It seems the mistakes he’s made are

• He may talk about collaboration & use all the right language but his team doesn’t (thus sending mixed messages)
• He delegated to others, not collaborated with others
• Not all parties felt like they had been heard
• There need to be compromises (you can’t win them all)
• Lack of a compelling overall goal

I don’t know know if I agree with those in regards to what Obama is doing or has done but they are good things to keep in mind when you’re trying to bring people together.

Recognizing the need to include more research from outside the U.S. and non-western cultures, this special issue explores conflict management in organizations in international and cross-cultural settings.

Examples of topics that would be appropriate for this special issue are: How does national culture influence conflict management and conflict resolution processes and outcomes? Are there different conflict styles used in different countries? Do countries outside the U.S. have unique ways of handling conflict? Are the outcomes of conflict different in different cultures. How is conflict perceived in different cultures. Are there different causes and outcomes of conflict in different countries? Are there alternative perceptions or conceptualizations of conflict in different cultures that either exacerbate or mitigate conflict? How does language influence conflict?

These examples provide illustrations of the types of international and cross-cultural conflict studies that would be appropriate. However, researchers are encouraged to submit manuscripts using innovative theories or methods that advance our understanding of conflict from global or international perspectives.

This call for papers is aimed at a wide array of scholars–from different disciplines such as management, communications, psychology, sociology, economics, public administration, and law.

Studies using a variety of methodological techniques are encouraged including (but not limited to): laboratory studies, field studies, case studies, survey research, and analysis of archival data. Articles focused solely on theory development are also welcome as are papers that present novel approaches to conflict management in the context of organizations in international settings.

Manuscripts should focus on the following criteria:

Use clear exposition, be technically adequate, make a theoretical contribution (e.g., testing, creating, or extending theory), make an empirical contribution, be innovative, interesting, & novel, and have potential implications for practice
– Length: generally no longer than 35 pages (including everything: tables, references, figures, etc.)
– Double-spaced with 1 inch margins, 12-point Times New Roman font.
– Following APA (5th ed.) format.
All papers will be blind reviewed.

Inquires and manuscripts should be submitted in electronic form by October 1, 2006 to: Richard A. Posthuma, rposthuma@utep.edu

Theme: Gearing for the Globalization Era

The International Academy of Management and Business (IAMB) are inviting
scholars and practitioners to submit papers, symposia, and posters for
presentation. Papers are solicited in management and business-related areas
such as: Organizational Behavior and Change; Conflicts and Negotiations;
Human Resource Management; Technology Management; Innovation and Technology;
Public Administration; Business Policy; Marketing Management; Financial
Management; Operations Research; International Business; Cross Cultural
Management; and Management Education and Training.

Conflicts between employers and employees can take on a variety of forms including lawsuits, informal complaints, grievances, strikes, picketing, etc. In this special issue we explore the many alternative ways that these conflicts can be resolved. These alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures may include negotiation, mediation, arbitration, fact-finding, ombudspersons, peer review, and many other combinations or permutations of thereof. This is a broad area and many different perspectives on this issue are welcome.

Important questions that could be addressed include the following: How do participants perceive the effectiveness and/or fairness of ADR systems? How does the use of ADR systems affect the outcomes for employers and employees? What are the contextual factors that explain the adoption of use of these systems? How do ADR systems differ across countries or cultures? Are alternative forms of dispute resolution systems fair at the micro or macro level of analysis? How do justice concepts relate to ADR systems in terms of predicting important outcomes for organizations (e.g., turnover, legal claiming, grievances, recommendation intentions, productive and counterproductive behaviors). What are the legal constraints and implications of the use of these systems? What theories (e.g., neo-institutionalism, cognitive choice, transaction cost economics) can be advanced through the study of these systems?

However, these are only examples of the types of questions that could be addressed. Other topics related to the general topic of ADR in organizations are also welcome.

This call for papers is aimed at a wide array of scholars–from different disciplines such as management, communications, psychology, sociology, economics, public administration, and law.

Studies using a variety of methodological techniques are encouraged including (but not limited to): laboratory studies, field studies, case studies, survey research, and analysis of archival data. Articles focused solely on theory development are also welcomed as are papers that present novel approaches to ADR systems in organizations in either domestic or international settings. Furthermore, studies that review the law of ADR systems are also encouraged.

Manuscripts should focus on the following criteria:
– Use clear exposition
– Be technically adequate
– Make a theoretical contribution (e.g., testing, creating or extending theory)
– Make an empirical contribution
– Be innovative, interesting, & novel
– Have potential implications for practice

Format
– Length: generally no longer than 35 pages (including everything: tables, references, figures, etc.)
– Double-spaced with 1 inch margins, 12-point Times New Roman font.
– Follow APA (5th ed.) format.

