Theoretical definitions suggest that psychological identification and exchange evaluations affect the levels of organizational commitment that managers experience. A new, more applied approach was offered, suggesting that the Human Resource Management Practices (HRMPs) of an organization have direct influences on commitment. It was hypothesized that HRMPs would be more strongly related to commitment than demographic, job characteristic, social environment, or supervisory variables. Stepwise and hierarchical regression results of the responses of agricultural managers supported the hypotheses. The perceptions of the merit-system accuracy and the fairness of promotions accounted for the most variability. Tenure with organization and task identity were also significant predictors in the stepwise regression.

A 2(4) factorial experiment with six pens per treatment was conducted to examine the factors affecting the excretory behavior of growing-finishing pigs. The factors investigated were partition type (open or closed), pig density (9 or 14 pigs/pen, size: 2 m x 4.5 m), position of nipple drinker in the pen (back wall of the pen or side in front of slatted area), and prior experience of pigs (training or no training). A total of 1,104 pigs at a weight interval of 28.4 +/- .2 to 91.4 +/- .4 kg were used in this study. Pen cleanliness was assessed by a dung scoring system, and growth rate was determined over the growing-finishing period. Partition type, nipple drinker position, or prior training of pigs had no effect on growth rate. Stocking pigs at 14 pigs/pen reduced growth rate (P < .05) compared with 9 pigs/pen (.80 vs .83 kg/d). Significant differences for pen dirtiness were found for partition type. Pens with closed partitions were cleaner than those with open partitions (P = .0001) and pens became significantly dirtier as pigs grew older or heavier (P < .01). There was a significant interaction effect between pen partition and pig density as well as an interaction among pen partition, pig density, and water position (P < .05).

With the increased emphasis on emotions in negotiation, an exercise is presented which can be used with a simulated negotiation to develop emotional skills. Linking research on the role of emotions in negotiation to emotional intelligence, we propose a set of activities to develop greater awareness, understanding, and ability to manage emotions while negotiating. The teaching note explains how to use two worksheets, one before and one during the simulation. Headings on the worksheets correspond to levels of emotional intelligence. Suggestions for debriefing along with supporting literature are provided.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to review research on styles of negotiating and distinguish them from conflict styles and individual difference measures studied in negotiation contexts. Design/methodology/approach -The literature on negotiating styles is reviewed, a model is presented that synthesizes previous research, and suggestions for future research are presented. Findings -Previous research has predominantly considered leadership styles in terms of the five conflict-handling styles (collaborating, competing, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding) from the Dual Concerns Model. While this focus has been useful, the paper also points out that other measures exist that may be more useful for understanding negotiating styles, although they have yet to be validated. Originality/value -Negotiating styles, as distinct patterns of behavior, are critical for understanding effective negotiations as well as being able to train students in negotiation skills.Individual styles are learned patterns of behaviors, distinctive enough from other behavior patterns to be given labels. Identifying consistent patterns of behavior enables one to recognize, manage, and adapt to those patterns. Styles are presumed to be learned patterns of behavior that are more open to adjustment or development, whereas traits or dispositions are fixed patterns of behavior that are relatively stable across situations. Friedman et al. (2000) raised the question of whether conflict style is a stable disposition or a strategic choice of behaviors for a specific situation.In the context of negotiations, style is a construct with great potential utility. If patterns can be identified, then a negotiator can prepare to capitalize on her/his own strengths and discover the style of a negotiating partner, developing plans in consideration of that style. Students who are seeking to develop an approach to negotiating can learn desired styles and related strategies. When information is available about the outcomes or effectiveness associated with styles, then students learn how to achieve more desirable results as well.Given the obvious practical benefits of negotiator style, this paper will identify some of the approaches that authors have used in the past 30 years to characterize differences in how negotiators act and approach situations. We point out the recurring ambiguity in the literature about what negotiating styles are and how they may differ from traits. By drawing on the related literatures of negotiations and conflict management, we develop a model that combines individual differences and characteristics of the situation to determine appropriate negotiation styles. We have also taken these literatures and added some of our experiences with teaching style in the classroom. In addition, we present suggestions for future research based on our review.

No abstract