Explore the vast range of titles available.

Franchise relationships are prone to conflict. To safeguard the rights of individual franchisees, several states have legislated greater franchisor disclosure (registration law) ex ante and/or franchisor “termination for good cause” (relationship law) ex post. The impact of regulatory oversight on franchisor–franchisee conflict, however, remains unclear. Relying on agency theory arguments, the authors first assess the influence of the regulatory context, both by itself and in combination with the franchise ownership structure, on the incidence of litigated conflict. Conditional on litigation, they also predict the impact of franchise regulation on both the parties’ litigation initiation and resolution choices and the resulting outcomes. The authors test the hypotheses using a unique multisource archival database of 411 instances of litigation across 75 franchise systems observed over 17 years. The results indicate that the regulatory context, by itself as well as in combination with the franchise ownership structure, significantly shapes parties’ conflict management choices. The authors also find evidence of a trade-off between prevailing in the particular conflict and achieving franchise system growth objectives.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new methodological framework for the identification and analysis of different types of discursive manifestations of contradictions. Design/methodology/approach - The paper is based on the dialectical tradition of cultural-historical activity theory. The methodological framework is developed by means of analyzing the entire transcribed corpus of the discourse conducted in a change laboratory intervention consisting of eight sessions and altogether 189,398 words. Findings - Four types of discursive manifestations, namely dilemmas, conflicts, critical conflicts, and double binds, could be effectively identified in the data. Specific linguistic cues were a useful first level of approaching the different types of manifestations. Critical conflicts and double binds were found to be particularly effective lenses on systemic contradictions. Research limitations/implications - The paper points to the need for theoretical and conceptual rigor in studies using the notion of contradiction. Further empirical testing of the framework is needed and may lead to more refined or alternative categories. Practical implications - Dynamics of different organizational change interventions may be effectively analyzed and compared with the help of the framework. Originality/value - The paper presents an original, empirically-tested methodological framework that may be a valuable resource for analyzes of contradictions driving organizational change.

This article contributes to our understanding of organizational ambidexterity by introducing conflict as its microfoundation. Existing research distinguishes between three approaches to how organizations can be ambidextrous, that is, engage in both exploitation and exploration. They may sequentially shift the strategic focus of the organization over time, they may establish structural arrangements enabling the simultaneous pursuit of being both exploitative and explorative, or they may provide a supportive organizational context for ambidextrous behavior. However, we know little about how exactly ambidexterity is accomplished and managed. We argue that ambidexterity is a dynamic and conflict-laden phenomenon, and we locate conflict at the level of individuals, units, and organizations. We develop the argument that conflicts in social interaction serve as the microfoundation to organizing ambidexterity, but that their function and type vary across the different approaches toward ambidexterity. The perspective developed in this article opens up promising research avenues to examine how organizations purposefully manage ambidexterity.

Managers often accompany salespeople to customer meetings, and their presence can be invaluable to the interaction. However, at times, managers may act in ways that are harmful rather than helpful. Scant scholarly attention has been allocated to understanding the dark side of managerial involvement. When negative manager behaviors manifest in customer-facing situations, salespeople must understand and mitigate these occurrences to prevent deleterious outcomes. This study conducts a qualitative inquiry of professional salespeople and organizational buyers to uncover the ways customer-facing adverse manager behaviors (CFAMBs) occur and affect sales calls. Specifically, manifestations of manager arrogance, apathy, and awkwardness can negatively affect customer outcomes. In addition, factors affecting the severity of CFAMBs’ impact include timing in the sales cycle, customer status, and pre-, in-, and post-call mitigation strategies. Collectively, the findings advance role theory and theory germane to the salesperson–sales manager interface and provide practical guidance for dealing with CFAMBs.

This paper investigates how contract structure influences interfirm dispute resolution processes and outcomes by examining a unique dataset consisting of over 150,000 pages of documents relating to 102 business disputes. We find that the level of contract detail affects the type of dispute resolution approach that is adopted when conflict arises, and that different approaches are associated with different costs for resolving the dispute. We also find that the effect of contract choice on dispute resolution approach is moderated by the degree of coordination required in the relationship, and that the effect of dispute approach on costs is moderated by the degree of power asymmetry between the parties. Thus, even after controlling for various attributes of the exchange relationship and the dispute, the choice of contracting structure has important strategic implications.

