849954 sisus

hetoric is an assurance of trustworthy behaviour. Regarding disharmony and
even opportunistic behaviour, it can be claimed that there is no relationship
without problems. Occasionally, however, the participants protect their rights for
a certain activity by overreacting to proposals made by a partner. However, defensive
actions are needed only if oppressive and adversarial acts are anticipated.
This pattern of behaviour is not required if one counterpart is convinced
that the other counterpart is committed to open discussions. High tolerance for
criticism indicates that a party is conducting the activities with determination. In
general, there seem to be quite a low degree of formalism in the resolution instead
of interpreting e.g. the legal bonds strictly.
The discussion above advocates the strength of informal collaboration within social
nets. This is a necessity because of the mutual urge for consistency. As
noted, in this kind of behaviour - and an outcome of the process - the net members
are looking for harmony. Argyris (1999) claims that in interpersonal relations,
imbalance or incongruency are often very abhorrent. Using the ideas of
cognitive balance theories, he postulates that ‘cognitive balance or consistency
enable the individuals to predict accurately and thus behave more effectively in
their interactions with others (...) Also, ‘it is assumed that there is a basic tendency
for individuals to strive to reduce imbalanced states as cognitive dissonance
and inconsistency.’ (ibid., 386). Moreover, changing the roles drastically –
and attaining a new position – could be even harmful. Expanding business and
changing roles, as well as new positions decrease substantially the partners’
opportunities in their attempts to give new kinds of solutions for the others.
With respect to influence of power in conflict resolution, the dominant carrier
can, e.g. in one specific relationship, try to stipulate the norms unilaterally. A too
determined and proactive course of action in a dyadic relationship, in which the
company either strongly and unilaterally or modestly influences the decisions
made in the relationship, can later be a source of conflict. Moreover, the other
network member is recurrently, more or less, obliged to adopt certain type of activities
or practices in order to ensure the continuity of the relationship, thus indicating
compliance. Inevitably, in the long run, there are lots of benefits and rewards
for the other party as well, making this kind of relationship appealing and
raising the attraction. Furthermore, it is also assumed that the counterpart considers
the propositions and initiatives as they are; these suggestions are later
converted to new activities. Hence, the relationship once created is often asymmetric
not just in terms of bargaining power but also in terms of control, pace in
developing business relationship, or governance, bringing unilaterally better outcomes
for a single party.
137