English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This case study investigates interactions between inspectors and regulatee representatives during regulatory conversations. We study how health care inspectors pursue voluntary cooperation from internal supervisors of health care providers to alter organizational management practices. We identify ambiguity as a central characteristic of the regulatory conversations. We observe several discrepancies as inspectors display hierarchical behavior incongruent with the horizontal relationship they aim for—and incongruent with the relationship style that internal supervisors expect. Analyzing these discrepancies in terms of relationship types and associated relational signals helps explain and prevent suboptimal communication and reduced acceptance of regulators’ demands by regulatees.

Ambiguous Signaling in Regulatory Conversations How Miscommunication and Hierarchy Hamper Voluntary Regulatee Cooperation