|
|
|
! All documents are reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. |
|
|
|
|
|
Citation style: ProQuest Standard |
|
|
|
|
Document 1 of 1 |
|
|
|
Subjects: |
Customer services, Quality of service, Teamwork |
|
Classification Codes |
9179, 5320 |
|
Locations: |
East Asia |
|
Author(s): |
Dean Tjosvold, Jane Moy, Shigeru Sasaki |
|
Document types: |
Feature |
|
Publication title: |
Managing Service Quality. Bedford: 1999. Vol. 9, Iss. 3; pg. 209 |
|
Source type: |
Periodical |
|
ISSN/ISBN: |
09604529 |
|
ProQuest document ID: |
86065059 |
|
Text Word Count |
4886 |
|
Document URL: |
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=86065059&Fmt=3&clientId=61836&RQT=309&VName=PQD |
|
Abstract (Document Summary) |
|
Quality service to customers is widely considered an essential foundation for business, especially in the increasingly competitive international marketplace. Without quality service, customers withdraw their support in favour of more customer-oriented firms. The emphasis today is on relational marketing where customers feel a part of the organization and reward their special treatment with loyalty and repeat business. Managers are recognizing that teamwork drives quality customer service. Total quality management, for example, employs teams to improve quality, reduce errors, and learn from errors. New product teams speed valuable products to the marketplace; production teams engage in continuous improvement in manufacturing; national account teams provide co-ordinated service to meet the evolving needs of companies. Less clear is the underlying nature of this productive teamwork. Managers need a crisp, validated framework that specifies how employees are to work together and identifies the conditions and methods that promote this effective teamwork. Ideally, this framework should be valid for various cultures so that it can be widely applied. Especially in today's global marketplace, team members of various cultural backgrounds must work together to deliver high value to customers. Based on research in the West, our studies are developing a framework for East Asia that clarifies the nature of the productive teamwork that delivers value to customers. Our findings underline the value of teamwork for quality service and identify co-operative goals as fundamental to this value-producing teamwork. More surprisingly, results support that conflict and disagreement within the team are key for successful service delivery in East Asia. Contrary to strong generalizations held in the West, East Asian employees were found to welcome, value, and use opposing opinions to solve problems and improve customer service. However, these conflicts must be managed co-operatively and skillfully. |
|
Full Text (4886 words) |
|
Copyright MCB UP Limited (MCB) 1999 Dean Tjosvold: Dean Tjosvold is at the Department of Management, Lingnan College, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong Jane Moy: Jane Moy is at the Department of Management, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong Shigeru Sasaki: Shigeru Sasaki is at the Faculty of Business, Takasaki City University of Economics, Japan ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This article was supported by the RGC grant project No: LC890/96H and LC3004/98H to the first author. Quality service to customers is widely considered an essential foundation for business, especially in the increasingly competitive international marketplace (Schneider et al., 1998; Seiders and Berry, 1998). Without quality service, customers withdraw their support in favour of more customer-oriented firms. The emphasis today is on relational marketing where customers feel a part of the organization and reward their special treatment with loyalty and repeat business (Smith, 1998). Managers are recognizing that teamwork drives quality customer service (Bondra and Davis, 1996; Chase and Bowen, 1991; Gronross, 1990; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Schultz, 1996). Total quality management, for example, employs teams to improvequality, reduce errors, and learn from errors (Gehani, 1993). New product teams speed valuable products to the marketplace; production teams engage in continuous improvement in manufacturing; national account teams provide co-ordinated service to meet the evolving needs of companies (Barrett, 1986; Burbidge, 1995; Kumar and Gupta, 1991). Less clear is the underlying nature of this productive teamwork. Managers need a crisp, validated framework that specifies how employees are to work together and identifies the conditions and methods that promote this effective teamwork. Ideally, this framework should be valid for various cultures so that it can be widely applied. Especially in today's global marketplace, team members of various cultural backgrounds must work together to deliver high value to customers. Based on research in the West, our studies are developing a framework for East Asia that clarifies the nature of the productive teamwork that delivers value to customers. Our findings underline the value of teamwork for quality service and identify co-operative goals as fundamental to this value-producing teamwork. More surprisingly, results support that conflict and disagreement within the team are key for successful service delivery in