Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Confghfhg

    Uploaded by

    Shibratan Prasad
    25 views12 pages
    Relationship among conflict management styles, levels of conflict, and reactions to work assessed. Lower job satisfaction and fewer interpersonal rewards were associated with a high-dominating style. The more conflict individuals experienced on the job, the lower their job satisfaction was.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    confghfhg

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Relationship among conflict management styles, levels of conflict, and reactions to work assessed. Lower job satisfaction and fewer interpersonal rewards were associated with a high-dominating style. The more conflict individuals experienced on the job, the lower their job satisfaction was.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    25 views12 pages

    Confghfhg

    Uploaded by

    Shibratan Prasad
    Relationship among conflict management styles, levels of conflict, and reactions to work assessed. Lower job satisfaction and fewer interpersonal rewards were associated with a high-dominating style. The more conflict individuals experienced on the job, the lower their job satisfaction was.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 12
    The Jounal of Social Psyeholags, 1995, 13516). 687-698 Relationships Among Conflict Management Styles, Levels of Conflict, and Reactions to Work DEBORAH WEIDER-HATFIELD School of Communication University of Central Florida JOHN D. HATFIELD Department of Management University of Central Florida ABSTRACT. Relationships among (a) conflict management styles, (b) levels of conflict, (c) two general reactions to work, and (d) four types of individual outcomes experienced by employees in the United States were assessed in two studies, In Study I, subordinates using a high-obliging style with supervisors experienced more intrapersonal conflict, supervisors using a high-integrating style with subordinates reported more intrapersonal and intragroup conflict, and Jow-dominating supervisors reported significantly greater intragroup conflict. In Study 2, high-integrating subordinates experienced less intraper- sonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict than low-integrating subordinates did. ‘The results of analyses also indicated that there was a strong relationship between integrating and all six organizational outcomes. Lower job satisfaction and fewer interpersonal rewards were associated with a high-dominating style. Both integrating and compromis- ing were positively related to interpersonal outcomes, and dominating and avoiding were negatively related to interpersonal outcomes. Finally, the more conflict individuals expe- rienced on the job, the lower their job satisfaction and their outcomes were. AN AWARENESS OF THE AMOUNT of conflict at various levels of an organ- ization and of the operant styles of interpersonal conflict is crucial to a compre- hensive understanding of organizational conflict management, according 10 Rahim (1985, 1986a). The former provides an index of the “moderate amount of conflict . .. essential for attaining and maintaining an optimum level of organi- zational effectiveness” (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979, p. 1325) and for securing desirable “conflict outcomes for parties with interdependent but different inter- ‘Address correspondence to Deborah Weider-Hatfeld, School of Communication, Univer sity of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816 687 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. 688 _The Jounal of Social Psychology ests” (Brown, 1983, p. 9), and the latter provides information about the appro- priateness and effectiveness of each style as it pertains to specific situations (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987). The main advantage to examining amount of con- flict in relation to conflict-handling style is the maximization of organizational effectiveness, especially as it relates to members’ outcomes. Because the relationship between amount of conflict and conflict style has been largely ignored by researchers (Rahim, 1986a; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979), we reviewed studies related to individual variables to obtain data for formulating research questions, Amounts and Levels of Organizational Conflict The causes and implications of organizational conflict have long been of interest to researchers. In her review of the literature, Renwick (1975) identified the following empirically verified causes of intraorganizational conflict: differ- ences in knowledge, beliefs, or basic values; competition for a position, for power, or for recognition; a need to release tension; drive for autonomy: person- al dislike; and differing perceptions or attitudes generated by the structure of the organization, Rahim (1986a) proposed six categories for sources of organiza tional conflict: affective conflict, conflict of interest, conflict of values, cognitive conflict, goal conflict, and substantive conflict. Other researchers (Knapp. Put nam, & Davis, 1988, p. 423) have attributed organizational conflict to “hetero- geneity of the work force, environmental changes, differences in goals, diverse economic interests, differential role structures, conflict group loyalties, and value discrepancies in organizations.” Perhaps the clearest summary of sources of organizational conflict, con- tributed by Rahim and Bonoma (1979), depicts the two primary originating points of organizational conflict (within a person and between two or more per- sons) as the foundation for three levels of organizational conflict: intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup (Rahim, 1983b, 1986a). Intrapersonal conflict occurs when a member of an organization is “required to perform certain tasks, activi- lies, of roles that do not match his or her expertise, interests, goals and values” (Rahim, 1983b, p. 1). Intragroup conflict occurs as a result of disagreements or inconsistencies among the members of a group or between subgroups within