Acquisition in Multinational Coperation Essay

Purpose This stirceptual news report aims to draw upon recent complexness and geological reachational psychological science literature to examine shrink fromict events, exploring the limitations of the predominant inquiry persona that treats larnict episodes as come inring in sequence, as discrete isolated incidents. stick out/methodology/ court The paper addresses a long-standing subject area in pilferict circumspection explore, which is that the predominant typology of takeict is fussfusing. The complexness stance challenges the fundamental paradigm, which has dominated enquiry in the toyict long time, in which liftict episodes occur in sequence and in isolation, with music directors using wizard predominant form of hustleict re rootage fashion.Findings The ndings atomic number 18 twain-fold rst, the behavioural strategies latch stard in the perplexity of these insect biteicts will be highly complex and will be resolute by a number of inuenci ng factors and se hornswoggled, this gets surmise beyond the deuce dimensional duel trouble sentiment, in that the adapt fitted manager relations with these three-fold, coinciding cheaticts will similarly motivating to pangsider the accomplishable implications of their chosen dodging along with the changing micro environment in which they operate.Originality/value This paper adds value to the eld of liftict practicable action by moving beyond mystify dimensions and exploring a swindlecomitant kidnaptingency status for chiselict instruction at heart the g everyplacenment. It argues that multiple stirict episodes merchantman occur co-occurrently, requiring managers to mathematical function differing airs for winnerful inmateict focal point. Keywords mulctict oversight, scamict resolution, organizational flimflamict, Individual behaviour, Interpersonal relationsPaper character yard birdceptual paper world-wide ledger of learnict focal pointVol . 21 nary(prenominal) 2, 2010pp. 186-201q Emerald multitude Publishing Limited1044-4068DOI 10.1108/10444061011037404IntroductionIt is now over 40 years since Louis Pondy (1967) wrote his seminal condition on learnict at bottom the administration and its oversight and almost 20 years since his reections on his earlier last were published (Pondy, 1989)1. In 1967 Pondy established what was for both decades the generally veritable paradigm of cheatict that toyict episodes occur as temporary disruptions to the variously cooperative kinships which progress up the shaping (Pondy, 1967). In his incidental reections on his earlier start and that of others, Pondy proposed that gipict is an inherent feature of organisational life, or else than an occasional duty periodd feature of cooperation (Pondy, 1989). This radi forebodey challenged the previous paradigm. Indeed, Pondy (1989) even suggested that look for into the phenomenon of cooperation within the organization could be benecial in providing set ahead insight into hookict within the organization, implying that it was cooperation, non shortict, which was the anomalous severalize requiring investigation. Yet, for almost two decades, Pondys filchceptualization of takeict as a natural state for the organization has re principal(prenominal)ed largely unexplored despite the emergence of a complexity situation which explores multiple elements of the victimizeict situation or cooperative state. unity possible reason why Pondys challenge has not been answered is that some(prenominal)(prenominal)what cabbagefusion has arisen over the ground and typologies physical exertiond for the classication of hustleict episodes. Consequently, debates about watchict structure or bunkofidence trickstitution fill tended to dominate the research agenda. The potential difference for stirfusion arising from these various nobbleict classications will be discussed in this paper. Where flimflami ct worry behaviors have been enkindlevass, researchers have tended to focus on a monotonous approach or dual rookcern surmisal panachel (Thomas, 1976) which suggests that individuals adopt abstractict watchfulness behaviors based on their perceived self interests and those of others i.e. get a linecern for self (competitive behaviors) versus flimflamcern for other (accommodating behaviors). Although this approach to the research of bunkoict and its way ts well with Pondys (1967) original paradigm, it is challenged by the complexity posture that has emerged in psychology research. The complexity perspective of intraorganisational get a lineict maintains that social relationships atomic number 18 to a greater extent complex than hitherto thought, and that the unfolding conict is inuenced by a wide variety of gibes. Moreover the complexity perspective get aheads the consideration of simultaneous complexity ( much than single event occurring simultaneously) and of h ow the mode of conict prudence affects the outcomes (Munduate et al., 1999). This insolent perspective has enabled researchers to examine the point at which behavioral direction is changed and the nucleus on the conict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996) and to look at how divers(prenominal) behaviors are combined (Janssen et al., 1999).With the recent developments in the complexity perspective of conict management research ( caravan de Vliert et al., 1997 Munduate et al., 1999), the time has come to come on explore the possible consequences of the complexity perspective whether it is in fact the case that conict is an inherent condition within the organization (Pondy, 1989) whether conict episodes donot occur in isolation but occur frequently and simultaneously (Euwema et al., 2003) and whether complex sequences of adaptive behaviors are required to continually manage the constantly changing intraorganizational, conict environment. Before we plenty do this, and to provide a co mmon country for discourse, we rst need to examine some of the theories nigh conict typology that have arisen in the psychology and management literature and which whitethorn be the cause of some confusion.Conict term and typologiesConict is a broad construct that has been rumpvass extensively across several disciplines covering a wide regularize of social fundamental interactions. Previous conict research has identied four main levels of conict in the context of human behavior and relationships as summarized by Lewecki et al. (2003)(1) Inter multitude conicts in the midst of groups of individuals which force out get in surface and complexity due to the mevery relationships elusive, including international conict in the midst of nations.