East Asia. Contrary to strong generalizations held in the West, East Asian employees were found to welcome, value, and use opposing opinions to solve problems and improve customer service. However, these conflicts must be managed co-operatively and skilfully. Framework for quality enhancing teamwork Groups are not always effective and indeed can make horrible decisions that alienate members (Hackman, 1990). Morton Deutsch (1980; 1973), a pioneering social psychologist at Columbia University, proposed that how group members perceive their goals shapes their actual working together and theirsubsequent effectiveness. In co-operation, team members believe their goals are positively linked so that as one moves toward his or her goal, others also reach their goal; they understand they can be successful together; they can both "win". A competitive relationship is win-lose. Group members believe their goals are negatively related so that one's success interferes with others; if one succeeds, others fail. With independent goals, employees consider their interests unrelated so that reaching one person's goals neither helps nor hinders others' goals. Co-operative goals do not inhibit conflict but rather foster the open-minded, constructive discussion of various views, also called constructive controversy (Deutsch, 1980, 1973; Tjosvold, 1991; 1985). In constructive controversy, confrontation with an opposing view creates uncertainty about the adequacy of one's own position and curiosity and information-seeking to understand the contrary view (Tjosvold, 1982; Tjosvold and Deemer, 1980; Tjosvold and Field, 1984). Because people understand opposing ideas and information and have taken each other's perspective, they are able to see the limitations in their own views and incorporate other arguments. They combine the most reliable information and best ideas to make a high quality decision they are willing to implement. However, people in competition are determined to win and outdo each other. They closed-mindedly reject the opposing position and the person arguing it, refuse to incorporate other ideas into their own decision making, and fail to reach an agreement. Based on evidence from the West (Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Johnson et al., 1981; 1983), it is proposed that: Service-providers who engage in an open-minded discussion of opposing views effectively deliver quality service tocustomers, strengthen their workrelationships, and become committed to continued effective work. - Service providers with co-operative, compared to competitive and independent, goals with each other discuss their views open-mindedly and constructively. Our studies have tested these propositions through field interviews, surveys, and experiments. The next section describes a study on quality service at a restaurant in Hong Kong. The following section summarizes our experimental and field research on teamwork in East Asia. The case of Hong Kong Restaurant We conducted interviews with 30 people at Hong Kong Restaurant on when they were able to work together effectively to deliver high quality service to customers and when they were frustrated and unable to serve customers well. These interviews provide concrete evidence of the value and nature of service enhancing teamwork (Tjosvold et al., 1996). Research method We interviewed the three top executives and the managers of each location for general background. At the time of the study, the Restaurant had two locations. The first one seats 200 people and had operated for just over five years; the second one seats 150 persons and had operated for three years. It must compete against a variety of US-oriented restaurants, including outlets of chain theme restaurants. To collect data for the study, we interviewed 30 employees individually each for about an hour. We used the critical incident methodology (Flanagan, 1954). Rather than trying to summarize a great number of examples by rating how they generally interact with each other as demanded by mostquestionnaires, employees described concrete experiences of when they tried to deliver quality service. Chinese people, with their relationship-oriented culture, were thought likely to respond positively to the interpersonal climate of the interview. The interview had a highly definedstructure. Employees were asked to identify a specific interaction that affected theirdelivering quality service and described the setting, what occurred, and the consequences. Then they answered specific questions that allow statistical tests of the framework and hypotheses. Interviewees specified their goals and the other's goals and using seven-pointLikert-scale items indicated how much they perceived that their goals were positively,negatively, or independently related and described their reasoning for goal interdependence. They rated the extent they expressed their own views fully, considered the other's views open-mindedly, tried to understand the other's concerns, worked together for mutual agreement on this issue, and tried to put together the best of the various ideas expressed. After they rated themselves on these dimensions, the interviewers rated their colleague on the same items. The Cronbach alphas of these constructive controversy scales were above 0.70. The employees