Models of Intragroup Conflict in Management: A Literature Review

The study of intragroup dynamics in management studies views conflict as a contingency process that can benefit or harm a group based of characteristics of the group and context. We review five models of intragroup conflict in management studies. These models include diversity-conflict and behavioral negotiation models that focus primarily on conflict within a group of people; social exchange and transaction cost economics models that focus primarily on conflict within a group of firms; and social dilemma models that focus on conflict in collectives of people, organizations, communities, and generations. The review is constituted by summarizing the insights of each model, foundational papers to each model; the most recent uses and developments of the models in the last decade; the complementarity of these models; and the future research directions

Complex Adaptive Systems: Adapting and Managing Teams and Team Conflict

Complexity comes from dramatic structural changes to organizations and governments such as globalization, global competition, workforce diversity, and continual innovations. Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are organizations that are a composite of the interconnected whole. Teams must manage and operate in emerging ecosystems, understand factors that lead to team effectiveness when managing and facilitating teams and team conflict, and understand the development of conflict models. This chapter provides an overview of teams, CAS, conflict stages, and conflict models. This chapter presents adaptive leadership as one leadership style that offers organizations with the capabilities of reacting to changing environments quickly. Adaptive leadership offers a prescriptive approach for managers and leaders to follow when dealing with organizational conflict while operating in today’s complex and global environment

Institutional Change, Growth, and Poverty Levels in Pakistan

It is now well-recognised that institutions matter in the growth process both directly and indirectly. Well-functioning institutions lead to higher investment levels, better policies, increase in social capital stock of a community, and better management of ethnic diversity and conflicts [see for example North (1990, 1994); Jutting (2003); Rodrik, et al. (2002); Dollar and Kray (2002); World Bank (2002); Aron (2000); Chu (2001) and Frischtak (1995)]. That the decay of institutions has led to poor governance—and the urgent need for improved governance in Pakistan particularly—has been well-documented in DRI/McGraw-Hill (1998); Pakistan (1999) and Hassan (2002). Transparent, participatory, and efficient working of institutions ensures correct priorities and appropriate policies; their effective and efficient implementation results in high growth, better income distribution, and alleviation of poverty

Do Group and Organizational Identification Help or Hurt Intergroup Strategic Consensus?

Implementing strategy demands an organizationwide effort, where teams should not operate in isolation. A challenge many organizations face in implementing their strategy is eradicating silo thinking and creating shared understanding of strategy between interdependent teams—that is, intergroup strategic consensus. However, strategy process research is silent on how such intergroup strategic consensus can emerge. Drawing on social identity theory, we offer a lens to understand what influences the degree of intergroup strategic consensus. We unveil a tension between organizational and group identification such that organizational identification enhances intergroup strategic consensus, whereas group identification reduces it. Moreover, we hypothesize that high group identification crowds out positive effects of organizational identification on intergroup strategic consensus. Data from 451 intergroup relationships between 92 teams within a service organization support these hypotheses. We replicate our results using 191 intergroup relationships between 37 teams from another organization. These results allow us to develop an understanding of intergroup strategic consensus, expand the conversation in strategy process research to between-team interdependencies, and challenge the assumption in management literature and practice that higher identification is always desirable

Minority versus Majority : a New Paradigm of Intergroup Conflict

Living in an ethnically and culturally heterogeneous social setting has been a prime subject for a variety of social science disciplines. This dissertation adds to the discussion by addressing the dynamics of conflict between minorities and majorities from a novel theoretical perspective. More precisely, it tackles the question of majorities discriminating against minorities by situating the question in the Structural Goal/Expectation Theory (sGET) approach. Rather than rely on identity or attitude, sGET argues for an evolutionary view of human intergroup behaviour in which, crucially, the incentive structures inherent to the situation and the interpersonal interaction between the actors can be directly linked to behaviour. To test this approach, four studies have been conducted and are presented in this work. These studies show that the dilemma which comes with managing common resources, is a crucial component to understanding minority discrimination in heterogeneous societies

Managing factoring in banking groups

On the market for factoring services independent suppliers coexhist with companies affiliated with banking groups. The last ones can be oriented in their decision processes by the policies of their parent company, usually a bank. They could also benefit from synergies among the different units of the group. The main benefits are linked to cost reduction, better skill-based resources allocation and a higher amount of financial coverage. If such interdependencies are found and developed, factors belonging to banking groups could attain a competitive advantage towards independent intermediaries. To assess the impact of the group structure we have to evaluate the degree of substitutability between factoring and other financial services supplied by the group, the synergy effects that could arise in each step of the production and delivery processes and eventually organizational challenges faced by the group. In our analysis we find evidence of complementarity among factoring and other financial products, we consider the possibile sinergies in some steps of the production process and we propose a methodology to assess the level of group cohesion and the kind of control exercised by the parent company.factoring; group organizations; institutional models