“麦当劳化”与建设性冲突:制度与技术进步中的谈判

G.D. Paulson, Trexler Proffitt
{"title":"“麦当劳化”与建设性冲突:制度与技术进步中的谈判","authors":"G.D. Paulson, Trexler Proffitt","doi":"10.1109/UTEMC.2006.5236171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Negotiators attempting to make deals and resolve conflicts within or between organizations must first attempt to determine if negotiation is an authorized and productive option. In this paper we explore the tension between organizational routines that attempt to limit conflict and negotiation, and the possible organizational benefits of authorizing or facilitating constructive conflict. Organizations generally develop routines that balance a desire for efficiency with the need to create perceptions of fairness and justice. Efficiency measures yield rationalized processes that tend to limit conflict, but also limit the opportunity to negotiate for a just outcome. Bureaucratic procedures and precedents come to replace idiosyncratic and tailored solutions. However, organizational efforts at continuous improvement and strategic differentiation rely on organizational creativity and openness to the collaborative problem solving that can characterize some negotiations. Recommendations are offered for negotiators and for organizations.","PeriodicalId":440551,"journal":{"name":"2006 IEEE/UT Engineering Management Conference","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“McDonaldization” and constructive conflict: Negotiation amidst systemic and technological advancements\",\"authors\":\"G.D. Paulson, Trexler Proffitt\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/UTEMC.2006.5236171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Negotiators attempting to make deals and resolve conflicts within or between organizations must first attempt to determine if negotiation is an authorized and productive option. In this paper we explore the tension between organizational routines that attempt to limit conflict and negotiation, and the possible organizational benefits of authorizing or facilitating constructive conflict. Organizations generally develop routines that balance a desire for efficiency with the need to create perceptions of fairness and justice. Efficiency measures yield rationalized processes that tend to limit conflict, but also limit the opportunity to negotiate for a just outcome. Bureaucratic procedures and precedents come to replace idiosyncratic and tailored solutions. However, organizational efforts at continuous improvement and strategic differentiation rely on organizational creativity and openness to the collaborative problem solving that can characterize some negotiations. Recommendations are offered for negotiators and for organizations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":440551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2006 IEEE/UT Engineering Management Conference\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2006 IEEE/UT Engineering Management Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/UTEMC.2006.5236171\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2006 IEEE/UT Engineering Management Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/UTEMC.2006.5236171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

试图达成协议和解决组织内部或组织之间冲突的谈判者必须首先尝试确定谈判是否是一种授权和有效的选择。在本文中,我们探讨了试图限制冲突和谈判的组织惯例与授权或促进建设性冲突的可能组织利益之间的紧张关系。组织通常会制定惯例,以平衡对效率的渴望与创造公平和正义观念的需要。效率措施产生的合理化过程往往会限制冲突,但也限制了为公正结果进行谈判的机会。官僚程序和先例取代了特殊的、量身定制的解决方案。然而,组织在持续改进和战略差异化方面的努力依赖于组织的创造力和对协作解决问题的开放性,这可能是一些谈判的特征。为谈判者和组织提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“McDonaldization” and constructive conflict: Negotiation amidst systemic and technological advancements
Negotiators attempting to make deals and resolve conflicts within or between organizations must first attempt to determine if negotiation is an authorized and productive option. In this paper we explore the tension between organizational routines that attempt to limit conflict and negotiation, and the possible organizational benefits of authorizing or facilitating constructive conflict. Organizations generally develop routines that balance a desire for efficiency with the need to create perceptions of fairness and justice. Efficiency measures yield rationalized processes that tend to limit conflict, but also limit the opportunity to negotiate for a just outcome. Bureaucratic procedures and precedents come to replace idiosyncratic and tailored solutions. However, organizational efforts at continuous improvement and strategic differentiation rely on organizational creativity and openness to the collaborative problem solving that can characterize some negotiations. Recommendations are offered for negotiators and for organizations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Working globally, living locally The future of the software industry: Lessons from hollywood Action Learning as a tool for concurrent problem solving and leadership development in IT organizations An effective leadership approach for today's engineer 2006 IEEE/UT EMC Overview of emerging technologies — nano
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1