All papers will be blind reviewed. Manuscripts should be submitted in electronic form by November 1, 2006 to: Richard A. Posthuma, rposthuma@utep.edu

like everything with myers-briggs, the idea is to use the information as a tool to help understand others. i can’t find any information about the research they did except for this article and links to buy the booklet.

their work indicates the greatest area for conflict is between the thinking-feeling and judging-perceiving types. (aka the ‘conflict pairs’). the thinking type will want to fix the problem, is concerned with facts & maintains a firm position while the feeling type is concerned about the impact of the problem on other’s feelings & thoughts, ensuring there is give & take, accepting differences and needs & values. perceivers do not like to make quick decisions and want flexibility while judging people want to come to conclusion, focus on present & future and experience satisfaction when the conflict is over.

the kit contains 12 pages about win-win, mediation, managing emotions, etc. and has a checklist which pulls together the ideas of the 12 pages which would be great to use to work thru a conflict.

really great stuff written so anyone can understand. i wish they offered it as a 13 page PDF to download as well as the web pages.

the organisation also has their full training manual online to download for free (and that is in PDF).

flow is the concept of enjoying what you do and thus getting lost in it. that sense or feeling that everything is right in the world and you can experience flow in any aspect of your life.

IMO, finding flow wasn’t as interesting or detailed as good business. it’s a smaller book and hence a quicker read but if you want a better understanding of flow, read good business. it concentrates more on the idea of ‘happiness’ and ways you can create flow for your product, business, employees and self.

there was one bit of research mentioned in the finding flow book which drew my attention. a 1984 study by csikszentmihalyi and larson showed friendships ‘offer both the most emotionally rewarding contexts in the immediate present, and the greatest opportunities for developing one’s potential in the long run’. the authors then say ‘contemporary life, however, is not very suitable for sustaining friendships’ because of americans ‘geographical and social mobility’ and how we ‘reshuffle’ friendships based on our situation. for example, as we move from job to job or city to city or university to university, we change our friends. they state ‘lack of true friends is often the main complaint of people confronting an emotional crisis in the second half of life’.

i’m definitely a ‘shuffler’ in this is sense. i switch jobs, i have multiple degrees, i’ve moved cities and countries, meet people while traveling and develop friendships online. i have never thought of this as a problem (except i would love some better friend management technologies) and in fact, think this has greatly enriched my life.

this contrasts to what i have experienced in australia. here people have a circle of friends who have they made when they were quite young (elementary/jr high level) and they continue that friendship forever (ok, maybe not forever but you get the idea). australians travel a lot but they don’t seem to be as mobile in other ways. my impression is people stay in the same job longer. they don’t go away to university but attend uni in the same place (or nearby) to where they grew up. quite often they will go overseas for their working holiday but afterwards they come back to the same circle of friends and live in the same area.

it would be very interesting to see some research comparing flow or at least satisfaction of friendship/life using these differences in american/australian culture.

also, there was one bit in good business that i take exception to.

‘In a large organisation it is frequently difficult for a leader to have an accurate sense of the company’s affairs because reports are often afraid to be candid about problems. The head of a large multinational corporation employs the following strategy to keep the lines of communication and feedback open:’

i agree with this statement but i had to read the following quote a couple times to make sure i was really reading this correctly. remember, this is a quote to illustrate how to keep feedback and communication open in a large organisation.

Two weeks ago, I spent one entire week – five days – travelling to seven different cities and having meetings with employees. I talked to two to three hundred employees twice a day – different employees – for maybe an hour, giving them my views and then leaving an hour and half for them to ask me any questions they had. That’s how you keep your finger on the pulse.
… I’ve got to get out there and be with customers and be with employees and be in the field and watch what goes on and provide motivation. Last week I was in asia all week. The same thing. I was visiting our staff, visiting out plants, showing an interest in what they’re doing. That’s how you do it. You don’t do it sitting here.

i think, perhaps, this person has their heart in the right place. you do need to talk to your staff and show an interest in what they’re doing. what struck me as odd was the way this person went about doing it.

now math has never been my strong suit but if you spend 5 days in 7 cities, that’s less than a day per city. if you are talking to 200-300 employees twice a day (so 400-600 a day), that would equate to a minute per employee (10 hour day, 60 minutes per hour is 600 minutes). obviously this isn’t what was happening … they were in a group setting… but it’s interesting to look at the numbers this way. the person says they left 90 minutes per group to let the group ask questions of (after an hour of their presentation). again, obviously not what was happening but interesting to look at the numbers … 90 minutes divided by 200 people leaves everyone 45 seconds. 300 people get 30 seconds each – not including the leader’s reply.

while the leader in this quote was hoping for feedback and open communication, i doubt they were receiving much of it. IMO there needs to be more personalised communication to encourage the honest, open communication leaders would hope to have with employees. somehow i doubt these 200-300 person forums brought out in the open any issues and created the message that the company/leader was really concerned with problems/issues.

and that (to use an aussie phrase) gives me the shits.

the first two questions are: Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it is true?

the mediator expects to get a yes to the first question and a no to the second question. how can we every absolutely know when something is true. the idea is to put some cracks into the story & truth you’ve been believing and arguing for.

question 3 is: How do you react when you think that thought?
the thought being your side of the story in the conflict. you’re really getting to the impact your side of the conflict has on you.

and question 4: Who would you be without the thought?
if you didn’t feel this way, or keep going with the same story w/in this conflict, how would it change your life?

and you can also work on ‘turning around’ the original statement from something like ‘she’s not nice to me’ to ‘why should she be nice to me’ or ‘i should be nice to her’ as ways to think creatively and differently about the conflict.

there’s an example in the mediate article and lots more ways to elaborate on those 4 questions is on katie bryon’s site.

i had some conflict this afternoon so i think i’ll give this a go with that issue.