Setting the stage for negotiations: How superordinate goal dialogues promote trust and joint gain in negotiations between teams

2021 ◽  
Vol 167 ◽  
pp. 157-169
Author(s):  
Roderick I. Swaab ◽  
Robert B. Lount ◽  
Seunghoo Chung ◽  
Jeanne M. Brett
Author(s):  
Leslie A. DeChurch ◽  
Gina M. Bufton ◽  
Sophie A. Kay ◽  
Chelsea V. Velez ◽  
Noshir Contractor

Multiteam systems consist of two or more teams, each of which pursues subordinate team goals, while working interdependently with at least one other team toward a superordinate goal. Many teams work in these larger organizational systems, where oft-cited challenges involve learning processes within and between teams. This chapter brings a learning perspective to multiteam systems and a multiteam system perspective to organizational learning. Several classic illustrations of organizational learning—for example, the Challenger and Columbia disasters—actually point to failures in organizational learning processes within and between teams. We offer the focus on intrateam knowledge creation and retention and interteam knowledge transfer as a useful starting point for thinking about how to conceptually and operationally define learning in multiteam systems. Furthermore, we think leadership structures and multiteam emergent states are particularly valuable drivers of learning.


2019 ◽  
pp. 15-31
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Benincasa

For persons who wanted to invest their resources in international commerce, the necessity of a sea voyage significantly increased the risk connected to this venture. Thus the contracts, which took into account the risk related to navigation, constituted under Roman law a special category of contracts, as they modified standard contracts such as a loan or a partnership contract. In the contract of maritime loan the fact that the creditor assumed the risk of losing money in case the condition si salva navis pervenerit was not fulfilled and in exchange could claim high interest to compensate him for such risk transforms this contract into an instrument used for the joint gain of profits. The classical scheme, in which all partners were obliged to share both profits and losses was modified by a partnership contract, in which a partner whose contribution involved exclusively undertaking risky sea voyages was exempt from bearing losses. This pactum made it possible to treat pecuniary contributions and in-kind contributions as equivalent in value. This prevented a situation in which the partner whose sole contribution involved services, in spite of due performance of his obligations, would be liable to repay a part of the loss to the partner who brought capital, if the activity of the partnership resulted in the loss. A typical example, referred to by jurists, of a situation in which services performed by a partner justified discharging him from participating in the loss, was the case in which one of the socii financed the purchase of goods to be subsequently sold with profit in another port, while the other one carried out this venture risking his life during the sea voyage. Therefore, undoubtedly, services entailing a dangerous sea voyage constituted a good example of a partnership, in which the value of a contribution of opera was even greater than the value of the capital invested, and this justified releasing one of the partners from participation in the loss. Therefore, the risk related to navigation, and more specifically the willingness to assume it, starts to be considered as having a certain economic and market value. This value constitutes a special periculi pretium, that is to be taken into consideration in a contract relationship. The acknowledgement by Roman jurists that the willingness to assume the risk connected with certain types of business constituted an economic value, means that the importance of such factors as the partner’s efficiency, resourcefulness, or willingness to embark on a risky activity (in most cases crucial for a success of an enterprise) – was fully appreciated.


1973 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis W. Stern ◽  
Brian Sternthal ◽  
C. Samuel Craig

This article examines a laboratory methodology for studying interorganizational conflict between members of a distribution channel. A parasimulation approach was used to investigate the effectiveness of a superordinate goal and an exchange-of-persons program in managing conflict.


2004 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith B White ◽  
Renée Tynan ◽  
Adam D Galinsky ◽  
Leigh Thompson

2007 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 2328-2330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaekyun Moon ◽  
Jaewook Lee ◽  
Daejung Yoon

Author(s):  
Stephen J. Zaccaro ◽  
Samantha Dubrow ◽  
Elisa M. Torres ◽  
Lauren N.P. Campbell

In this review, we examine the burgeoning body of research on multiteam systems (MTSs) since the introduction of the concept in 2001. MTSs refer to networks of interdependent teams that coordinate at some level to achieve proximal and distal goals. We summarize MTS findings around three core processes and states: within- and between-team coordination processes/structures, leadership structures/processes, and cognitive and affective/motivation emergent states. Furthermore, we explore how these processes and states vary according to MTS boundary status (internal or external), component team distance (geographic, functional, cultural, and discipline), and superordinate goal type (intellectual or physical). We identify several process and state similarities across levels of these attributes, as well as highlight some important differences. We conclude with a set of propositions and future directions prompted by our review, which can serve as a guide for future MTS research.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 (1) ◽  
pp. 14827
Author(s):  
Geordie McRuer ◽  
Jun Gu ◽  
Geoffrey J. Leonardelli
Keyword(s):  

1976 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 591-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. Hunger ◽  
L. W. Stern
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document