Construction disputes by their very nature are often complex, sometimes multi-party disputes, many of which are not suited to either adjudication or traditional form of litigation (which are often slow, expensive and divisive). The sheer complexity of construction creates a compelling case for the introduction of alternative approaches within this adversarial industry. This book traces the history, development, current status and future direction of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the UK construction industry. It draws on the largest collection of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors-funded surveys on Scottish and English disputants' perceptions and attitudes to ADR. It includes an examination of the key legislative and regulatory principles relating to ADR in the Construction sphere. The study also evaluates the role and functions of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in England and, with reference to case law, identifies its facilitative approach to ADR. The coherence of the TCC's approach to issues such as refusal to resort to ADR is also examined. It will be a valuable reference work for scholars and practitioners in construction and the built environment, in the UK and internationally.

The WTO has delivered policy outcomes that are very different from those likely to emerge out of the recent wave of preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Should economists see this as an efficient institutional hand-off, where the WTO has carried trade liberalization as far as it can manage, and is now passing the baton to PTAs to finish the job? We survey a growing economics literature on international trade agreements and argue on this basis that the WTO is not passé. Rather, and subject to some caveats, our survey of research to date suggests that the WTO warrants strong support while a more cautious view of PTAs seems appropriate.

This article applies mechanism design to the study of international conflict resolution. Standard mechanisms in which an arbitrator can enforce her decisions are usually not feasible because disputants are sovereign entities. Nevertheless, we find that this limitation is inconsequential. Despite only being capable of making unenforceable recommendations, mediators can be equally effective as arbitrators. By using recommendation strategies that do not reveal that one player is weak to a strong opponent, a mediator can effectively circumvent the unenforceability constraint. This is because these strategies make the strong player agree to recommendations that yield the same payoff as arbitration in expectation. This result relies on the capability of mediators to collect confidential information from the disputants, before making their recommendations. Simple protocols of unmediated communication cannot achieve the same level of ex ante welfare, as they preclude confidentiality.

The existing consensus models of conflict decision-making generally assume that the decision-makers’ preferences are simple and certain. This assumption oversimplifies the complexity of real-world conflicts due to the ignorance of the decision-maker’s limited rationality. The present work makes the first attempt at solving this issue by defining the grey consensus and dissent preference of two decision makers (DMs), which is then embedded into the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) to obtain conflict equilibrium solutions. To be specific, preference relations are first described as interval grey scales to reflect the decision maker’s judgments on conflict states, and then converted into crisp values to interface with GMCR. We next present both the logical and matrix representations under the GMCR framework, along with detailed pseudocode that can be implemented to investigate actual conflict situations practically. For validation and verification purposes, the proposed decision framework is applied to the water resource conflict of the Yellow River Basin in China, from which insights are derived to facilitate effective strategic decision-making for resolving complex conflicts in uncertain environments.

PurposeAlthough humour and conflict are popular topics in management, little attention has been paid to the negative effects of humour in terms of how workplace humour could turn into unexpected conflicts. From the perspective of conflict management, human resources (HR) need to better understand this dynamic transition process. The purpose of this research is to explore the transition from humour to conflict and how HR perform when addressing humour-related issues.Design/methodology/approachA secondary data, multiple case study approach is adopted. Case studies are analysed qualitatively and thematically through a content analysis matrix.FindingsAggressive humour is closely related to conflict. Humour content and the context in which it takes place are important influential factors contributing to the transition from humour to conflict. It is challenging for HR to deal with humour-related issues: most victims are unwilling to report the issue at an early stage until they cannot bear the joke, forcing HR to perform reactively.Practical implicationsWorkplace humour-related issues should not be overlooked. HR should adopt an early, proactive approach to prevent severe conflict from developing and relationships deteriorating.Originality/valueThis study highlights the dynamics and complexity of the transition from humour to conflict, providing new insights for HR in terms of effective conflict management.