Search results

This paper proposes a broad perspective for studying the influence of culture on the process of conflict management. Three models of conflict management are described, based on the culture framework of Glen (1981). In the confrontational model, conflicts are conceptualized as consisting of subissues, and a sense of reasonable compromise aids resolution despite a confrontational style. In the harmony model, conflict management starts with the minimization of conflict in organizations through norms stressing observance of mutual obligations and status orderings. Conflicts are defined in their totality, and resolution is aided by avoidance and an accommodative style. Less emphasis is placed on procedural justice, as on maintenance of face of self and others. Third parties are used extensively, and their role is more intrusive. In the regulative model, bureaucratic means are used extensively to minimize conflicts or to aid avoidance. Conflicts get defined in terms of general principles, and third party roles are formalized. The implications of the differences among the three models for conflict resolution across cultures and for future research are discussed.

In this chapter, we estimate the allocative efficiency of Spanish airports in the pre-privatization period from 2009 until 2014. The estimation of an input-oriented distance system of equations allows us to calculate different allocative efficiency measures using two approaches. The results show that allocative inefficiencies exist for Spanish airports during this period. Moreover, in breaking down allocative efficiency changes by periods coinciding with different government strategies of privatization, we find important differences. In the initial period, when the government encouraged decentralized management of airports and privatization of the largest airports, allocative efficiency improved (from 2009 to 2012). In the second period, however, when the government focused on centralized airport management and privatization of the system as a whole (from 2012 to 2014), inefficiencies slightly increased again.

The ability to reflect upon and manage their internal functioning may very much help teams contribute to their organizations. This study suggests that managing conflict cooperatively and productively provides a foundation for effective team task reflexivity. 200 employees in 100 work teams in China completed measures of their team's cooperative, competitive, and avoiding approach conflict management and task reflexivity and 100 managers indicated the team's in‐role and extra‐role (organizational citizenship behavior) performance. Results support the theorizing that conflict management can contribute to team task reflexivity. Structural equation analyses were interpreted as suggesting that cooperative conflict management promotes task reflexivity that in turn results in team performance. These results, coupled with previous research, were interpreted as suggesting that cooperative approaches to conflict and task reflexivity are complementary foundations for effective teamwork.

Based on the collectivism‐individualism structure, the present study compared organizational conflict management behaviors between Korea (a collectivistic culture) and the U.S. (an individualistic culture). Employing a three‐way factorial design (Culture type x Relational distance x Power relationship), the present study registered robust effects of culture type in determining one's organizational conflict management behaviors. Specifically, Koreans are found to be extensive users of solution‐orientation strategies, while Americans prefer to use either non‐confrontation or control strategies in dealing with organizational conflicts. Moreover, the data also indicated that Koreans are more sensitive in exercising power when facing conflicts with subordinates in the organization. On the other hand, the effect of relational distance (ingroup vs. outgroup) in determining one's choice of organizational conflict management styles is found to be minimal. Implications of present findings for future intercultural communication research are also discussed.

Introduction: Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) global outbreak poses a danger to millions of people’s health and the uncertainty and financial prudence around the world. Without a doubt, the sickness will place a tremendous strain on healthcare systems, which existing or traditional-based treatments cannot adequately handle. Only intelligence derived from diverse data sources can provide the foundation for rigorous clinical and social responses that optimise the use of constrained healthcare resources, create tailored patient treatment plans, educate policy-makers, and accelerate clinical trials

Purpose: This chapter aims to incorporate innovative practices of artificial intelligence (AI) into local, national, and global healthcare systems that can save lives of people and as well helps in human capital management ways that may be deployed rapidly and effectively with minimal errors.

Methodology: AI technologies and tools play a crucial part in COVID-19 crisis response by assisting with the virus discovery, early detection, and the development of effective medications and therapies. In this chapter, significant issues related to COVID-19 and how they may be addressed by applying HRM practices with recent advances in AI. Also, through a literature review of the recent studies implemented in a similar context, an AI solution is proposed by formulating a conceptual model.

Findings: This chapter offers that the latest AI techniques can assist policy-makers in implementing modern human capital management practices to fight against COVID-19. The goal is to remotely monitor patients utilising gadgets that are embedded with state-of-the-art medical technology. To limit hospital visits, or at least cut them down to a minimum, on the one hand, the health clinic also wants to deliver reliable health information to the doctors before or during virtual consultations.

Conceptually examines the effect of individualism/collectivism on the tenets of equity theory. It is the view of the authors that the equality principle of reward allocation in collectivistic cultures is not a separate method of distribution, but a subset of the theoretically grounded equity principle appropriately integrating the cross‐cultural individualism/collectivism value. To support this position, the authors reduce equity theory to its fundamental elements and illustrate how in dividualism/collectivism separately affects each component. The derived model and subsequent discussion should provide researchers with a theoretical frame work for future empirical studies.

This review article focuses on the factors that affect the selection and implementation of three principles of distributive justice (i.e., equity, equality, and need) to reward systems in group and organizational settings. After presenting an overview of the assumptions, goals, and possible consequences associated with each of the three perspectives, the article then describes the moderating factors influencing distribution rule preferences across four levels of analysis: (1) the interorganizational, (2) the intraorganizational, (3) the work group, and (4) the individual. Some of the variables discussed include cross‐cultural differences, reward system implementation, task interdependency, work group climate, and individual characteristics. This material is then summarized through the use of a new conceptual model for describing allocation rule preferences. The article concludes with suggestions for future research.