also described the consequences of the incident for themselves and the organization and rated the effects of the incident on their workrelationship, task productivity, and quality service. The interviews provided rich descriptive information about effective and ineffective interaction among employees that affected quality service. Data were coded and sorted to identify the reasons for co-operative, competitive, and independent goals, the interaction behaviours that occurred in them, and the consequences of the interactions. Careful training and supervision of interviewers, explicit guidelines for conducting the interview, and the specific Likert-type questions were all designed to improve the validity of the data collected (Fowler, 1993). The value of co-operative teamwork Service providers who worked together as a co-operative team improved efficiency and solved problems for the company and became more satisfied and content themselves.Getting a partner that the front or back-server cannot work with well was very frustrating and resulted in poor customer service. For example, interviewees reported that working co-operatively helped them feel good, have more time to serve customers and do it well, helped them feel ready to do their best job, learn more about other jobs in the Hong Kong Restaurant, and find a friend. However, when people worked against each other, they were frustrated and less committed. They reported that competitive interactions hurt the spirit of the staff, decreased a sense of belonging, made them depressed, allowed bad food to reachcustomers, left customers waiting a long time for their order and feeling bad and unwilling to come back, hurt the image of the Hong Kong Restaurant, increased hostility of the staff to an employee, and lowered confidence and trust in management. The increasingly competitive marketplace has made quality customer service especially vital for the Hong Kong Restaurant. Co-operative teamwork was found to enhance the commitment and ability of employees to deliver high quality service to customers. Moreover, serving customers well was also gratifying for employees. Then employees, the customers, and the restaurant all won. The Asian emphasis on groups rather than individualistic work appears to be a critical advantage. Need for constructive discussion of opposing views Results help to define more specifically what working as a co-operative team means.Quality and commitment enhancing work is based upon an open-minded, direct discussion of opposing views and ideas. While this kind of openness and conflict management may seem counter to traditional Asianpractices, the interviews identified many examples of such open discussion at Hong Kong Restaurant. Together employees and managers identified issues to work toward mutually satisfying solutions and discussed problems in a polite and rational manner. For example, a disagreement about how to divide tips between shifts led to a full discussion and development of a policy that all employees could use. The manager talked to a back-server about public complaining about his front-server and his bad attitude; the back-server recognized that he needed to change his behaviour. A new graduate learned old methods from an experienced cook and the experienced one tried new methods so that they both learned. However, Hong Kong Restaurant employees were sometimes also unable to discuss issues in this open-minded way. They confronted each other harshly and looked at problems only from their own perspective and insisted that their ideas should dominate. These interactions frustrated quality service and employee commitment. For example, a front-server expressed his frustration with the back-server's performance who was too proud and arrogant to learn. Importance of compatible, win-win goals What lay behind this kind of open-minded, direct discussion? To the extent that employees and managers felt that their goals were co-operative rather than competitive they were more open-minded and effective. When they felt that they were in this together, that they sail or sink together, that what helps one helps others, Hong Kong Restaurant employees worked together open-mindedly. However, when they had competitive, incompatible goals where they felt that one must win and the other lose, that one's success comes at the expense of others, then they did not have open-minded, quality-enhancing discussions. Reasons for co-operative and competitive goals Defining issues as a common goal to accomplish and pursue mutual interests led to co-operative goals. For example, employees indicated that they had shared purpose to serve customers well, a need to coordinate to provide good service, a common task to increase tips for their team, trusted each other, wanted to share the work load, avoided customer complaints, and supported each other. Major reasons for feeling competitive were having unrelated goals, showing little respect for each other's views, and wanting to do things one's own way. Employees reported that they felt competitive because they had different ways of doing things, had background and age differences, one wanted to show off one's position, mistrustful attitude based on the failure to keep word, interested in only doing one's job, not getting any tips for helping, and