Servant Leadership Stimulates Spiritual Well-Being Through Team Trust in a Female Religious Context

This study investigates how female religious leaders nurture spiritual well-being in religious sisters. Specifically, we examined how servant leadership fosters spiritual well-being [Gifts and Fruits of the Spirit (GFSp)] through, respectively, the mediating role of team trust and reduced occurrence of team conflicts. Quantitative survey data were collected from 453 religious sisters (followers) within a Catholic Women Religious Institute in Nigeria. Using structural equation modeling, results showed that servant leadership is positively related to team trust and negatively related to team conflict. Further findings showed that servant leadership indirectly fosters spiritual well-being: Gifts of the Spirit (GSp), and Fruits of the Spirit (FSp), through the mediating role of team trust, however not through reduced team conflict. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Parochial Versus Universal Cooperation: Introducing a Novel Economic Game of Within- and Between-Group Interaction

Engaging in personally costly within-group cooperation benefits one’s in-group members but also impacts other groups by benefiting, neglecting, or harming out-group members, leading to a range of potential consequences for between-group relations (e.g., collaboration vs. competition). We introduce the Intergroup Parochial and Universal Cooperation (IPUC) game to investigate the prevalence of the individual preferences underlying these different expressions of within-group cooperation: universalism, weak parochialism, and strong parochialism. In two online experiments with natural groups, we show that the IPUC has value beyond existing economic games in measuring these preferences separately. In a third experiment conducted in the lab, we show how dispositional measures traditionally associated with within- and between-group cooperation, that is, social value orientation, social dominance orientation, honesty-humility, and empathic concern, predict different preferences. Thus, the IPUC provides a tool to better understand within- and between-group interactions and to test interventions to overcome intergroup conflict.

Parochial cooperation in nested intergroup dilemmas is reduced when it harms out-groups

In intergroup settings, humans often contribute to their in-group at a personal cost. Such parochial cooperation benefits the in-group and creates and fuels intergroup conflict when it simultaneously hurts out-groups. Here, we introduce a new game paradigm in which individuals can display universal cooperation (which benefits both in- and out-group) as well as parochial cooperation that does, versus does not hurt the out-group. Using this set-up, we test hypotheses derived from group selection theory, social identity, and bounded generalized reciprocity theory. Across three experiments we find, first, that individuals choose parochial over universal cooperation. Second, there was no evidence for a motive to maximize differences between in- and out-group, which is central to both group selection and social identity theory. However, fitting bounded generalized reciprocity theory, we find that individuals with a prosocial value orientation display parochial cooperation, provided that this does not harm the out-group; individualists, in contrast, display parochialism whether or not nut it hurts the out-group. Our findings were insensitive to cognitive taxation (Experiments 2-3), and emerged even when universal cooperation served social welfare more than parochialism (Experiment 3). (PsycINFO Database Record

Oorsprong en gevolgen van parochiale en universele coöperatie in intergroepsconflicten

In dit artikel bespreken we recent onderzoek waaruit blijkt wanneer mensen geneigd zijn om parochiale of universele coöperatie te tonen. Hierbij kijken we met name naar iemands persoonlijke sociale waarde oriëntatie. Daarnaast wordt onderzoek naar vertegenwoordigend onderhandelen uitgebreid besproken, waarin wordt gekeken wat voor invloed een achterban heeft op de strategie die de vertegenwoordiger gebruikt: competitief naar de andere groep toe om de eigen groep verder te helpen (parochiaal), of coöperatief naar de andere groep met de insteek een gezamenlijke goede oplossing te bereiken. Verschillende factoren, zoals de samenstelling van de achterban, de manier waarop ze hun voorkeuren communiceren en het type onderhandeling, beïnvloeden de gekozen strategie van de vertegenwoordiger. De bevindingen bieden inzichten in hoe zowel parochiale als universele coöperatie in intergroepsconflicten, en met name in vertegenwoordigende onderhandelingen, gestimuleerd of afgeremd kunnen worden.

How representatives with a dovish constituency reach higher individual and joint outcomes in integrative negotiations

Representative negotiations often take a competitive course due to constituency pressures. However, in multi-issue integrative negotiation settings, using a competitive value-claiming strategy may result in less than optimal outcomes for both parties. In this experiment, we compared the negotiation process and outcomes of representatives with hawkish versus dovish constituencies. Representatives with a dovish constituency engaged in more information exchange and less contentious tactics, resulting in fewer impasses and higher quality agreements. Although representatives with a hawkish constituency claimed more value by placing higher demands, this negatively affected not only their joint, but also their individual outcomes. Overall, results suggest that representatives with a dovish constituency achieve better outcomes, both on an individual and dyadic level.

Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiation

Intergroup conflicts are often regulated by negotiating group representatives, who are influenced by constituent pressures. We examined how within-constituent disagreement influences representative negotiations. In a 2 × 2 experiment, the majority of constituents was either hawkish or dovish vis-à-vis the out-group, and the minority had either low or high status. After being exposed to constituent voice, representatives negotiated in a multi-issue task with integrative potential. Results showed that representatives reached more integrative agreements when the constituent majority was dovish rather than hawkish, but only when the hawkish minority had low rather than high status; when the hawkish minority had high status, representatives reached suboptimal agreements equal to those reached when the constituent majority was hawkish. Additional results showed that under these circumstances, representatives perceived the cooperativeness of their constituency as highest and also had the most trust that the constituency would approve of the agreement. Implications are discussed for theory on intergroup relations, (representative) negotiation, and conflict resolution.

Conflict in medical teams: opportunity or danger?

OBJECTIVES

  Intragroup conflicts often occur when people are called upon to collaborate in the accomplishment of a task. For example, when surgeons and nurses work together during an operation, conflicts may emerge because of differences in functional understanding. Whether these conflicts are beneficial or detrimental to team outcomes has been the source of much debate. From one perspective, a conflict that stems from differences in members' functional understanding may enhance team members' understanding and performance of the task at hand. By contrast, such a conflict may cause hostility, emotionality and distraction from actual task accomplishment.

METHODS

  This study reviews findings on the relationships between intragroup conflict and team outcomes, discusses potential conflict resolution strategies for intragroup conflicts and explores how these link to the field of medical education.

RESULTS

  Three primary types of conflict have been distinguished, involving, respectively, task-, process- and relationship-associated conflict. Both process conflict, or conflict about the logistics of task accomplishment, and relationship conflict, or conflict about interpersonal incompatibilities, have been shown to detract from effective team functioning. Task conflict, or conflict about the content of the task itself, is also generally negative for team functioning, but under certain conditions its negative effects may be minimised. For example, when teams can clearly separate task issues from relationship issues, task conflicts are less destructive for team outcomes. However, achieving such a separation in practice, and thereby realising the benefits of task conflict, is quite difficult to achieve.

CONCLUSIONS

  Intragroup conflicts pose a challenge to effective team functioning. In the education of medical professionals, effective training in conflict management skills and their application to specific team conflict dynamics, such as with reference to how to resolve task as opposed to relationship conflict, is critical.