MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014038788 · doi:10.1108/10444061111126657

Conflict management and performance outcomes

2011· article· en· W2014038788 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Conflict Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationConflict managementPsychologyConstructiveTask (project management)Social psychologyWork (physics)Organizational conflictApplied psychologyPolitical scienceManagementComputer scienceEconomicsProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it