Affect and Group Attachments: The Role of Shared Responsibility

This paper theorizes the role of shared responsibility in the development of affective group attachments, interweaving ideas from social exchange and social identity theories. The main arguments are that (1) people engaged in task interaction experience positive or negative emotions from those interactions; (2) tasks that promote more sense of shared responsibility across members lead people to attribute their individual emotions to groups or organizations; and (3) group attributions of own emotions are the basis for stronger or weaker group attachments. The paper suggests that social categorization and structural interdependence promote group attachments by producing task interactions that have positive emotional effects on those involved

Testimony of John J. Lawler Before the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations

Testimony_Lawler_022494.pdf: 224 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Foreword

[Excerpt] This volume is designed to commemorate the distinguished history of the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, especially the various disciplines and fields that are inter-woven within its domain. For this book, many of those who have been a significant part of the ILR School’s history were invited to write a scholarly overview of some aspect of industrial and labor relations. These essays analyze developments in one or more of the various subfields in which many of the school’s alumni and faculty have been so active and prominent. The volume is being published by the ILR School on the occasion of the formal dedication of a new classroom and library complex

Relational Cohesion Theory

[Excerpt] Relational cohesion theory explains how and when people who are exchanging things of value develop stable, cohesive relations. It starts from the idea that people tend to interact or do things with others because they get something they value or want from those others. They give something to the other and receive something in return. This is termed a social exchange. The valued goods” that are exchanged may be tangible or intangible. Employees exchange their labor for pay, clients exchange money for services, neighbors exchange assistance with each other\u27s yards, coworkers exchange advice and information, roommates exchange respect for each other\u27s belongings, and friends exchange emotional support for each other

An Affect Theory of Social Exchange

This article develops a theory that explains how and when emotions, produced by social exchange, generate stronger or weaker ties to relations, groups, or networks. It is argued that social exchange produces positive or negative global feelings, which are internally rewarding or punishing. The theory indicates that social units (relations, groups, networks) are perceived as a source of these feelings, contingent on the degree of jointness in the exchange task. The jointness of the task is greatest if (1) actors find it difficult to distinguish their individual effects on or contributions to solving the exchange task (nonseparability) and (2) actors perceive a shared responsibility for success or failure at the exchange task. The theory explicates the effects of different exchange structures on these conditions and, in turn, on cohesion and solidarity. Implications are developed for network-to-group transformations

Role of Status in Group Processes

[Excerpt] This chapter organizes the other chapters of the volume around a fundamental status-affirmation principle, namely, that status differentials generate corresponding differences in performance expectations which, in turn, produce behaviors that affirm performance expectations. The chapters in this volume elaborate that proposition by showing how information exchange, patterns of privilege, and the accuracy of power perceptions reflect or strengthen the status-affirmation process. Several chapters also suggest conditions that forestall or weaken this process such as claims to expertise and communication styles. Other chapters can be construed as offering applications of the status-affirmation principle to the performance of corporate project teams and to the relationships between standard and nonstandard employees in the workplace. Overall, the chapters reflect the strength and vitality of the tradition of work on group processes

Power Processes in Bargaining

This is a theoretical article that integrates and extends a particular program of work on power in bargaining relationships. Power is conceptualized as a structurally based capability, and power use as tactical action falling within either conciliatory or hostile categories. The core propositions are (1) the greater the total amount of power in a relationship, the greater the use of conciliatory tactics and the lower the use of hostile tactics; and (2) an unequal power relationship fosters more use of hostile tactics and less use of conciliatory tactics than an equal power relationship. Distinct research on power dependence and bilateral deterrence provides support for both propositions. Implications are discussed for power struggle in ongoing relationships

The Impact of Status Differences on Coalitional Agreements: An Experimental Study

This experiment investigated the impact of status differences between subordinates and face-to-face coalition negotiations on insurgent coalitional action. The effects of these variables were examined in stratified groups, where a leader established inequitable pay-rates, and subordinates could coalesce and destroy a portion of the leader’s outcomes. The results showed that status differences (as opposed to status similarity) undermined the sense of common interests between subordinates and reduced the severity of coalitional action against the leader. Face-to-face negotiations engendered a more cautious approach to coalition negotiations and also reduced the severity of insurgent action. The results suggest that status differences pose an “organizational problem” for subordinates attempting to mobilize action against a leader

Postmodernization: a phase we're going through? Management in social care

This paper considers the challenges facing managers of social care services in public sector organizations in the UK. Some theorists might argue that these challenges are the manifestation of a new postmodern era. It is argued here, however, that society is not fully postmodern: indeed modernity continues with some of its features (such as a concern with rationality and reason) heightened and intensified. Social trends associated with this transitional phase of postmodernization have been highlighted in the literature and here they form the framework for discussing social care management today