(2) Intragroup or intraorganizational conicts arising within smaller groups which comprise the organization.A re-evaluationof conict hypothesis187IJCMA21,2188(3) Interpersonal conict that is, conict at an individual level, conict betwee n individuals, or conict between an individual and a group. (4) Intrapersonal conict on a personal level, where the conict occurs in ones own mind.Although these four levels of conict all appear across both the psychology and management literature, it is the third level ( social conicts within the organization or the reactions an individual or group has to the perception that two parties have aspirations that stopnot be get by with(predicate)d simultaneously) that has become the central eld of research within the organization (Putnem and Poole, 1987). In 1992, Thomas proposed a simplied denition of interpersonal conict as the phallus which begins when an individual or group feels prejudiciously alter by another(prenominal) individual or group. The conict consists of a perception of barriers to achieving ones goals (Thomas, 1992). More recently, interpersonal conict has been dened as an individuals perceptions of incompatibilities, differences in masss or interpersonal incom patibility (Jehn, 1997). Conict at this level has for the most part been seen as adversarial and as having a prejudicious nitty-gritty upon relationships (Ford et al., 1975). These denitions presuppose that an impedance or incompatibility is perceived by both parties, that some interaction is fetching place, and that both parties are able to inuence or study knotty that is. that there is some degree of mutualness (Medina et al., 2004). Interpersonal conict could arise within organizations where, for example, customer-facing departments such as Sales make promises to customers that other departments then have to deliver. In this domain of intraorganizational, interpersonal conict, both Pondys (1966, 1967) work and recent developments adopting the complexity perspective are of crabby interest This broad area of intraorganizational, interpersonal conict has been further subdivided into two types relationship conict and tax conict. Relationship conict arises between the actors through their subjective turned on(p) positions, whereas parturiency conict relates primarily to the much objective businesss or issues involved (Reid et al., 2004). A series of studies conrmed this dichotomy between relationship and job. Wall and zero(prenominal)an (1986) identied plurality oriented versus line of work oriented conict. In the early to mid-1990s Priem and Price (1991), Pinkley and no.thcraft (1994), Jehn (1995) and Sessa (1996) all identied relationship and task as discrete aspects of conict. The picture became kind of much than complicated in the late 1990s. In 1995 Amason et al. redened conict types as affective and cognitive and in 1999 Van de Vliert further redened these types as task and person conict. In working toward a to a greater extent extensive feign ofintraorganizational, interpersonal conict, jamon (1999) suggested three dimensions for conict(1) content(2) comparative and(3) situational.The content dimension encompasses the previousl y discussed conict types (affective, cognitive, relationship etc) while the relational dimension considers the subjective, perceived variables within the relationships of the actors involved .trust.status....A re-evaluationof conict theoryseriousnessdegree of interdependencerecord of success andthe number of actors involved.The situational dimension examines the variables which may be most relevant in selecting an appropriate conict management system. These involve time pressure, the potential continue of the conict episode, the degree of escalation and the range of options available in the management of the conict episode (Jameson, 1999). Meanwhile, Sheppard (1992) criticized the multiplicity of terms that were being used to exposit types of interpersonal conict, and the needless confusion that this caused. Theresult of the many approaches give awayd higher up is that there is no general model for the typology of interpersonal conict within the organization. In the absence of such a model, other researchers have interpreted different approaches, using the antecedents of the conict episode to describe conict types. Examples of this proliferation include subroutine conict (Walker et al., 1975), gender conict (Cheng, 1995) and goal conict (Tellefsen and Eyuboglu, 2002). This proliferation of terms or typologies has unsurprisingly led to confusion, most noticeably with the term interpersonal conict being used to describe purely relationship or sensational conict (Bradford et al., 2004) or conict being dened in terms of emotion only, adding to the wide range of terms already used (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001). Thus, at a time when international, interorganizational, intraorganizational, interpersonal and intrapersonal conicts are being extensively studied with conict dened and operationalized in a variety of bearings, no widely reliable and reconciled model has emerged to shape conict research (Reid et al., 2004). Table I summarizes the many different coni ct typologies that have been proposed. Table I illustrates that relationship and task conict are almost universally accepted as distinct types of interpersonal conict by psychology and management researchers. determineAuthor(s)Conict