A logic-based model for resolving conflicts

Lempp, Frieder

doi:10.1108/ijcma-11-2014-0081

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This method may overcome the deficiencies of qualitative method with the help of objective data, structural analysis and complicated Bayesian computation. The idea of using logic to analyze the structure of conflicts and generate possible solutions is not new to the field of conflict studies (Lempp, 2016).…”

Section: Structure Discovery For Waste Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bayesian-based conflict conversion path discovery for waste management policy implementation in China

Qing

Ling

Liu

et al. 2018

IJCMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to analyze reform path for waste management policy implementation. With reference to the Bayesian theory, this study provides a dynamic policy conversion method through various context settings. Furthermore, this study attempts to present an empirical research paradigm. Design/methodology/approach Matland’s “ambiguity-conflict model” is applied to explain the problems and reform paths of China’s waste management policy implementation. Integrating structure discovery and bibliometrics into qualitative analysis, this study used search data from literature search engine with specific themes to achieve structure learning of Bayesian network with key factors refined in waste management policy. Findings The results show that China’s waste management policy implementation belongs to symbolic implementation with high ambiguity and high conflict. Four basic conversion paths for the waste management policy are proposed, which are classified by length and stability. Then, it is possible to locate the factors, paths and types of policy implementation through involvement analysis with features of each path and each district of policy implementation. Public education holds direct but unstable impact on waste management. Economic incentives hold continuous but gradually diminishing impact. Perceived policy effectiveness plays the crucial role like a central bridge. Resident conditions have a positive impact, which could be enhanced through economic development of China. The impact of subjective norm on waste management is not significant. But subjective norm has the potential breakthrough for solving stagnation of waste classification policy. However, the impacts from each factor may change along with economy growth and technology innovation. Originality/value This study uses the “ambiguity-conflict model” to position China’s waste classification policy and suggests that structure discovery methods help understand feasible reform paths for reform policy. The integration of theoretical analysis and quantitative simulation can achieve a comprehensive analysis of problems and solutions in waste management policy implementation of China. Promotion and education, economic incentives, perceived value, behavior control, subjective norm, perceived policy effectiveness, informal waste recycling system and residential conditions are explored as key factors for waste classification policy implementation as a representative in waste management policy. The role of each key factor and features of each conversion paths are integrated to position reform paths in the ambiguity-conflict model. This work helps to explain the stagnation of waste management policy implementation from the perspective of dynamic structure evolution, and some specific suggestions to get out of stagnation are proposed.

show abstract

Section: Structure Discovery For Waste Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bayesian-based conflict conversion path discovery for waste management policy implementation in China

Qing

Ling

Liu

et al. 2018

IJCMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These causes are primarily related to relational, task, and process difficulties (Mikkelsen & Clegg, 2019). The six conflict dimensions considered in the present study are as follows: communication/Information conflict (Ellegaard & Andersen, 2015;Humphrey, Aime, Cushenbery, Hill, & Fairchild, 2017;Keszey & Biemans, 2016;Kotler et al, 2006); cultural conflict (Beverland et al, 2006;Czinkota & Pinkwart, 2013;Gammelgaard, Kumar, & Worm, 2013;Keszey & Biemans, 2016;Kotler et al, 2006;Wahyuni, Ghauri, & Karsten, 2007); economic conflict (Henry, 2009;Kotler et al, 2006;Lempp, 2016); structural conflict (e.g., Griffin, Phillips, & Gully, 2017;Smikle, 2002;Wall & Callister, 1995); relationship conflict (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008;Keszey & Biemans, 2016;Lau & Cobb, 2010;Simons & Peterson, 2000); task conflict (Caputo, Marzi, Pellegrini, & Rialti, 2018;Dewsnap & Jobber, 2000;Henry, 2009;Lau & Cobb, 2010;Sun et al, 2016).…”

Section: Sources Of Conflict In the Marketing-salesservice Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 92%

Managing marketing–sales–service relationship conflict in a B2B multinational firm

