Search results

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine how the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors and how cultural factors explain the differences in conflict management styles.Design/methodology/approachA survey was conducted involving 275 employees from China, Japan and South Korea. A hierarchical regression analysis and A‐matrix hypothesis test were used to analyze the data.FindingsKoreans, compared with the Chinese and Japanese, were more likely to use a compromise style. In addition, the Japanese, compared with the Chinese and Koreans, were less likely to dominate and were more likely to oblige their supervisors. The country differences in obliging and dominating styles were partially explained by goal emphasis (self vs collective) and concern for the self, respectively.Research limitations/implicationsWhile limited to recalling specific incidents and self‐reported responses, there is evidence that East Asians differ from each other in resolving their interpersonal conflicts with supervisors. Future research needs to examine East Asian differences in resolving an interpersonal conflict with other targets such as peers and subordinates and using other kinds of conflict management styles such as mediation and arbitration.Originality/valueThis is one of few studies that have examined East Asian differences in conflict management styles.

By combining quantitative and qualitative methods of study, we develop a comprehensive model of top management behaviors, perceived management credibility, and employee cynicism and outcomes. Specifically, we identify managerial behaviors that affect employees' perceptions of two components of top management's credibility — trustworthiness and competence — and examine how each of those components relates to employee cynicism. Top management competence and trustworthiness relate to different components of employee cynicism (cognitive, affective, and behavioral cynicism), and these dimensions of cynicism differentially relate to organizational commitment and self-assessed job performance. Content analysis of critical incidents revealed that different sets of managerial behaviors generate attributions of competence, incompetence, trustworthiness, and non-trustworthiness. This study and the resulting model open the door to more finely distilled research on management credibility and employee cynicism.

Although we know that individuals who tend to reveal their true selves to others at work are better performers, little is known about why this is the case or in which workplace environments this trait will be most helpful. In the present study, we leveraged self-verification theory to better understand the internal and interpersonal effects that self-verification striving has on employees. Specifically, we proposed and found that self-verification striving serves to increase both employee vigor and demand–ability fit, ultimately leading to better job performance. Results of a multilevel, two-wave study involving 222 employees and their supervisors further revealed that ethical climates also play a critical role in affecting the self-verification striving–employee outcome relationship. Specifically, self-verification striving leads to higher vigor and better demand–ability fit and subsequently higher job performance only in teams with high ethical climates. Our results contribute to the literature by describing how and when self-verification striving may augment performance.

The employee-organization relationship (EOR) is a key component of organizational behavior. Researchers have consistently shown that employees who perceive that they are supported by their organizations (favorable EORs) tend to have positive attitudes and behave in a manner that helps the organization to reach its goals. For many years, the reciprocity norm (e.g. felt obligation) has been a widely accepted explanation for the EOR. Yet, despite calls to explore additional pathways, little work has examined other mediating mechanisms between favorable EORs and outcomes. We draw on the affect theory of social exchange to argue for the mediating effects of gratitude, felt obligation, and pride on the relationship between perceived organizational support (POS) and outcomes. Our results—from three field studies—show that (a) gratitude mediated the relationships of POS with extra-role performance aimed at aiding the organization, affective organizational commitment, and job satisfaction, (b) the mediating effect of gratitude was stronger than the mediating effect of felt obligation, and (c) gratitude made stronger contributions to extra-role performance and affective organizational commitment than did pride. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.