typology198619911994199519951996199619971999199920002000200220032003200420042005Wall and noanPriem and PricePinkley and NorthcraftJehnAmason et al.SessaAmasonAmason and SapienzaJamesonJanssen et al.Friedman et al.Jehn and ChatmanTellefsen and EyubogluBradford et al.De Dreu and WeingartReid et al.Tidd et al.Guerra et al.People oriented, task orientedRelationship, taskRelationship, taskRelationship, taskCognitive, affectiveTask, person oriented emotional, cognitiveAffective, cognitiveContent, relational, situationalTask, person orientedRelationship, taskTask, relationship, put to workGoal conictsInterpersonal, taskRelationship, taskRelationship, taskRelationship, taskRelationship, task189Table I.A compendium of thetypologies of conictIJCMA21,2190In ad dition, many researchers have identied a third type of conict which relates to the environment in which managers operate, described as situational conict ( Jameson, 1999) or physical process conict ( Jehn and Chatman, 2000). We believe that a consistent conict typology is called for, to aid future research into the complex constitution of intraorganizational conict. In this paper, we propose that future researchers should recognize three types of interpersonal conict. However, since the terms relationship and task are vulnerable to misinterpretation we index using the terms affective and cognitive (following Amason, 1996 and Amason and Sapienza, 1997), in conjunction with process (Jehn and Chatman, 2000), to describe the three types of interpersonal conict. These terms, which reect the more specic terminology used in the psychology literature, are dened in Table II. As Table II shows, the typology we propose is as follows. Affective Conict isa term describing conicts concerned wi th what people return and feel about their relationships including such dimensions as trust, status and degree of interdependence (Amason and Sapienza, 1997). Cognitive Conict describes conicts concerned with what people know and catch about their task, voices and functions. lick Conict relates to conicts arising from the situational context, the organization structure, strategy or culture (Amason and Sapienza, 1997 Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Using this typology for conict between individuals or groups of individuals within the organization avoids confusion over the use of the terms interpersonal, person or relationship often used when referring to affective conict, while task conict is clearly distinguished from process conict, addressing all the issues previously outlined. These terms will and then be used throughout the respite of this paper. Having argued that taxonomic confusion has hindered conict research through the misuse of brisk taxonomies (Bradford et al., 2004) or where language has resulted in the use of different terms to describe the same conict type (see Table I), we now move on to consider the implications or consequences of intraorganizational conict and whether it is al managements negative or grass have positive consequences (De Dreu, 1997). Consequences of conict serviceable or dys functional? virtually researchers exploring attitudes towards conict have considered the consequences of conict for individual and team performance (Jehn, 1995) and have found that interpersonal conict bed have either functional (positive) or dysfunctional (negative) outcomes for team and individual performance (e.g. Amason, 1996). Moreover, the consequences of conict can be perceived and felt in different authoritys by different actors experiencing the conict episode (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Thus, conict is situationally and perceptually relative.Conict typeAffectiveTable II.A proposed taxonomy ofconictDenitionConicts concerned with what people think and feel about their relationships with other individuals or groupsCognitiveConicts concerned with what people know and understand about their taskProcessConicts arising from the situational context, the organization structure, strategy or cultureThe traditional view of conict takes the view that conict exists in opposition to co-operation and that conict is alone dysfunctional, putting the focus on resolution rather than management (e.g. Pondy, 1966). This perspective can be traced forward to more recent work. Where conict is dened as the process which begins when one person or group feels negatively affected by another (Thomas, 1992), there is an implication of obstruction to either ships company achieving their goals, which is readily interpreted negatively. This can result in conict escape or suppression of conict management behavior, leading to perceived negative consequences on team or individual performance (De Dreu, 1997). Negatively-perceived conict episodes can increa se tension and antagonism between individuals and lead to a lack of focus on the required task (Saavedra et al., 1993 Wall and Nolan, 1986) while dodging and suppression can also have long term negative consequences such as stiing creative thinking, promoting groupthink and causing an escalation in any existing conict (De Dreu, 1997). Not surprisingly, where interdependence is negative (where one party wins at the outlay of the other although they have some dependency in their relationship) any conict will be viewed negatively (Janssen et al., 1999). The perception of conict will also be negative where the conict is personal, resulting in personality clashes, increased judge and frustration. This type of relationship conict can impede the decision- fashioning process as individualsfocus on the personal aspects rather than the task related issues (Jehn, 1995). In contrast to the somewhat negative perception of intraorganizational conict outlined above, more recent conict manageme nt theory has begun to suggest that certain types of conict can have a positive effect upon relationships and that the trump passage to this outcome is through acceptance of, and effective management of, inevitable conict, rather than through conict avoidance or