Suchergebnisse

Purpose
This paper aims to investigate why followers have low perceptions of leader openness and thus feel reluctant to communicate novel ideas by examining leader–follower relationship conflict (i.e. interpersonal incompatibility) and a follower's power distance orientation (i.e. an acceptance of uneven power distribution in organizations) as antecedents.


Design/methodology/approach
The research administrators conducted a three-wave work behavior survey in Study 1, a laboratory experiment in Study 2, and an online experiment in Study 3.


Findings
The results demonstrated that leader–follower relationship conflict reduced followers' perceptions of leader openness. However, the negative impact of relationship conflict became non-significant when followers have high power distance orientations (i.e. an acceptance of uneven power distribution in organizations). The findings also showed an indirect interaction effect of leader–follower relationship conflict and followers' power distance orientation on the followers' communication of novel ideas through the followers' perceptions of leader openness.


Originality/value
The research suggests that followers with higher power distance orientations are more likely to communicate novel ideas consistently because their relationship conflicts with their leaders do not negatively influence their perceptions of leader openness. Although researchers traditionally view cultures with a high level of power distance value as an obstacle to employee creativity, the present study reveals the benefits of an individual-level power distance orientation.

This study samples 78 business decision‐makers whose cases were part of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process, i.e., the Public Construction Commission (PCC), which operates under the government in Taiwan, between 1997 and early 2000. The authors propose an interaction between two variations of trust—category‐based trust and experience‐based trust—and hypothesize that decision‐makers' perceived identity with new versus old government ideology and past justice experiences (with the PCC) would jointly affect their decision preferences. The results partially support these hypotheses. The authors emphasize the critic role of trustworthiness of the third‐party ADR providers. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings.

Group members often over-weigh shared information and under-value unique information during discussions to the detriment of decision quality. Fortunately, perceiving other group members as receptive to dissenting opinions may enhance information sharing. We distinguish between two ways of expressing opinion-differences about tasks—debates and disagreements—that we predict are perceived by others as conveying varying degrees of receptivity to dissenting opinions. In four studies with mixed methods and a causal chain design, we manipulate and measure group members' (the "senders") expressions of debates and disagreements, others' (the "receivers") perceptions of the senders' receptivity to dissenting opinions, and receivers' information sharing intentions and behavior. We demonstrate that task conflicts that are expressed as debates rather than as disagreements are associated with greater information sharing because receivers perceive senders to be more receptive to dissenting opinions. We, thus, offer a novel approach to increasing information utilization during group decision making and help resolve the paradoxical effects of opinion differences on group performance.

This study samples 78 business decision‐makers whose cases were part of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process, i.e., the Public Construction Commission (PCC), which operates under the government in Taiwan, between 1997 and early 2000. The authors propose an interaction between two variations of trust—category‐based trust and experience‐based trust—and hypothesize that decision‐makers' perceived identity with new versus old government ideology and past justice experiences (with the PCC) would jointly affect their decision preferences. The results partially support these hypotheses. The authors emphasize the critic role of trustworthiness of the third‐party ADR providers. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings.