructural -tructural euation modeling modeling ith longitudinal longitudinal data5 strategies strategies for  e*amining e*amin ing group differences differences and reciprocal reciprocal relationships. relationships. Fournal of Consul Consulting ting and Clinical sychology! "2! ! 4;;84%;. %. #saco$e! #saco$e! A. W.! W.! 2))4! 9ialogic 9ialogic framing5 framing5 The framingKco framingKcounter unter8fra 8framing ming of Opartial8b Opartial8birth irth66 abortion. -ociological Inuiry! ;4 0(1! ;)8()(. &. #ys! :. A.! ,ray! -.! 9orsch! 3.! #stabrooks #stabrooks!! .! =all! C. '.!=ardy! '.!=ardy! F.! =ausen =ausenblas! blas! =.! :adison! '.! aske$ich! 9.! and atterson! :. :.! 2))! 9o indi$idual perceptions of  group cohesion reflect shared beliefsN! -mall Group 'esearch! 4041! 4"%84&". 4). /irth8Cozens F (&&%! OCelebrating OCelebrating teamork6! Luality in =ealth Care! $ol ;! supplement!  pp -8-;.


4(. /ranRois! G.! ahl8Wostl! ahl8Wostl! C.! Taillieu! T.! T.! 2));! A framing approach to cross disciplinary research collaboration5 #*periences from a large8scale research proBect on adapti$e ater  management.









http5KK. http5KK.ecologyandsociety.or ecologyandsociety.orgK$ol(2Kiss2Kart(4K gK$ol(2Kiss2Kart(4K 42. Gray Gray ,.! utnam! utnam! <.! E ,ouen ,ouen!! '.! 2)((a! 2)((a! An int intera eracti ctional onal approach approach to frami framing ng in conflict and negotiation. In W. A. 9onohue! '. G. 'ogan E -. 3aufman 0#ds.1! /raming matters5 erspecti$es on negotiation research and practice in communication! pp. ;8!  >e ork5 ork5 eter <ang 4. Griffin! Griffin! :. A.! atterson! atterson! :. G.! E West! West! :. A.! 2))&! Fob satisfactio satisfaction n and teamork5 The role of super$isor support. Fournal of rganizational ,eha$ior! 220+1! +;8++). 44. Guzzo! Guzzo! '. A. E 9ickso 9ickson! n! :. W.! 2))"! 2))"! Tea eams ms in organi organizati zations ons55 'ecent 'ecent researc research h on  performance and effecti$eness. Annual Annual 'e$ie of sychology! 4;! );8%. 4+. =ackman! =ackman! F. '.! 2));! The design design of ork teams. In F. W. <orsch <orsch 0#d.1! 0#d.1! =andbook of  rganizational ,eha$ior! #ngleood Cliffs! >F5 rentice =all. 4". =amilt =amilton! on! ,. =.! >ickerso >ickerson! n! F. A.! E an! an! =.! 2)()! Team Team incenti incenti$es $es and orker  orker  he hete tero roge genei neity ty55 An empi empiri rica call an analy alysi siss of the the im impac pactt of te team amss on pr prod oduc ucti ti$i $ity ty an and d  participation. The Fournal of olitical #conomy! #conomy! (((01! (((01! 4"+84&;. 4;. =arter =arter!! F. 3.! -chmidt -chmidt!! /. <.! E =ayes! =ayes! T. <.! 2))2! 2))2! ,us ,usine iness ss8un 8unit8 it8le$ le$el el relati relations onship hip  beteen employee satisfaction! employee engagement! and business outcomes5 A meta8 analysis! Fournal of Applied sychology! %;021! 2"%82;&. 4%. =askins! =askins! :. #. E <iedtka! F.! 2))%! ,eyond teams5 Toa Toard rd an ethic of collaboratio collaboration. n. rganizational 9ynamics! 2"041! 48+(. 4&. =oobler! =oobler! G. 9.! 2))2! 'elational frames frames and their ethical ethical implications implications in internatio international nal negotiation5 An analysis based on the slo II negotiations! International >egotiation! ; 021! pp (48(";. +). Idri Idriss ssou ou!! <. <.!! Aar arts ts!! >. >.!! $an a aas asse sen! n! A. A.!! E <e <eeu eui is! s! C. C.!! 2) 2)(( ((a! a! The The di disc scur ursi si$e $e construction of conflict in participatory forest management5 The case of the Agoua /orest restoration in ,enin. Conser$ation and -ociety! & 021! ((&8((. +(. 3ane 'A (&;+! Interprofessional Teamork! Teamork! -yracuse ni$ersity! >e ork. ork. +2. 3Srreman! 3Srreman! 9.! E Al$esson! Al$esson! :.! 2))(! :aking nesmakers5 nesmakers5 Con$ersational Con$ersational identity at ork. rganization -tudies! 22 0(1! +&8%&. +. 3atzenb 3atzenbach ach!! F.' and -mith! -mith! 9.3! (&&4! (&&4! The Wisdo Wisdom m of Tea eams5 ms5 Creating Creating the =igh8 erformance rganization. =arper,usiness.


+4. :ancero! :ancero! :.! Crdenas! G.! E -ucozha -ucozhaUay Uay!! 9.! 2)((b! /ragmentatio /ragmentation n and connection connection of  frames in collaborati$e ater go$ernance5 A case study of ri$er catchment management in -outhern #cuador. International 'e$ie of Administrati$e Administrati$e -ciences! ;; 0(1! pp +)8;+. +) 8;+. ++. earce earce FA E 'a$lin 'a$lin #C (&%;! (&%;! OThe OThe 9esign 9esign and Acti$ati Acti$ation on of -elf8' -elf8'egu egulat lating ing Wor ork  k  Groups6! =uman 'elations! $ol 4)! no ((! pp ;+(8;%2. +". utnam utnam!! <. <. <.!! <e <ei icki cki!! '. '.!! Aar arts ts!! >. >.!! ,ou ,ouen en!! '. '.!! E Woer erkum kum!! $an! $an! C. C.!! 2)) 2))&! &! 9isent 9is entangl angling ing approac approaches hes to frami framing ng in confli conflict ct and negoti negotiati ation on resear research5 ch5 A meta8 meta8  paradigmatic perspecti$e. =uman 'elations! "2 021! pp (++8(&. +;. 'oberto! 'oberto! A. F.! (&&! 'elational 'elational de$elopment de$elopment as negotiated negotiated order in hostage hostage negotiation! negotiation! =uman Communication 'esearch! 2) 021! pp (;+8(&%. +%. Thamhain! Thamhain! =.F. 02))41. <inkages of proBect en$ironment en$ironment to performance performance55 <essons for  team leadership. International Fournal of roBect :anagement! 220;1! +8+44. + 8+44. +&. Tuckman! ,. 0(&"+1. 9e$elopmental seuence in small groups. American sychological Association! sychological ,ulletin! "0"1! pp. %4M&&. "). Dan aassen! aassen! A.! 2)((b! /rom cohesion cohesion to conflict in participato participatory ry forest management5 The case of uVmV -upVrieur and >79ali 0->1 forests in ,enin. /orest olicy and #conomics! ( 0;1! +2+8+4. "(. Wills! Wills! T. A.! A.! 2))+! -tress! -ocial -upport and the ,uffering ,uffering =ypothesis! =ypothesis! sychological sychological ,ulletin! &%021! ()8+;.


!ppendi' Table Table (5 :odels of >egotiation

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on


Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on


Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in