suppression (De Dreu, 1997). When individuals are in conict they have to address major issues, be more creative, and see different aspects of a problem. These challenges can mitigate groupthink and stimulate creativity (De Dreu, 1997). Naturally, where there is high positive interdependence (an agreeable outcome for both parties), the conict episode will be viewed much more positively (Janssen et al., 1999). Moreover, Jehn (1995) has suggested that task- and issue-based cognitive conict can have a positive effect on team performance. Groups who experience cognitive conict have a greater understanding of the assignments at hand and are able to make remediate decisions in comporting with issues as they arise (Simons and Pe terson, 2000). For example, research has shown that, when individuals are exposed to a devils advocate, they are able to make better judgments than those not so exposed (Schwenk, 1990). Schulz-Hardt et al. (2002) suggested that groups make better decisions where they started in disagreement rather than agreement. In these examples, conict has a functional ( useable and positive) outcome. We have argued that the ideal of functional conict has shifted the eld of conict research a counselling from conict resolution and towards consideration of the management behaviors which can be adoptive in relations with conict in put in to ca-ca the silk hat possible outcome (De Dreu, 1997 Euwema et al., 2003). Next, we examine research into conict management behaviors and explore some of the managerial tools that have been developed to help managers to deal with intraorganizational, interpersonal conict. Conict management behaviorsConict management can be dened as the actions in which a perso n typically engages, in response to perceived interpersonal conict, in order to achieve a desired goalA re-evaluationof conict theory191IJCMA21,2192(Thomas, 1976). Demonstrably, conict management pays off previous research has indicated that it is the way in which conict episodes are addressed which determines the outcome (Amason, 1996). However, there is disagreement between researchers as to the degree to which managers can and do adopt different conict management behaviors. Previous research has considered three different approaches the one trump(p) way perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984) the misfortune or situational perspective (Thomas, 1992 Munduate et al., 1999 Nicotera, 1993) and the complexity or conglomerated perspective (Van de Vliert et al., 1999 Euwema et al., 2003). Arguably the simplest perspective on conict management behavior is the one top hat way perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984), which agues that one conict management ardor or behavior (collabo ration) is more effective than any other. However, it argues that individuals have a particular preferred behavioral predisposition to the way in which they hairgrip conict. Thus, from the one best way perspective, the conict-avoiding manager may have a behavioral predisposition to avoidance strategies, whereas the accommodating manager may prefer accommodating solutions. In this paradigm, the most constructive solution is considered to be collaboration, since collaboration is always positively interdependent it has a knock best outcome, generally described as win/win (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). The one best way approach suggests that a more aggressive, competitive, negatively interdependent approach (in fact, any conict management approach other than collaborative) can result in suboptimal outcomes (Janssen et al., 1999). However, the one best way perspective raises more questions than it answers. It does not explain how managers are able to collaborate if theyhave a differen t behavioral predisposition, nor does it provide evidence that collaboration always produces the best outcome (Thomas, 1992). A more general problem with the one best way approach is that it may not be very useful if managers truly have little or no discipline over their approach to conict management, the practical applications are limited. The one best way perspective does not consider the passage of time, that behaviors could be changed or modied during any interaction, nor the effect any previous encounters may have on the current experience (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). Moving beyond the one best way perspective, in which only collaborative behaviors are considered to provide the most loveable outcome, the contingency perspective maintains that the optimal conict management behavior depends on the specic conict situation, and that what is appropriate in one situation may not be appropriate in another (Thomas, 1992). In this paradigm, the best approach is dependent upon the par ticular set of circumstances. The implications, which are very different to the one best way perspective, are that individuals can and should select the conict management behavior that is most likely to produce the desired outcome. Thus, conict management behaviors are regarded as a matter of preference (rather than innate, as in the one best way view), and the outcome is dependent on the selection of the most appropriate mode of conict management behavior. Until recently, conict research has been heavily inuenced by the one best way and contingency perspectives, focusing on the forte of a sensation mode of conict management behavior (primarily collaboration) during a single conict episode (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984). Thus the one best way and contingency perspectives do not necessarily offer a real-world view in which managers both can and do change their behaviors adapting to the situation perhaps trying different approaches to breaka deadlock or to improve their bargaining po sition taking into account changing circumstances in the microenvironment and the sequent inuence upon the actions of individuals involved in any conict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996). A fresh approach is provided by the complexity perspective, which characterizes conicts as being dynamic and multi-dimensional. In such circumstances, the best behavioral style in dealing with any one conictepisode may vary during, or between, conict episodes (Medina et al., 2004 Nicotera, 1993). For conict in a complex world, neither the one best way nor the contingency perspective would necessarily produce optimal results. If conict does not occur discretely and individually (Pondy, 1992a), existing approaches may not describe the world as managers actually experience it. Arguably, these approaches have articially limited conict research to a at, monotonous model. To address the shortcomings of traditional research and to coordinated the complexity perspective into conict management theory, we n eed to move beyond two dimensions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997).Beyond two dimensions of conict management theory youthful work by Van de Vliert et al. (1997) and Medina et al. (2004) has aggrandizeed current theory through consideration of the complexity perspective. The complexity perspective argues that any reaction to a conict episode consists of multiple behavioral components rather than one single conict management behavior. In the complexity perspective, using a mixing of accommodating, avoiding, competing, compromising and collaborating behaviors throughout the conict episode is considered to be the rule rather than the exception (Van de Vliert et al., 1997).To date, studies taking a complexity approach to conict management have adopted one of three different complexity perspectives. The rst examines simultaneous complexity and how different combinations of behaviors affect the outcome of the conict (Munduate et al., 1999). The second complexity approach focuses on the poin t of behavioral change and the outcome, examining either the behavioral phases through which the participants of a conict episode pass, or apply blase complexity to look at the point at which behavioral style changes and the effect on the conict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996). The third approach is the sequential complexity or conglomerated perspective, which is concerned with the different modes of conict management behavior, how they are combined, and at what point they change during the interaction.The application of the complexity perspective to conict management researchhas revealed that managers use more than the ve behaviors suggested by the one best way perspective to manage conict. In their study of conglomerated conict management behavior, Euwema et al. (2003) argued that the traditional approach under-re puzzles the individuals assertive modes of behavior and have as a result added confronting and process controlling, making seven possible behaviors (1) competing(2) col laborating(3) avoiding(4) compromising(5) accommodatingA re-evaluationof conict theory193IJCMA21,2194(6) confronting and(7) process controlling.Weingart et al. (1990) identied two types of sequential pattern Reciprocity, responding to the other party with the same behavior and Complementarity, responding with an opposing behavior. Applying a complexity perspective, the force of complementarity or reciprocity behaviors will be contingent upon the situation, the micro-environment, the number of conict episodes, and the types of conict present. The sequential pattern may in itself be complex, being dependent both upon the current situation and on varying behaviors throughout the interaction. A further, often unrecognized implication of complexity in conict is that to each one(prenominal) conict episode could be unique, being composed of different proportions of each of the affective, cognitive and process conict types (Jehn and Chatman, 2000).The implication for conict management st rategy and the choice of the most appropriate behavior is immense. Therefore, a new perspective is take, in which conict and the response to conict is viewed as dynamic and changing over time, with each conict episode having a unique composition requiring a specic but exible approach in order to declare the best possible outcome. We propose that this might result in a manager changing behavior during a conict episode, or thus a manager adopting different behaviors for a number of conict episodes occurring simultaneously. In the next section, we take all these complex factors into account and propose a single, dynamic and comprehensive model of conict management behavior.Multiple, simultaneous conict episodesWe have shown that the eld of conict has become entangled in multiple terms and that research into conict management is struggling to reconcile matte models with the more complex situation encountered in the real world. A model is needed which considers the complexity of coni ct episodes and separates conict antecedents from conict types, recognizing that conict can relate to emotions and situations which have common antecedents. We propose that the way forward is to expand the conglomerated perspective into a sequential contingency perspective, in which the sequence of conict management behaviors adopted is dependent upon a number of inuencing factors in the micro-environment, the number of conict episodes being dealt with, their composition, and changes in the behaviors of the actors involved.A sequential contingency perspectiveThe sequential contingency perspective for intraorganizational, interpersonal conict proposes the word meaning of an alternative paradigm which is that conict is ever-present and ever-changing in terms of its nature or composition and that it is the way in which these continuous conicts is managed which determines the outcome of any conict episode and the nature of any subsequent conicts. Figure 1 provides a visualization of Po ndys (1992b) postmodernist paradigm of conict and provides a foundation for the investigation of complex, multiple, simultaneous, intraorganizational conicts. This conceptual visualization of conict within the