refusing to listen and insisting on doing it one's own way. East Asian tests of the theory Experimental and field studies provideadditional support for the propositions on co-operative teamwork for quality service. Open discussion of opposing views when team members have co-operative goals can be highly constructive in East Asia. Research methods We have used questionnaire surveys and experiments as well as interviews to test the framework. Questionnaires allow for the sampling of more people and the use of independent sources for outcome measures. For example, 106 pairs of supervisors and employees were recruited from ten State Owned Enterprises in Nanjing and Shanghai to participate in a leadership study (Hui et al., 1999). Employees completed questionnaires on measures on co-operation, competition, independence, and constructive controversy with their supervisor. Their supervisorscompleted questionnaires on the extent that the employee performed effectively and served their leader and other employees. Structural equation analysis was used to examine the underlying causal structure showing that co-operative goals leads toconstructive controversy which in turn leads to job performance and effective extra-role service. Chinese employees have been willing to respond candidly but are unfamiliar with questionnaires. The items have been continually re-worked to become more concise and clear. Employees are asked to complete the questionnaires when the flow of work allows them sufficient time. We distribute the questionnaire in small groups and explain with examples how they can complete their task accurately. They receive a small gift to reciprocate and show our appreciation. Experiments have directly tested hypothesized causal relationships with high internal validity. They provide an alternative to the heavy reliance on questionnaire survey in management research in China. We theorized, for example, that open discussion of conflict need not affront social face in China and could contribute to effective problem solving when face was confirmed (Tjosvold et al., 1998). A total of 80 participants from a university in Guanzhou were randomly assigned to four conditions, open discussion-affront to face, open discussion-confirmation of face, avoiding discussion-affront and avoiding discussion-confirmation. The experiment was conducted in three phases: Participants prepared for a discussion about a work distribution issue with a partner, discussed the issue with a person with an opposing opinion, and were debriefed. To begin, the participants read that as supervisors they had to meet with employees about job rotation. The employees had developed a practice of trading their positions every hour. The supervisor, as a representative of management, opposed this job rotation as inefficient. The open-avoiding discussing variable was introduced at this time. The "open" participants read where their organization valued frank discussion of differences and could earn up to five chances in a lottery if they discussed their differences openly and directly. The "avoiding" participants read that theircompany valued agreement and that they would earn chances to the extent that they minimized their disagreement. During the discussion, the confederate taking the role of an employee reinforced these conditions. After eight minutes of discussion, the experimenter had the participant and aconfederate complete the questionnaire that included the social face induction. Then he unexpectedly exchanged the questionnaire "to increase communication." The "affront" participants read the confederate's ratings indicating that they were seen as ineffective and the "confirm" participants that they were seen as effective. After another ten minutes, participants completed the decision report form and the post-discussion questionnaire. The participants were then fully debriefed, given a small gift, and one chance in the lottery. Observation, questionnaire, and participants' actions were used as dependentmeasures. To measure curiosity, the confederate counted the number of questions that the participants asked them about their position. Participants also indicated on seven-point scales their interest in hearing more of the other's arguments and the extent they had explored the position of the other discussant. Participants indicated the extent they saw their relationship with the other discussant asco-operative, engaged in mutual give and take, and their confidence in the relationship. To measure learning, participants listed the arguments of the other discussant and these were scored for accuracy. They also rated the extent that they had learned from the discussion and found the opposing views useful. Their decisions were coded as to the extent that they integrated the opposing view into their decision. Interview, surveys, and experiments have their strengths and limitations. Our results are not method specific and deserve confidence because they have been developed through diverse methods. Research results Open discussion, compared to avoidingconflict, strengthened relationships, and induced curiosity where Chinese people asked questions, explored opposing views, demonstrated knowledge, and worked to integrate views (Tjosvold et al., 1998; Tjosvold and Sun, 1998). They characterized