Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This introduction aims to summarize five studies included in this themed issue that focus on conflict management and performance outcomes. These studies highlight how conflict management research can help organizations perform more effectively. Design/methodology/approach The five selected studies were combined into this single issue so that readers can compare and contrast scholarships from many countries and cultures, including Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, The Netherlands, Norway, and Taiwan to see how conflict management research relates to actual performance outcomes around the world. Findings These studies show that negotiations conducted by two‐person dyads resulted in higher outcomes when compared to negotiations conducted by multi‐person groups. In addition, when negotiators consider more than one issue at a time and use a constructive problem solving approach, they can reach better outcomes. In addition, higher self‐efficacy of the negotiator can increase objective negotiation outcomes, but only to a point beyond which more self‐efficacy can have a negative effect. One dimension of employee work performance, innovation, is shown to have several interesting relationships with other variables. Two studies found that innovative work behaviors had a positive relationship to workplace conflict. One study showed that task conflict seemed to relate to increased innovative work behaviors. Another study found a positive relationship between a broader measure of innovative work behaviors and conflicted with workers. The positive relationship between task conflict and innovative behaviors seemed to increase when there was more support for innovation. In addition, the positive relationship between innovative behavior and conflict with coworkers seem to decrease when there was more distributive justice in workplace rewards. These studies also showed significant relationships between conflict management and subjective outcomes, such as subjective perceptions of negotiations, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and relationships between coworkers. Research limitations/implications These studies outline ways for organizations to design conflict management principles both to increase the objective outcomes of negotiations and to induce their employees to be more innovative at work. Originality/value All five studies used original data not reported elsewhere and gathered in various countries that have not been reported in prior studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".