organizationprovides a three-dimensional facsimile of conict from the paradigm that conict is an inherent feature of organizational life. It shows how, at any one given point in time,A re-evaluationof conict theory195Figure 1.A conceptual visualizationof multiple, simultaneousconictthere can be a number of conict episodes see (y axis), each with different intensities (z axis) and duration (x axis). In addition, we have argued that each conict episode will have a unique composition, being do up of different proportions of cognitive, affective and process elements.The implications for conict management theory are twofold rst, the behavioral strategies adopted in the management of these conicts will be highly complex and will be hardened by a number of inuencing factors and s econd, this moves theory beyond the two dimensional duel concern perspective, in that the adaptable manager dealing with these multiple, simultaneous conicts will also need to consider the possible implications of their chosen strategy along with the changing micro environment in which they operate. Using this three-dimensional conceptual visualization of conict within the organization we propose a sequential contingency model for managing interpersonal conict within the organization (Figure 2). The basic elements of the theoretical account in Figure 2 consider all the dimensions of conict and its management as previously discussed.the conict episode characteristics, the type and composition of any conict episode encountered (Amason, 1996 Jehn, 1995 Jehn, 1997 Pinkley andNorthcraft, 1994).the characteristics of the relationship(s) (Jehn, 1995).the characteristics of the individuals involved.the conict management behaviors and.the outcome of previous conict episodes (Van de Vliert e t al., 1997).IJCMA21,2196Figure 2.A sequential contingencymodel for managingintra-organizational,interpersonal conictThe basic gather up of the model is that conict is a constant and inherent condition of the organization (that is, that conict episodes do not occur as isolated, anomalous incidents). Additionally, the strong point of the conict management behaviors in terms of its functionality or dysfunctionality is contingent upon, and moderated by, the nature of the conict, the characteristics of the individuals and relationships involved, and experience of previous conict. Thus, this model provides a framework for dealing with multiple, simultaneous conict episodes moving beyond the tradition two-dimensional approach.Future researchTo date there has been little empirical research into the degree to which individuals are able to adapt their behavior during an interaction, or on the value of the complexity perspective in dealing with complexintraorganizational conict. The future research agenda needs to explore conict through Pondys (1992b) alternative paradigm and expand on these theoretical ndings by investigating intraorganizational, interpersonal conict in a number of ways. We therefore set out a research agenda framed in terms of four research propositions.First, taking the sequential contingency perspective and adopting Pondys (1989) alternative paradigm for conict within the organization, research is needed to establish the occurrence of conict. Pondy (1992b) argues that, rather than a sequence of discrete isolated incidents, conict is an inherent condition of social interaction within the organization and that conict episodes occur simultaneously not sequentially. This would imply thatP1a. Conict is a constant condition of interorganizational, interpersonal relationships.A re-evaluationof conict theoryP1b. Multiple conict episodes occur simultaneously.P1c. Conict episodes are complex, having differing compositions of affective, cognitive and process elements which change over time.The complexity perspective recognizes that different conict situations call for different management behaviors (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). This implies that managers can call upon a much wider range of approaches to conict management than previously thought. Moreover there is a further implication, which is that managers are able to adapt their behavior during conict episodes. Thus P2a. Managers use different behaviors to manage multiple conicts at any one time.P2b. Managers change their behavior over time during the same conict episode. A substantial branch of recent conict management research has think on the outcomes of conict and has suggested that not all conict is negative (De Dreu, 1997 Simons and Peterson, 2000 Schultz-Hardt et al.,2002 Schwenk, 1990). addicted this, we need a greater understanding of the effect that the behavior adopted has on the conict experienced, whether it mitigated or agitated the situation, and the consequences fo r any subsequent conict (Amason, 1996). ThusP3a. The behaviors that managers use affect the outcome of the conict. P3b. The behaviors that managers use affect subsequent conicts. Finally, re-visiting Pondys (1989) alternative paradigm and incorporating the superfluous perspectives that come from consideration of conict outcomes and the application of the complexity perspective, we argue that more research is needed into the relationship between the behaviors that managers adopt and whether these behaviors represent the conscious adaptation of an optimal approach to conict management. ThusP4.Conict management involves adapting a set of behaviors through which a degree of co-operation is maintained, as argue to the use of behavior(s) which resolve(s) discrete isolated incidents of conict.Our purpose in context of use out a new model and research agenda for conict management research, together with a set of detailed research propositions, is to move the eld beyond the consideration of conict episodes as discrete, isolated incidents and to encourage the investigation of different behaviors in different circumstances and their effectiveness. Future research needs to consider the complexity of conict and adopt a research paradigm which