discussants who disagreed directly and openly as strong, competent persons whereas avoiding discussants were considered weak and ineffectual. Co-operative goals led to more openness toward the opposing position and negotiator (Tjosvold and Sun, 1998). Chinese participants in co-operation compared to competition were interested in learning more about the opposing views, considered these views useful, and integrated them into their own decisions. They were more attracted to the other protagonist and had greater confidence in working together in the future than participants in the competitive condition. Field studies also support the value of open-minded discussion with co-operative goals. In a study of 39 groups and their supervisors in Hanzhou, China, work teams in China that used open-minded, constructive discussion of opposing teams promotedproduct quality and cost reduction; these discussions were more likely with co-operative than competitive goals (Tjosvold and Wang, 1998). Earlier studies found that co-operative conflict was useful for Singaporean managers and employees to resolve issues and work productively together (Tjosvold and Chia, 1989; Tjosvold and Tsao, 1989). Manufacturing managers in Hong Kong who handled conflict co-operatively used their frustrations with suppliers in mainland China to improve product quality (Wong et al., in press). Dealing with customer complaints in Hong Kong were effectively handled when discussed openly and co-operatively (Tjosvold, 1998). Co-operative conflict, but not competitive or avoiding conflict, helped Hong Kong, Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese building contractors work successfully with their sub-contractors so that they contributed significantly to the project (Tjosvold et al., 1998). Applying the framework The framework that co-operative goals induces constructive, open-minded controversy that in turn promotes productivity and quality service has been developed by studies using various methods in both North America and East Asia. But how can this framework be applied? Several general steps can guide the implementation of co-operative teamwork research for East Asia organizations and between the East and the West in international joint ventures and other venues. Common sense and sensitivity are needed to modify and apply these steps: (1) The organization and its teams adopt co-operative teamwork as a common vision. Executives, managers, and employees indicate their commitment to develop their co-operative goals and their conflict management skills. They study, review the research, and debate the theory to decide whether they are committed to using the framework. When they are committed, they have developed a strong co-operative goal of learning to work together and manage conflict co-operatively. (2) All teams develop their co-operative team abilities. People come to understand that they need open-minded discussion within their group to develop effective solutions to problems, work collaboratively with other teams, and serve customers with quality. They practice expressing their positions and feelings directly, exploring the opposing views, demonstrating that they understand the other, use the best ideas from each, and agree to a mutually beneficial, high quality solution. They confirm face, use persuasion influence, and express interpersonal warmth as they disagree with each other. They reflect on their experiences, give feedback, and strive to improve their conflict skills continuously. Their positive experiences within their groups leave them more confident and prepared to manage conflict with colleagues and customers. (3) Frustration and irritations are vented and used, rather than suppressed. Intense emotions engendered in conflict, when properly expressed, aids conflict management (Tjosvold, 1997); they reaffirm interdependence, focus energy on solving underlying problems, and discharge frustration. The suppression of feelings can leave people anxious and self-righteous. A rational, effective approach to managing conflict requires the skilled _expression of feelings, especially for tough, persistent conflict. (4) The goal is gradual, systematic change. Co-operative teamwork requires people to create forums for direct discussions, trusting values, and constructive conflict management relevant, effective, and appropriate for all. People need confidence that their colleagues want to work together and manage conflict co-operatively for them to experiment and build quality enhancing teamwork. The framework does not prescribe concrete procedures but outlines the relationship and skills needed for effective teamwork. Managers and employees can together develop shared goals, integrated roles, common tasks, and shared reward distributions, such as gain sharing that build co-operative goals (Hanlon et al., 1994). Then they feel that they are on the same side so that as one succeeds, others succeed; as one fails, others too are threatened. They can employ various methods to foster an open-minded discussion of opposing views (Tjosvold, 1993; 1985). Openness norms encourage everyone to express his or her opinions, doubts, uncertainties, and hunches. Advocacy teams are given opposing positions to present and defend. One person is assigned to take the devil's advocate role