MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6963518457 · doi:10.20381/ruor-27961

Understanding Tension and Conflict Management Through Theoretical Triangulation

2022· article· en· W6963518457 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueFamily Business Performance and Succession
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPerspective (graphical)ConstructiveConflict managementDialecticConflict resolution researchOrganizational conflictRole conflictFocus (optics)Conflict resolutionContingencyTriangulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Tensions and conflicts are a regular, but complex, part of organizational life. Triangulating multiple related theories is useful in gaining deeper insights into the complexities of tension or conflict management processes in organizations. This dissertation consists of three related essays that collectively contribute to answering a common research question: How and why tensions or conflicts are experienced and managed in different organizational contexts? The focus is on how three theoretical perspectives (contingency, paradox and dialectic) can be deployed to understand tension or conflict management in different contexts. This topic is relevant for three reasons. First, recent evidence demonstrates that both tensions and conflicts have constructive potential for individual and/or organizational change. Second, conflict studies have been shifting from short-term focused resolution to long-term-oriented transformation. This trend suggests that conflict studies might benefit from tension research, which is often long-term oriented due to the persistence of organizational tensions. Third, the advancement of tension research at the organization level calls for more tension research at the individual level. This presents a good opportunity to complement conflict studies, which mainly focus on individual and team level analyses. The dissertation uses a multi-perspective framework to analyze tension or conflict management in three organizational contexts that are rich in tensions and conflicts: family businesses, innovation in government, and the entrepreneurial university. The contingency perspective features either-or thinking that stresses the importance of making either-or choices according to contingencies. The paradox perspective features both-and thinking which favours strategies that address competing demands simultaneously. The dialectic perspective involves more-than thinking that aims to transcend tensions or conflicts through third parties, reframing, or other workarounds. The study of three different contexts (family business, government, and the university) allows for a better understanding of how different contexts shape the manifestation of tensions and conflicts and influence the choice of tension and conflict management strategies. The first essay (presented in chapter 2 and co-authored with Professor Mark Freel) is based on a literature review of family-related conflicts and how these conflicts are managed in family businesses. The review illustrates how the popularity of certain conflict management strategies is associated with some unique aspects of family businesses, such as the prevalence of relationship conflicts and the relatively high emotional bonding in families. The second essay (presented in chapter 3 and co-authored with Professor Samia Chreim) uses a longitudinal case study to examine how tension management evolves regarding two tensions observed in a government innovation diffusion process: control versus resistance and competing interests among stakeholders. The study demonstrates how tension management strategies evolve from simple to complex through a mechanism of joint learning between innovators and the government. The study also finds that tensions can be leveraged strategically to move the innovation project forward. The third essay (presented in chapter 4 and co-authored with Professor Samia Chreim and Professor Mark Freel) explores how academic and non-academic staff in two Canadian universities manage the reward and resource tensions associated with entrepreneurship-related activities. The study finds that individuals' strategies in managing the reward tension influence the type of entrepreneurship-related activities they engage in, and individuals' strategies in managing the resource tension influence the scale and scope of entrepreneurship-related activities at the university level. The study also illustrates that power relations are dynamic and that the implementation of both-and strategies can help balance power relations in a tension context. Collectively, the three essays in this dissertation shed light on how organizations, teams or individuals manage tensions or conflicts in three organizational contexts featuring hybrid logics (family and business; innovation and bureaucracy; entrepreneurship and scholarship). The multi-perspective framework has proved useful as a tool for analyzing both tension and conflict management. It also helps to frame important new research questions around topics such as how constructive potential is realized, why certain management strategies are more or less popular, and how strategies evolve with different types of tension or conflict.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,063
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,063
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,333

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0630,078
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0120,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,053
Communication savante0,0220,034
Science ouverte0,0060,021
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,172
Tête enseignante GPT0,295
Écart entre enseignants0,123 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Même sujetFamily Business Performance and SuccessionTravaux en français237 207