considers the behavioral strategies within long term complex interpersonal relationships.ConclusionThis paper has offered four contributions to the eld of conict and conict management. The rst is the clarication of conict typologies set out in Table II. The197IJCMA21,2198second contribution is the notion that business managers handle multiple and simultaneous conict episodes that require different approaches to resolving them, so that the existing models proposed for conict management are tall(a) to chime with their actual experience. The third contribution is to map this in the form of a new theoretical model for conict management (Figure 2). The stern contribution is to use this theoretical model to set out a set of research p ropositions to shape research that will shed let down on the real conicts that managers have to face. Just 40 years on, and intraorganizational conict theory itself appears to be in conict. In order to resolve the apparent differences in research approach and perspective researchers need to establish some common ground upon which new theory can be empirically tested, allowing conict management theory to move beyond two dimensions and to explore complexity whilst adding clarity. Note1. First presented at the honorary society of Management Meeting, August 14, 1986.ReferencesAmason, A. and Sapienza, H. (1997), The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conict, daybook of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 495-516.Amason, A.C. (1996), Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conict on strategic decision making resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of Management daybook, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-48.Bodtker, A.M. and Jameson, J.K. (2001), Emotion in conict formation and its transformation application to organizational conict management, International ledger of Conict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 259-75.Bradford, K.D., Stringfellow, A. and Weitz, B.A. (2004), Managing conict to improve the effectiveness of retail networks, journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 181-95. Cheng, C. (1995), Multi-level gender conict summary and organizational change, Journal of organisational Change Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 26-39.De Dreu, C.K.W. (1997), Productive conict the importance of conict management and conict issue, in De Dreu, C.K.M. and Van de Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conict in Organizations, Sage Publications, kelvin Oaks, CA, pp. 9-22.Euwema, M.C., Van de Vliert, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2003), Substantive and relational effectiveness of organizational conict behavior, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 119-39.Ford, N.M., Walker, O.C. Jr and Churchill, G.A. (1975), Expectation specic measures of the intersender conict and role ambiguity experienced by salesmen, Journal of calling look into, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-112.Jameson, J.K. (1999), Toward a comprehensive model for the assessment and management of intraorganizational conict developing the framework, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 268-94.Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999), How task and person conict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 117-42.Jehn, K.A. (1995), A multi-method examination of the benets and detriments of intragroup conict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-82. Jehn, K.A. (1997), A qualitative analysis of conict types and dimensions in organizational groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-57. Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), The inuence of proportional and perceptual conict composition on team performanc e, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-73.Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Barry, B. and Minton, J. (2003), Essentials of Negotiation, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, Singapore.Medina, J.M., Dorado, M.A., de Cisneros, I.F.J., Arevalo, A. and Munduate, L. (2004), Behavioral sequences in the effectiveness of conict management, Psychology in Spain, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 38-47.Munduate, L., Ganaza, J., Peiro, J.M. and Euwema, M. (1999), Patterns of styles in conict management and effectiveness, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-24.Nicotera, A.M. (1993), Beyond two dimensions a grounded theory model of conict-handling behavior, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 282-306. Olekalns, M., Smith, P.L. and Walsh, T. (1996), The process of negotiating strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes, organisational Behavior and Human determination Processes, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 68-77.Pinkley, R.L. and Northcraft, G.B. (1994), Conict frame s of reference implications for dispute processes and outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 193-205. Pondy, L.R. (1966), A systems theory of organizational conict, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 246-56.Pondy, L.R. (1967), Organizational conict concepts and models, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 296-320.Pondy, L.R. (1989), Reections on organizational conict, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 94-8.Pondy, L.R. (1992a), Historical perspectives and contemporary updates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-5.Pondy, L.R. (1992b), Reections on organizational conict, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 257-61.Priem, R.L. and Price, K.H. (1991), Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry, devils advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 206-25.Putnem, L. and Poole, M.S. (19 87), Conict and dialogue, in Jablin,F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 549-99.Reid, D.A., Pullins, E.B., Plank, R.E. and Buehrer, R.E. (2004), meter buyers perceptions of conict in business-to-business sales interactions, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 236-49.Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C. and Van Dyne, L. (1993), Complex interdependence in task-performing groups, Journal of utilise Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 61-73. Sessa, V. (1996), Using perspective taking to manage conict and affect in teams, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 101-15.A re-evaluationof conict theory199IJCMA21,2200Schwenk, C.R. (1990), Effects of devils advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making a meta-analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 161-77.Sheppard, B.H. (1992), Conict research as Schizophrenia the many faces of organizational conict, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 325-34. Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M. and Frey, D. (2002), Productive conict in group decision making genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to bring down biased information seeking, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 563-86. Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), Task conict and relationship conict in top management teams the pivotal role of intragroup trust, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 102-11.Sternberg, R.J. and Soriano, L.J. (1984), Styles of conict resolution, Journal of record and Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 115-21.Tellefsen, T. and Eyuboglu, N. (2002), The impact of a salespersons in-house conicts and inuence attempts on buyer commitment, Journal of personalized Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 157-72.Thomas, K.W. (1992), Conict and conict management reections and update, Journal of Organization al Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-74.Thomas, K.W. (1976), Conict and conict management, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 889-935. Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Euwema, M.C. and Janssen, O. (1997), The effectiveness of mixing problem solving and forcing, Using Conict in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 38-52.Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Giebels, E. and Janssen, O. (1999), Constructive conict at work, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 475-91. Walker, O.C., Churchill, G.A. Jr and Ford, N.M. (1975), Organizational determinants of the industrial salesmans role conict and ambiguity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 32-9.Wall, V.D. Jr and Nolan, L.L. (1986), Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conict in task-oriented groups, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1033-52. Weingart, L.R., Thompson, L.L., Bazerman, H.H. and Caroll, J.S. (1990), Tactical be havior and negotiation outcomes, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-31.Further schoolingAmason, A.C., Hochwarter, W.A., Thompson, K.R. and Harrison, A.W. (1995), Conict an important dimension in successful management teams, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 20-35.Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. De Dreu, C. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), Task versus relationship conict, team performance, and team member satisfaction ameta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741-9.Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conict, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Friedman, R., Tidd, S., Currall, S. and Tsai, J. (2000), What goes around comes around the impact of personal conict style on work conict and stress, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 32-55.Guerra, M.J., Martinez, I., Munduate, L. and Medina, F.J. (2005), A contingency perspective on the study of the consequences of conict types the role of organizational culture, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-76. Lewicki, R.J. and Sheppard, B.H. (1985), Choosing how to intervene factors affecting the use of process and outcome control in third party dispute resolution, Journal of occupational Behavior, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-64.Tidd, S.T., McIntyre, H. and Friedman, R.A. (2004), The importance of role ambiguity and trust in conict perception unpacking the task conict to relationship conict linkage, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 364-84. About the authorsJames Speakman is Assistant Professor of International Negotiation at IESEG Business work, a member of Catholic University of Lille, where his attentions are focused on sales and negotiation. afterward working for 16 years in key account management sales he completed his PhD research at Craneld School of Management, where, using the Critical Incident Technique with an Interpretive Framework for tag to investigate intraorganizational, interpersonal conict and the behavioral sequences adopted in the management of these complex interpersonal, intraorganizational conict episodes. Other research interests include personal selling, past, present and future, where he conducted the US research for a multinational study on the future of personal selling and negotiation in context where his research interests include multi-cultural negotiation. James Speakman is the corresponding author and can be contacted at I.SpeakmanIESEG.FRLynette Ryals specializes in key account management and marketing portfolio management, particularly in the area of customer protability. She is a Registered Representative of the London transmit Exchange and a Fellow of the Society of Investment Professionals. She is the Director of Cranelds Key Account Management Best Practice Research Club, Director of the Demand Chain Management community and a member of Craneld Schoo l of Managements Governing Executive.To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail reprintsemeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details www.emeraldinsight.com/reprintsA re-evaluationof conict theory201