of critical evaluation by attacking the group's current preference. To make the controversy constructive, they stop defending their own views long enough to ask each other for more information and arguments. They put themselves in each other's shoes, and see the problem from other perspectives. They recognize that they want to resolve the controversy so they can make a decision and accomplish common tasks. They avoid "either my way or your way" thinking and try to use as many ideas to create new, useful solutions. Concluding comments The framework of co-operative goals and open-minded discussion has proved powerful. It can be applied in East Asia as well as in the West. Moreover, it can analyze quality enhancing relationships both inside an organization and between the organization and its customers (Tjosvold, 1992; Tjosvold et al., 1992; Tjosvold and Wong, 1994). Although the methods and forums may be different, customers too want to feel that service-providers are on their side and able to deal directly with their complaints and issues. Co-operative teamwork can pay off handsomely for the organization, its customers, and its employees. However, there is no quick fix. Team members must continually strengthen their sense of co-operative interdependence and be willing to discuss their various views open-mindedly. The framework reinforces Asian values by focusing on collective goals and action but also challenges Asian values to disagree directly and constructively. Managers are orienting their organizations around serving customers. They are moving away from a "push" system that administers and regulates people to make productsefficiently to a "pull" system where people work together to provide what and when the customer wants (Heskett, 1990). Thiscustomer-oriented organization requires teamwork throughout the organization. Developing constructive controversy and building co-operative goals while reducing competitive and independent ones are likely to become increasingly important leadership challenges for East Asia as the marketplace becomes more international and competitive. References 1. Barrett, J. (1986), "Why major account selling works", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 63-73. 2. Bondra, J.C. and Davis, T.R.V. (1996), "Marketing's role in cross-functional information management", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 25, pp. 187-95. 3. Burbidge, J. (1995), "Three tales of participation at work in government", Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 18, March, pp. 20-3. 4. Chase, R.B. and Bowen, D.E. (1991), "Service quality and the service delivery system: a diagnostic framework", in Brown, S.W., Gummesson, E., Edvardsson, B. and Gustavsson, B. (Eds), Service Quality: Multidisciplinary and Multinational Perspectives", Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 157-78. 5. Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conflict, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 6. Deutsch, M. (1980), "Fifty years of conflict", in Festinger, L. (Ed.), Retrospections on Social Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 46-77. 7. Flanagan, J.C. (1954), "The critical incident technique", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 54, pp. 327-58. 8. Fowler, F.J. Jr (1993), Survey Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. 9. Gehani. R.R. (1993), "Quality value-chain: a meta-synthesis of frontiers of quality movement", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7, pp. 29-42. 10. Gronross, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing: Managing Moments of Truth in Service Competition, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. 11. Hackman, J.R. (1990), Groups that Work (and those that Don't), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. 12. Hanlon, S.C., Meyer, D.C. and Taylor, R.R. (1994), "Consequences of gainshairing: a field experiment revisited", Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 19, pp. 87-111. 13. Heskett, J.L. (1990), "Rethinking strategy for service management", in Bowen, D.E., Chase, R.B. and Cummings, T.G. (Eds), Service Management Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 17-40. 14. Hui, C., Tjosvold, D. and Ding, D. (1999), "Mediating the relationship of justice and organizational citizenship behaviour goal interdependence", paper submitted for publication, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong. 15. Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1989), Co-operation and Competition: Theory and Research, Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN. 16. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Maruyama, G. (1983), "Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and individuals: a theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research", Review of Educational Research, Vol. 53, pp. 5-54. 17. Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R.T., Nelson, D. and Skon, S. (1981), "Effects of co-operative, competitive, and goal structures on achievement: a meta-analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 89, pp. 47-62. 18. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-performance Organization, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, IL. 19. Kumar, S. and Gupta, Y.P. (1991), "Cross-functional teams improve manufacturing at Motorola's Austin plant", Industrial Engineering, Vol. 23, May, pp. 32-6. 