Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to propose that a more optimal regulatory focus in conflict reflects a mix of promotion and prevention considerations because conflict often elicits needs for promoting well-being as well as needs for preventing threats to security and interests. Two studies using distinct methodologies tested the hypothesis that social conflict is associated with better outcomes when the parties construe the conflict with a regulatory focus that reflects a combination of both promotion and prevention orientations. Design/methodology/approachStudy 1 was an experiment that framed the same low-intensity conflict scenario as either prevention- or promotion-focused, or as both. In Study 2, we mouse-coded stream-of-thought accounts of participants’ actual ongoing high-intensity conflicts for time spent in both promotion and prevention focus. FindingsIn Study 1, the combined framing resulted in greater satisfaction with expected conflict outcomes and goal attainment than did either prevention or promotion framing alone. However, a promotion frame alone was associated with greater process and relationship satisfaction. These results were replicated in Study 2. Originality/valuePrior research on regulatory focus has emphasized the benefits of a promotion focus over prevention when managing conflict. The present research offers new insight into how these seemingly opposing motives can operate in tandem to increase conflict satisfaction. Thus, this research illustrates the value of moving beyond dichotomized motivational distinctions in conflict research, to understand the dynamic interplay of how these distinctions may be navigated in concert for more effective conflict engagement. It also illustrates the value of mouse-coding methods for capturing the dynamic interplay of motives as they rise and fall in salience over time.

A new method to empower organizational readiness for change in Indonesian SMEs

“…A person's readiness is highlighted by the positive-additional motivation to lead missions, goals, and direction (Coleman et al, 2019;Liljander et al, 2006;Pruitt, 2015;Puklavec et al, 2018). An organization or person uses the motivation to achieve missions, goals, and directions as a resource to solve organizational problems and control all activities aligned with management requirements.…”

“…Studies have also suggested that individuals or organizations that utilize their optimism are also highly creative (Puklavec et al, 2018). It has been found that SMEs with organizational optimism is highly sustainable and can achieve their organizational mission and goals due to this optimistic commitment (Coleman et al, 2019;Puklavec et al, 2018).…”

“…It believes that the bundling of the firm, financial, and innovator knowledge are a combination of tangible and intangible assets used to generate future cash inflows. These characteristics are also used to enable SME management to be more significant and ready for change (Coleman et al, 2019;Puklavec et al, 2014Puklavec et al, , 2018. SMEs thus benefit from the existence of these characteristics to capture future potential business by acting on their forward-looking capabilities.…”

Conflict Intelligence and Systemic Wisdom: Meta‐Competencies for Engaging Conflict in a Complex, Dynamic World

“…More specifically, the growing body of DST research on peace and conflict dynamics has introduced a set of new dynamical models for studying and practicing conflict resolution (see Vallacher et al ). These include the following: optimality models , which have shown how navigating opposing goals, motives, or strategies in conflict (like distributive and integrative goals in negotiation) can prove optimal when combined simultaneously or iteratively over time (see Kim and Coleman ; Coleman, Kugler et al ; Kugler, Coleman, and Fuchs ); adaptivity models , which have shown that more effective responses to fundamentally different types of conflicts require distinct strategies that fit the changing demands of the situations (see Coleman et al ; Coleman and Kugler ; Coleman, Kugler, and Chatman ); complexity models , which have found that fostering more complex patterns of thoughts, feelings, group identifications, actions, and social organization in communities can prevent or mitigate more extreme forms of polarization and destructive conflict escalation (see Coleman ; Vallacher et al ; Kugler ); and attractor models , which demonstrate how interactions among thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and so on in conflicts coalesce into change‐resistant patterns that self‐perpetuate over time (Vallacher and Nowak ) …”

“…Although proponents offer more elicitive approaches as a check on the cultural imperialism evident in many Western approaches to cross‐cultural conflict (Lederach ), they concede that it is often unfeasible and impractical. Recently, researchers have begun investigating what are the most basic conditions conducive to using elicitive versus more prescriptive approaches (Coleman, Lamberto, and Mah ). For example, researchers are exploring how such conditions as time constraints, differing levels of participant commitment and energy, the “tightness‐looseness” of cultural norms (see Gelfand ), and the specific needs and objectives of the stakeholders ultimately affect the appropriateness and feasibility of employing elicitive approaches.…”