Enyinda

Enyinda²,

Mbah

et al. 2021

Thunderbird Intl Bus Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing conflict in marketing-sales-customer service relationship is pivotal for seamless, end-to-end customer experience, satisfaction of customer changing needs, and business performance. Research examining conflict management in marketingsales-service cross-functional relationships is lacking in B2B multinational firms, and particularly in the electronics industry. This article draws on social exchange theory (SET) to posit that conflict management in a B2B electronics firm marketing-salesservice relationship can be successful if trust, commitment, and reciprocity exist. This article examines factors influencing conflict in the team relationship in the focal firm and how to manage them. Data were collected from the departmental managers and were then analyzed with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)-based multicriteria decision making (MCDM) framework. The findings reveal that the most important factor influencing conflict is task, followed by communication, inter alia. The overall best strategy in managing conflict is collaboration/integration, followed by confrontation. Our research enhances the understanding of conflict factors influencing the focal B2B interdepartmental relationships and the appropriate management strategies. Effectively managing the interdepartmental conflicts can lead to customer satisfaction and improved business performance.

show abstract

“…Economic friction arises from questions about how to share the total budget approved by senior management to support marketing, sales (Kotler et al , 2006) and service departments. Economic conflict is also associated with competition for scarce departmental resources and funding (Lempp, 2016; Henry, 2009; Bercovitch, 1983).…”

Section: Underpinning Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Why cannot we all just get along? Resolving customer-focused team interface conflicts in a B2B firm leveraging AHP-based multi-criteria decision-making

Enyinda

Blankson

Enyinda

2022

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Rising expectations for exceptional customer experiences demand strategic amalgamation of cross-functional, customer-focused teams (marketing/sales/service departments). However, the long history of interface conflicts between functional teams continues to attract research attention. Past research has given more attention to conflicts between marketing and sales teams than to triadic interface conflict between custom-focused teams and their sub-conflicts in a business-to-business (B2B) sales process. The purpose of this research paper is to quantify the triadic interface conflicts and associated sub-conflicts between customer-focused teams, discuss conflict resolution strategies and perform a sensitivity analysis (SA) to give a fuller account of functional team conflict. Design/methodology/approach Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) based in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is proposed for identifying and resolving conflicts in customer-focused team interfaces. A group of 30 managers of a large electronics company participated in this research. The authors collected the data from customer-focused team managers during training sessions on interface conflicts and conflict management/resolution strategies. The authors perform SA to test the robustness of conflict resolution strategy rankings. Findings The findings reveal that managers adjudge task as the most crucial conflict attribute driving teams apart, followed by lack of communication. For the sub-conflicts, managers considered how to do the task as the most important conflict attribute, followed by lack of regular meetings. For conflict resolution strategies, managers regarded collaboration or integration as the overall best strategy, followed by compromise. Leveraging the AHP-based MCDM to resolve customer-focused team interface conflicts provides managers with the confidence in the consistency and the robustness of these solutions. By testing the SA, it is also discovered that the final outcome stayed robust (stable) regardless when the priorities of the main criteria influencing the decision are increased and decreased by 5% in every combinations. Research limitations/implications This study examined only a large B2B company in the electronics industry in African and Middle East settings, focusing on interface conflicts among customer-focused departments. Future research could address these limitations. Practical implications This paper advances our understanding of customer-focused team interface conflicts in a B2B sales process. It also provides valuable insights on effective management of major and sub-interface conflicts. This paper provides a framework for and practical insights into how interface conflicts that are prevalent in marketing, sales and service sectors can be resolved to improve customer experience and business performance. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature by developing an AHP-based MCDM, which not only extends our conceptual understanding of the interface conflicts between customer-focused teams by emphasizing their triadic nature but also provides valuable strategies and insights into the practical resolution of such conflicts in a B2B firm’s sales process. Methodologically, SA is valuable to ensuring the robustness of the conflict resolution strategies’ rankings that will influence relevant pragmatic decision-making.

show abstract

A logic-based model for resolving conflicts

Cited by 7 publications

References 36 publications

Bayesian-based conflict conversion path discovery for waste management policy implementation in China

Bayesian-based conflict conversion path discovery for waste management policy implementation in China

Managing marketing–sales–service relationship conflict in a B2B multinational firm

Why cannot we all just get along? Resolving customer-focused team interface conflicts in a B2B firm leveraging AHP-based multi-criteria decision-making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About