PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate the influence of managers' leadership styles (transformational, transactional and laissez‐faire) on both the level and the nature of workplace conflicts (cognitive and relational in nature).Design/methodology/approachData are collected from hospital employees in Canada. A total of 1,031 completed questionnaires are received, representing a response rate of 46 percent. The hypothesis is tested using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple regressions.FindingsThe results indicate that the two conflict dimensions do not derive completely from the same mechanisms, since only two out of the eight leadership dimensions evaluated influence both cognitive and relational conflicts. On the one hand, inspirational motivation has a negative impact on cognitive conflicts while intellectual stimulation and passive management by exception seem to foster it. On the other hand, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration negatively influence relational conflicts whereas management by exception‐active and management by exception‐passive impact it positively.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample comprises a single organization and the data are collected at one point in time. Also, the model's variables are assessed by the same source (employees).Practical implicationsThe results of this research highlight the importance of a supervisor's ability to introduce a common vision and demonstrate individualized consideration to reduce workplace conflict during periods of organizational change.Originality/valueAlthough researchers stress that conflict management represents an important role for leaders, very few empirical studies have examined how leadership influences workplace conflicts.
Purpose -Mediators' impartiality and empathy are two classical factors in the parties' trust in mediators. However, mediators are often torn between being impartial and being empathetic. The aim of this paper is to explore this empirically. Design/methodology/approach -This study empirically tests the strategic use of caucus to improve the interaction between impartiality and empathy by splitting them into two phases: impartiality in joint sessions and empathy in caucus. Findings -The strategy did create significant synergy between impartiality and empathy with the main impact of reducing the time needed to reach an agreement. Research limitations/implications -All research data come from workplace mediation and from the same organization. Although it can be reasonably postulated that the results can be generalized to other mediation settings, this remains to be proven. Practical implications -When mediators use the trust caucus strategy, impartiality and empathy work better together and parties put more weight on empathy than on impartiality. While the use of the trust caucus does not increase the likelihood of reaching agreement, it does significantly decrease the time needed to conclude an agreement. Originality/value -The study uses a quasi-experimental design to test its hypothesis. Furthermore, the study uses real mediation cases.
For workplace mediation programs, success is most often measured by assessing the agreement rate. However, it is unlikely that all signed agreements are of equal quality. Starting with the principle that the “success” of a mediation program cannot be limited to its agreement rate, we designed a study to assess the quality of mediation agreements. This article uses a questionnaire based on a five‐dimension framework (mediator’s usefulness, procedural justice, satisfaction with agreement, confidence in agreement, and reconciliation between parties) to conduct a cluster analysis of a sample of agreements from a governmental mediation program. Three types of agreement are identified: disappointing, satisfactory, and value‐added agreements. The study’s theoretical contributions as well as its practical implications for mediators and mediation programs are discussed.
Purpose -Parties' respective share of responsibility in a conflict is a topic that many mediators have difficulty approaching from fear of radicalizing discussions. The present paper aims to propose a strategy to help mediators facilitate parties' acknowledgement of their role in the escalation of a conflict. Design/methodology/approach -The strategy is tested using a quasi-experimental design using real case mediation in partnership with Commission des normes du travail du Québec (CNT). Findings -The results indicate that it has a significant impact on the parties' acknowledgement of their share of responsibility, reconciliation and the settlement rate.Research limitations/implications -Although the research design has good external validity, the strategy should be tested in other settings such as family mediation. Practical implications -The results show that the parties' perceptions that they played no role in conflict escalation and that the other is responsible for the whole situation are at the heart of any conflict. Originality/value -This study empirically tests an interesting and valuable approach to mediation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.