دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله چشم انداز متناقض و رویکردهای دیالکتیکی برای مدیریت درگیری (ترجمه رایگان – برنزی ⭐️)
این مقاله انگلیسی ISI در ۵ صفحه منتشر شده و ترجمه آن ۶ صفحه میباشد. کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله رایگان – برنزی ⭐️ بوده و به صورت ناقص ترجمه شده است.
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی + خرید ترجمه فارسی | |
عنوان فارسی مقاله: |
یک چشم انداز متناقض و رویکردهای دیالکتیکی برای مدیریت درگیری: نقش تعدیل کننده ابهام |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: |
A Paradoxical Perspective and Dialectical Approaches to Managing Conflict: The Moderating Role of Ambiguity |
|
مشخصات مقاله انگلیسی | |
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی | |
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی | ۵ صفحه با فرمت pdf |
نوع ارائه مقاله | ژورنال |
رشته های مرتبط با این مقاله | مدیریت |
گرایش های مرتبط با این مقاله | مدیریت اجرایی |
بیس | نیست ☓ |
مدل مفهومی | ندارد ☓ |
پرسشنامه | ندارد ☓ |
متغیر | ندارد ☓ |
رفرنس | دارای رفرنس در داخل متن ✓ |
کد محصول | F1740 |
مشخصات و وضعیت ترجمه فارسی این مقاله | |
فرمت ترجمه مقاله | pdf و ورد تایپ شده با قابلیت ویرایش |
وضعیت ترجمه | انجام شده و آماده دانلود |
کیفیت ترجمه | ترجمه رایگان – برنزی ⭐️ |
تعداد صفحات ترجمه تایپ شده با فرمت ورد با قابلیت ویرایش | ۶ صفحه با فونت ۱۴ B Nazanin |
ترجمه ضمیمه | ندارد ☓ |
ترجمه پاورقی | ندارد ☓ |
منابع داخل متن | به صورت انگلیسی درج شده است ✓ |
منابع انتهای متن | به صورت انگلیسی درج شده است ✓ |
کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله پایین میباشد. |
توضیحات | ترجمه این مقاله به صورت ناقص انجام شده است. |
فهرست مطالب |
چکیده |
بخشی از ترجمه |
چکیده |
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی |
Abstract We attempt to broaden the conventional theory and practice on conflict management by introducing ideas of conceptualizing conflicts from a paradoxical perspective and managing conflicts through dialectical approaches. We propose that three types of ambiguity in conflict situations – vagueness in preferences, alternatives, and anticipations – will impel culturally divergent approaches of conflict management. We empirically test these ideas through three studies. Study 1 used open-ended questions to solicit the conceptualization of conflicts from MBA students in China and the U.S. and found more paradoxical attributes among Chinese perceptions of conflict. In Study 2, we surveyed key informants of organizational conflicts in two large, multi-subsidiary organizations in China and the u.S. and found culturally divergent approaches to conflict management under the three types of ambiguity. Data from this study also present needs and potentials in the U.S. for more options beyond conventional conflict management approaches. Study 3 is designed to isolate and manipulate the moderating effects of ambiguity in conflict scenarios. Together we hope to contribute an “ambicultural” layer to the current literature on cross-cultural conflict management. ۱٫ A Paradoxical Perspective of Conflict Western literature defmes conflict as incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance between two or more parties (Putnam & Poole, 1987; Rahim, 1992; Wall & Callister, 1995) and a clear triumph of one over the other has been a major theme in strategy, literature or films (Suber, 2006). But eastern literature perceives conflict in a more paradoxical lens: the simultaneous presence of contradictory, inconsistent, yet interrelated elements that seems to be untrue but is in fact true (Lewis, 2000; Quinn & Cameron, 1988; Eisenhardt, 2000; Gannon, 2008; Smith & Berg, 1987; Naisbitt, 1994). The paradoxical perspective of conflict expands and blurs the boundaries between friend and foe, cooperation and competition (Chen, 2008), and embeds potential solutions within seemingly insoluble situations. Traditionally, Chinese society has been characterized as collectivist, with an emphasis on interdependence among members of in-groups (Tu 1985). Confucian and Taoist views of the world stress recognizing one’s place in the social order and not striving to deviate from it but rather harmonizing with others for the betterment of society (Tu 1985). With this collective orientation, Chinese tend to avoid conflicts and are more tolerant with contradiction (e.g., Aaker & Sengupta, 2000; Briley, Morris, & Simonson, 2000; Leung, 1987; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Yet we observe extremely individualist behaviors and heavy bargaining in daily life. Across or within contexts, East Asians lack stability in the self-concept and exhibit low self-concept consistency whereas Westerners tend to define the self in relatively stable, global terms and exhibit high self-concept consistency (Cousins, 1989; Kashima, et aI., 1992; Choi & Choi, 2002; Sedikides, et aI., 2003). To explain this Eastern and Western difference, cultural difference in thinking helps. In general, Western thought emphasizes analytical thinking and East Asian thought emphasizes holistic thinking (Spencer-Rodgers, Williams, & Peng 2010). For instance, when it comes to the relationship between pleasant and unpleasant emotions (Bagozzi, Wong, & Yi, 1999; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999), westerners are likely to perceive frequency judgments of happiness in opposition to frequency judgments of sadness (Schimmack, Oishi, & Diener 2002). In short, in Western cultures pleasant and unpleasant emotions ” are conceived as oppositional categories. One is either happy or sad but not both ” (Bagozzi et al. 1999, p. 646). In contrast, East Asians are dialectic (Bagozzi et a!., 1999; Peng & Nisbett, 1999, 2000), and they hold a higher tolerance for apparently contradictory beliefs than North Americans (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Hence, people in these cultures may feel less compelled to provide opposing ratings for pleasant versus unpleasant emotions (Schimmack et a!. 2002). Besides in emotion literature, the cultural difference between holistic -and analytic thinking also exists in belief in change (Choi et a1. 2007), self-belief (Spencer-Rodgers, Srivastava, et a1., 2010), change in the stock market (Ji, Zhang, & Guo, 2008), attitudes toward out-groups as well as in-groups (Endo et al., 2000; Heine & Lehman, 1997b; Hewstone & Ward, 1985; Ma et a1., 2010), judgment and decision making (Ji et ai., 2008), dyadic negotiations (Keller, Loewenstein, & Jin, 2010). In the context of interpersonal conflict management, we expect to see these ideas integrated in the affective experiences and dialectical cognitive mechanisms that individuals can marshal to neutralize culturally paradoxical situations. In particular, due to the globalization processes, how cultural paradox reacts to the increased interaction has become a tense topic. According to previous studies (e.g., Kanagawa et aI., 2001; Kashima et aI., 2005; Suh, 2002, Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Norenzayan, Choi, & Nisbett, 2002), the abovementioned dialectic thinking has led to more contextualized and less fixed conflict reconciliation patterns. |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی + خرید ترجمه فارسی | |
عنوان فارسی مقاله: |
یک چشم انداز متناقض و رویکردهای دیالکتیکی برای مدیریت درگیری: نقش تعدیل کننده ابهام |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: |
A Paradoxical Perspective and Dialectical Approaches to Managing Conflict: The Moderating Role of Ambiguity |
|