Online Dispute Resolution Through the Lens of Bargaining and Negotiation Theory: Toward an Integrated Model

[Excerpt] In this article we apply negotiation and bargaining theory to the analysis of online dispute resolution. Our principal objective is to develop testable hypotheses based on negotiation theory that can be used in ODR research. We have not conducted the research necessary to test the hypotheses we develop; however, in a later section of the article we suggest a possible methodology for doing so. There is a vast literature on negotiation and bargaining theory. For the purposes of this article, we realized at the outset that we could only use a small part of that literature in developing a model that might be suitable for empirical testing. We decided to use the behavioral theory of negotiation developed by Richard Walton and Robert McKersie, which was initially formulated in the 1960s. This theory has stood the test of time. Initially developed to explain union-management negotiations, it has proven useful in analyzing a wide variety of disputes and conflict situations. In constructing their theory, Walton and McKersie built on the contributions and work of many previous bargaining theorists including economists, sociologists, game theorists, and industrial relations scholars. In this article, we have incorporated a consideration of the foundations on which their theory was based. In the concluding section of the article we discuss briefly how other negotiation and bargaining theories might be applied to the analysis of ODR

Explaining the Health Information Technology Paradox

Excerpt] The substantial gap between the promise inherent in upgrading information systems in health care and the documented reality has baffled health care scholars. Why is a technology so clearly capable of creating efficiencies, increasing safety, and promoting greater information sharing and coordination across professionals failing to live up to expectations

ILR Impact Brief - It’s a Paradox: Union Workers Less Satisfied but Less Likely to Quit

[Excerpt] Existing economic models of human behavior do not adequately deal with the seeming inconsistency between union members’ attitudes about their jobs and their subsequent actions. A more promising explanation might derive from job satisfaction theory, which suggests that union members have a particular set of values, expectations, and frames of reference that they use to evaluate the outcomes of their work effort. Individuals who join unions may place higher value on wages and benefits, which are the focus of most collectively- bargained contracts, than do non-union workers; historically, unions have delivered in this regard. Unionized workers may be more dissatisfied because of a more adversarial climate (e.g., testy supervisory and interpersonal relations, narrowly-defined jobs) but are less likely to quit because the things they value most—good wages and benefits—are provided

From the Negotiating Arena to Conflict Management

Richard Walton and Robert McKersie’s A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations has influenced generations of scholars who have studied conflict resolution and negotiations, as well as countless negotiation practitioners (Walton and McKersie 1991; for an assessment of Walton and McKersie’s influence on research and practice, see Kochan and Lipsky 2003). In this article, we extend Walton and McKersie’s theory, which focused on the negotiations between unions and employers, to consider its implications for the strategic choices made by organizations as they develop conflict management policies.We begin by discussing Walton and McKersie’s influence on the language that both scholars and practitioners use to describe not only negotiating behavior but also the strategies organizations pursue to manage workplace conflict

Organizational Strategies for the Adoption of Electronic Medical Records: Toward an Understanding of Outcome Variation in Nursing Homes

[Excerpt] An important element in president-elect Obama\u27s economic stimulus proposal is his plan to invest a significant proportion of federal dollars in installing electronic medical records (EMR) in U.S. healthcare institutions. In emphasizing the need for EMR, Obama is following the advice of numerous healthcare experts who have pointed out that the healthcare sector lags behind other industries in the use of computer technology. They believe the widespread use of EMR would help reduce medical errors, control the costs of healthcare, and lead to significant improvements in the quality of care Americans receive. In this paper we present preliminary results of an ongoing study of the introduction of EMR in 20 nursing homes in the New York City area. Although most observers believe EMR holds great promise for the improvement of healthcare, in fact recent studies have found mixed evidence regarding the effect of EMR on patient outcomes. The evidence we have gathered to date suggests that whether EMR has beneficial effects on the costs and quality of healthcare depends very much on the purposes and objectives nursing home managers and administrators intend to achieve through its use. That is, management strategy and style, we believe, strongly influences healthcare outcomes associated with technological innovation

Organizational Conflict Resolution and Strategic Choice: Evidence from a Survey of Fortune 1000 Companies

In this paper we develop the argument that a firm’s ADR strategies are likely to be associated with a firm’s use of one conflict resolution option or the other. More specifically, we examine whether a firm’s use of either arbitration or mediation is a function of (1) the extent to which the use of either of these dispute resolution processes aligns with the goals and objectives management is seeking to advance, and (2) the extent of the firm’s commitment to the use of these practices. We expect to find that an organization’s use of either mediation or arbitration may be governed by different underlying strategic objectives as well as the firm’s broader commitment to ADR. In what follows, we further develop this strategic choice argument

Measurement Error in Performance Studies of Health Information Technology: Lessons from the Management Literature

Just as researchers and clinicians struggle to pin down the benefits attendant to health information technology (IT), management scholars have long labored to identify the performance effects arising from new technologies and from other organizational innovations, namely the reorganization of work and the devolution of decision-making authority. This paper applies lessons from that literature to theorize the likely sources of measurement error that yield the weak statistical relationship between measures of health IT and various performance outcomes. In so doing, it complements the evaluation literature’s more conceptual examination of health IT’s limited performance impact. The paper focuses on seven issues, in particular, that likely bias downward the estimated performance effects of health IT. They are 1.) negative self-selection, 2.) omitted or unobserved variables, 3.) mis-measured contextual variables, 4.) mismeasured health IT variables, 5.) lack of attention to the specific stage of the adoption-to-use continuum being examined, 6.) too short of a time horizon, and 7.) inappropriate units-of-analysis. The authors offer ways to counter these challenges. Looking forward more broadly, they suggest that researchers take an organizationally-grounded approach that privileges internal validity over generalizability. This focus on statistical and empirical issues in health IT-performance studies should be complemented by a focus on theoretical issues, in particular, the ways that health IT creates value and apportions it to various stakeholders

Integrating Conflict: A Proposed Framework for the Interdisciplinary Study of Workplace Conflict and its Management

[Excerpt] Conflict and its management are perennial dimensions of organizational life--ever present with significant consequences for a host of employer and employee related outcomes. All organizations, regardless of industry, union status, workforce characteristics, managerial strategy, organizational culture, or performance levels are confronted with the need to address, deal with or manage the myriad manifestations of workplace conflict. As such, all organizations manage conflict in one way or another, whether they adopt a proactive stance or whether they are avoidant and reactive. Recognized as a central workplace feature, scholars from a variety of different disciplines, including, but not limited to, industrial relations, organizational behavior, and law, have devoted a great deal of conceptual and empirical attention to the study of conflict and conflict management. Much of this, scholarship, however, has been conducted in isolation with limited cross-disciplinary engagement. The central argument set forth in this paper is that conflict scholarship has paid a hefty price for the disciplinary silos that have emerged across these domains. Each of these disciplines has provided a wealth of conflict related findings and insights that have advanced existing knowledge. At the same time, these insights have, for the most part, been incomplete due to the absence of integration across longstanding, well defined, and mostly impenetrable disciplinary boundaries. As a result, the scholarly and practical utility of the body of knowledge that has been amassed across these different disciplines has been, at times, limited

[Review of the Book \u3ci\u3eGurus, Hired Guns, and Warm Bodies: Itinerant Experts in a Knowledge Economy\u3c/i\u3e]

[Excerpt] Over the past three decades the nature of work in many American organizations has drastically changed. Alongside a general organizational restructuring, the traditional employment relationship is being redefined and is taking on a variety of new shapes and forms. In this masterful and insightful book, Stephen Barley and Gideon Kunda study the intricate and often counter-intuitive consequences associated with the changing nature of work. Specifically, they examine one of the clear manifestations of organizational restructuring—the shift to contracted work in the high-tech sector. Employing their ethnographic expertise, Barley and Kunda successfully reclaim the mandate of organizational studies to explore the complex and multidimensional effects of organizational transformation on the way individuals (in this case, technical contractors) work. By focusing in particular on the meaning contractors give to their emerging work arrangements, they illuminate why technical contractors choose a contractual relationship rather than permanent employment, the ways they cope with employment uncertainty, and their strategies for human and social capital formation

The Glass is Half-Full: Overestimating the Quality of a Novel Environment is Advantageous

According to optimal foraging theory, foraging decisions are based on the forager's current estimate of the quality of its environment. However, in a novel environment, a forager does not possess information regarding the quality of the environment, and may make a decision based on a biased estimate. We show, using a simple simulation model, that when facing uncertainty in heterogeneous environments it is better to overestimate the quality of the environment (to be an “optimist”) than underestimate it, as optimistic animals learn the true value of the environment faster due to higher exploration rate. Moreover, we show that when the animal has the capacity to remember the location and quality of resource patches, having a positively biased estimate of the environment leads to higher fitness gains than having an unbiased estimate, due to the benefits of exploration. Our study demonstrates how a simple model of foraging with incomplete information, derived directly from optimal foraging theory, can produce well documented complex space-use patterns of exploring animals