a group. Intergroup conflict “refers to disagreements or inconsistencies between the members or their representatives or leaders of two or more groups” (Rahim, 1983b, p. 2). The amount of conflict at each of these levels may vary, but some findings have indicated that a moderate amount of conflict at each level is necessary for optimal job performance (Rahim, 1986a, p. 25). Styles of Handling Conflict Using a two-dimensional model of behavior (concern for self and concern for others), Rahim (1983a, 1986a) identified five styles of handling conflict that Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. Weider-Hatfield & Hatfield _ 689 were similar to those suggested by others (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Thomas, 1976): integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. It was Rahim’s contention (19862, p. 30) that “organizational participants must learn the five styles of handling conflict to deal with different conflict situations effec- tively.” Relationship Between Level of Conflict and Style of Handling Conflict Working under the assumption that a moderate amount of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict, in conjunction with the use of a contextually appropriate conflict management style, is beneficial for organizational effective ness, we attempted to answer the following questions in the present study: 1, How is the style of conflict management that a subordinate uses with a supervisor related to the levels of intrapersonal, intragroup, and inter- group conflict that are experienced by the subordinate? How is the style of conflict management a supervisor uses with subordi- nates related to the levels of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict that are experienced within an organization? 3. How is the style of conflict management an organizational member uses with peers related to the levels of intrapersonal, intragroup,. and inter- group conflict that are experienced by that organizational member? Outcomes Associated With Levels of Conflict and Conflict Management Styles An assessment of the utility of Rahim’s recommendations for diagnosing organizational conflict must include an examination of outcome variables asso- ciated with level of conflict and with conflict management style. Variables asso- ciated with important organizational outcomes can be identified using several basic models of organizational effectiveness (Bolman & Deal, 1984; Rahim, 1986a; Robbins, 1983). In the present study we selected variables designed to assess organizational effectiveness, using a human resource model as a guide, The following research question links the two conflict variables (level of conflict and style of conflict) with important employee reactions. 4. How are conflict styles that are used with supervisors, levels of conflict, and two general reactions to work (job satisfaction and perception of equity) related to four types of individual outcomes experienced within ‘an organizational context (system outcomes, job outcomes, performance outcomes, and interpersonal outcomes)? Study 1 Our goal in Study 1 was to assess the relationships between conflict man- agement style and levels of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. 620 _The Journal of Social Psychology experienced by managers, for three organizational relationships: immediate man- ager, peers, and subordinates, Method The participants were 125 full-time managers (59 women) from state, regional, and local volunteer organizations throughout the United States. The ‘managers, who were attending leadership institutes at three U.S. universities, completed various instruments as part of their course requirements. ‘The participants first completed one of three forms of the Rahim Organiza- tional Conflict Inventory (ROC; 1983a, 1983b; Rahim & Magner, 1994), which assesses the respondent's conflict management style, using a 5-point Likert-type scale: a higher score indicates greater use of the conflict style. Thirty- four of the 125 respondents completed Form A (boss), 42 completed Form B (sub- ordinate), and the remaining 49 completed Form C (peers). These forms assess the respondent's self-perceived conflict management style used with his or her im diate supervisor, subordinates, or work-group peers, respectively. All 125 participants completed Rahim's (1983a, 1983b) ROCI-I, which assesses the amount of intrapersonal conflict, intragroup conflict, and intergroup conflict an individual experiences at work. This measure consists of 5-point Likert-type scales; the higher the score, the greater the amount of conflict. The means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the ROCI-| and the ROCI-II are reported in Table 1 Results Integrating and compromising, as well as avoiding and obliging, were sig- nificantly correlated, rs = .44 and .42, respectively (see Table 2). Integrating was significantly and negatively correlated with all three levels of conflict, whereas avoiding was significantly and positively correlated with both intragroup and intergroup conflict ‘To further explore these relationships, we divided the respondents into high- and low-scoring groups, using median splits, for each of the five conflict man- agement styles assessed by the ROCI-II. We used a series of r tests to assess the differences regarding intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict between the two groups, for each conflict management style. Conflict with immediate supervisor. For the 34 respondents who completed Form A of the ROCI-II, the only significant difference between high and low scorers on the five conflict management styles concerned obliging. High obligers report- ed significantly more intrapersonal conflict than low obligers did, Ms = 2.23 and 1.71, respectively, (32) = 2.45, p <.05. Conflict with subordinates. The analyses of respondents to Form B yielded thre significant findings. First, high integrators reported significantly more intra- Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. Hatfield & Hatfield 691 TABLE] Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients for Study I Variables (N = 125) Variable M SD Cronbach's a Conflict style Integrating 4.25 42 78 Obliging 341 53 68 Dominating 3.37 1 75 Avoiding 2.92 83 85 ‘Compromising 3.74 65 B Conflict type Intrapersonal 1.95 54 74 Intragroup 2.26 62 83 Intergroup 2.76 89) 85 TABLE 2 Zero-Order Correlations Among Major Variables for Study 1 (N = 125) Variable 1 2 3 0 4 5 6 7 Conflict style 1. Integrating 1.00 2. Obliging 151.00 3. Dominating -03 -07 1.00 4. Avoiding -04 Arex —03 1.00 5. Compromising gees 308" 14 081.00 Conflict type 6. Intrapersonal ~29" 15 03 03 14 1.00 7. Intragroup 30" —09 19.22" —1935*** 1.00 8, Intergroup -23" 07 .26"* 12.23% 17 sp <.08. *p<01. 