20. Schneider, B., White, S.S. and Paulo, M.C. (1998), "Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: test of a causal model", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 150-63. 21. Schultz, D.E. (1996), "The inevitability of integrated communications", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37, pp. 139-46. 22. Seiders, K. and Berry, L.L. (1998), "Service fairness: what it is and why it matters", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12, pp. 8-20. 23. Smith, B. (1998), "Buyer-seller relationships: bonds, relationship management, and sex-type", Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 15, pp. 76-92. 24. Tjosvold, D. (1982), "Effects of the approach to controversy on superiors' incorporation of subordinates' information in decision making", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 189-93. 25. Tjosvold, D. (1985), "Implications of controversy research for management", Journal of Management, Vol. 11, pp. 21-37. 26. Tjosvold, D. (1987), "Participation: a close look at its dynamics", Journal of Management, Vol. 13, pp. 739-50. 27. Tjosvold, D. (1992), Teamwork for Customers: Building Organizations that Take Pride in Serving, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. 28. Tjosvold, D. (1993), Learning to manage conflict: Getting People to Work together Productively, Lexington Books, New York, NY. 29. Tjosvold, D. (1997), "Managing anger for teamwork in Hong Kong: goal interdependence and open-mindedness", paper submitted for publication. Lingnan College, Hong Kong. 30. Tjosvold, D. (1998), "Dealing with retail customer complaints: managing conflict for relational marketing in Hong Kong", paper submitted for publication, Lingnan College, Hong Kong. 31. Tjosvold, D. and Chia, L. C. (1989), "Conflict between managers and employees: the role of co-operation and competition", Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 129, pp. 235-47. 32. Tjosvold, D. and Deemer, D. K. (1980), "Effects of controversy within a co-operative or competitive context on organizational decision-making", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 590-5. 33. Tjosvold, D. and Field, R.H.G. (1984), "Managers' structuring co-operative and competitive controversy in group decision making", International Journal of Management, Vol. 1, pp. 26-32. 34. Tjosvold, D. and Johnson, D. W. (1977), "The effects of controversy on cognitive perspective taking", Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 679-85. 35. Tjosvold, D. and Johnson, D.W. (1978), "Controversy within a co-operative or competitive context and cognitive perspective taking", Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 376-86. 36. Tjosvold, D. and Moy, J. (1998), "Managing employees in China from Hong Kong: interaction, relationships, and productivity as antecedents to motivation", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 147-56. 37. Tjosvold, D. and Sun, H. (1998), "Openness among Chinese in conflict: effects of direct discussion and warmth on integrated decision making", paper submitted for publication, Lingnan College, Hong Kong. 38. Tjosvold, D. and Tjosvold, M.M. (1991), Leading the Team Organization: How to Create an Enduring Competitive Advantage, Lexington, New York, NY. 39. Tjosvold, D. and Tsao, Y. (1989), "Productive organizational collaboration: the role of values and co-operative goals", Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 10, pp. 189-95. 40. Tjosvold, D. and Wang, Z.M. (1998), "Co-operative goals and constructive controversy in work teams in China: antecedents for performance", paper, Academy of Management Meetings, San Diego, CA, August. 41. Tjosvold, D. and Wong, C. L. (1994), "Working with customers: co-operation and competition in relational marketing", Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 10, pp. 297-310. 42. Tjosvold, D., Cho, Y.H., Park, H.H., Liu, C., Liu, W.C. and Sasaki, S. (1998), "Interdependence and managing conflict with sub-contractors in the construction industry in East Asia", paper submitted for publication, Lingnan College, Hong Kong. 43. Tjosvold, D., Dann, V. and Wong, C.L. (1992), "Managing conflict between departments to serve customers", Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 1,035-54. 44. Tjosvold, D., Lee, F. and Wong, C.L. (1992), "Managing conflict in a diverse workforce: a Chinese perspective in North America", Small Group Research, Vol. 23, pp. 302-32. 45. Tjosvold, D., Moy, J. and Sasaki, S. (1996), "Managing for customers and employees in Hong Kong: The quality and teamwork challenges", Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 1, pp. 339-57. 46. Tjosvold, D., Shigeru S., and Moy. J. (in press). Developing commitment in Japanese organizations in Hong Kong. Interdependence, interaction, relationship and productivity. Small Group Research. 47. Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., Wong, W. and Liu, C.K. (in press), "Relationships for quality improvement in the Hong Kong-China supply chain: a study in the theory of co-operation and competition", Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions |
|
|
|
Please do not reply directly to this email |