4p <.001 personal conflict than low integrators did, Ms 1,96, p =.05. Second, high integrators reported significantly more intragroup conflict than low integrators did, Ms = 2.47 and 2.09, respectively, (40) = 1.99, p = 05. Finally, low dominators reported significantly more intragroup conflict than high dominators did, Ms = 2.46 and 2.03, respectively, 140) = ~217, p < 05. 2.07 and 1.78, respectively, (40) = Conflict with peers. There were no significant findings in any of the analyses for the 49 respondents who completed Form C of the ROCI-II Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. (92 _ The Journal of Social Psychology Discussion Our objective in this study was to determine whether there were any rela- tionships between the styles of conflict management people reported using in three contexts (with supervisors, subordinates, and peers) and the levels of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict they experienced. The correla- tions among the five conflict management styles and the levels of conflict that were experienced indicated that there was an inverse relationship between inte- grating and the levels of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict report- ed by the participants, These relationships were not valid in the context of subordinates, howevei for this context, high integrators reported significantly more intrapersonal and intragroup conflict. Although the results for the other two contexts were not sig- nificant, managers’ attempts at using integrative approaches to managing conflict with subordinates may involve additional levels of conflict. This conclusion is supported by the finding that high dominators reported significantly less intra- group conflict with subordinates than low dominators did. Thus, some managers ‘may find that taking command in situations that involve conflict is easier and cre- ates less dissonance than collaborating with subordinates about possible solu- tions, The significant relationships between avoiding and (a) intragroup conflict and (b) intergroup conflict indicate that attempts to avoid conflict are not always, successful The results of Study 1 generally indicate that integrating is a viable approach for managing conflict, but that its use with subordinates tends to create problems that might be avoided by using more aggressive action. This issue is examined in greater detail in Study 2 Study 2 ‘The present study was a replication of Study 1 in that it involved an explo: ration of relationships between conflict management style and intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict experienced on the job. We also examined how conflict management style and level of conflict were related to two general reactions to work (employee job satisfaction and perceptions of equity) and four types of individual outcomes experienced in an organizational context (system outcomes, job outcomes, performance outcomes, and relationship outcomes). Method The respondents were 100 upper- and mid-level managers in a large, mid- western chemical firm. All the respondents were men, with an average age of 42 years, Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. Weider id & Hatfield 693 ‘The respondents completed five instruments: (a) the ROCI-I, which asses: ¢s levels of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict; (b) Form A of the ROCI-I, which assesses the five conflict management styles used with one’s immediate supervisor; (c) a one-item, 6-point global measure of job satisfactio (d) a one-item, 7-point global measure of perceptions of equity, adapted from Hatfield, Utne, and Traupmann (1979); and (e) a 20-item questionnaire designed to assess the extent 1 which respondents experienced important out- comes on the job. For each of 20 outcomes, the respondents indicated the extent to which they experienced that outcome at work, on a 5-point scale. The 20 outcomes were divided into four major groups: system outcomes (pay, fringe benefits, job secu- rity, and promotion and advancement); job outcomes (ability, utilization, prob- lem solving, challenge, decision making, responsibility, and independence); per- formance outcomes (accomplishment, status, competence, achievement, personal worth, and confidence); and interpersonal outcomes (belonging, recog- nition, appreciation, and job friendships). The means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients (when applicable) for each of these measures are reported in Table 3. TABLE 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients for Study 2 Variables (N = 100) Variable M sD Cronbach's 0 Conflict style Integrating 4.28 43 9 Obliging an 50 75 Dominating 3.04 75 7 Avoiding 297 81 80 Compromising 3.64 60 59 Conflict type Intrapersonal 66 83 Intragroup 68 88 Intergroup 85 88 Reactions to work Job satisfaction 452132 = Global equity 4991.03 = System outcomes 3.20 665 66 ‘Job outcomes 3.80 69 8 Performance outcomes 3.70 63 84 Interpersonal outcomes 3.40 75 74 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. TABLE 4 ‘Zero-Order Correlations Among Major Variables for Study 2 (N = 100) Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 Conflict style 1. Integrating 1,00 2. Obliging 09 1.00 3. Dom 14-18 1.00 4. Avoiding = 33%" 16 1.00 5, Compromising —40*™* 05 38e** 3344 1,00 Contfict type 6, Intrapersonal — —.28°* —03 9 02 23" 1.00 7. Intragroup -28" 15 10S =16 1 1.00 8, Intergroup 225-18 06 12-02 18 SIs sp <8. *4p-

    You might also like