Styles of Managing Interpersonal Conflict:

A Case Study On Student Affairs Department,

Universiti Utara Malaysia

by

Mohd Amy Azhar Mohd Harif

Assoc. Prof., Ph.d, C.A.(M) (corresponding author)
College of Business
University Utara Malaysia
06010 Sintok
Kedah Darul Aman
Malaysia
Fax : +(60) 4 9283204
Tel : +(60) 4 9283216
e-mail : amyazhar@uum.edu.my

Norsyema Hani Hj. Mahad Noor

University Utara Malaysia

1
Abstract
A case study on Student Affairs Department, University Utara Malaysia was conducted to identify the styles
of managing interpersonal conflict practised among the employees. The department that consisted of
several units was responsible in planning a conducive environment towards students development in order
to achieve the universitys objective and goals. To be successful administrators, the employees in the
Student Affairs Department must be able to manage conflict situations effectively as it represents the
university image as a whole.

For the purpose of this study, five styles of managing conflict developed by Thomas and Kilmann (1974)
were referred. The five styles were competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and
collaborating. Interpersonal conflict could occur at all managerial levels and in the Student Affairs
Department, conflict that arises between employees with colleagues in the same unit, conflict with
colleagues in other unit, and conflict between employees and students were focused to determine the styles
preferred. Apart of that, the study also tried to identify the employees perception pertaining conflict, and
to look at the organizational communication.

The contribution of this study was based on both primary and secondary data. A conflict management
styles instruments developed by Rahim (1983) and Mastenbroek (1987) were used and modified in order to
achieve the objectives of the study. The findings were then analysed and recommendations were made to
improve the managing conflict styles in the department.

The findings of this research indicated that the three objective of this research have been archived: conflict
as perceived by the employees of the Student Affairs Department, Universiti Utara Malaysia was both
valuable and destructive; compromising and collaborating styles are preferred and commonly practised by
the employees of Student Affairs Department; and organizational communication showed that there is a
high interdependency among employees that resembles their dedication and motivation to the department.
To maintain and ensure the professionalism and quality of service provided by the employees, this research
recommended that the employees interpersonal skill and knowledge must be continuously developed in
managing conflict. The management is also recommended to identify the internal problems that might
occur in the Student Affairs Department and improve effective communication to improve conflict
management.

2
1.0 Introduction
Conflict between employees in the workplace is a natural element of worthwhile
communication. Conflict could occur at all managerial levels of interaction in the
organization. It would likely to arise when there is a change in the organizations and
individual strive to cope with their mutual interdependency in a changing organizational
environment (Andrews & Herschel 1996). When conflict occurs, the relationship may be
weakened and indirectly will affect productivity, working environment and
organizations goal as a whole. However, conflict not always hinder progress towards
desired goals, it also can serve as a red flag signalling for the need of change (Wagner III
& Hollenbeck 2002) and contributes to positive impact for the organization.

1.1 Background of the study

The source of conflict can be varies and several styles of managing conflict are being
used to resolve the conflict. Even though there is no one best conflict style, each conflict
situation must be conceptualise properly and react appropriately (Pierce & Gardner
2002). Based on Robbins (1996), one of the reasons for conflict is poor communication.
Communication, which is every organizations lifeblood (Andrews & Herschel 1996)
must be effective to ensure effective conflict management.

For this term paper, Student Affairs Department of University Utara Malaysia is chosen
as a case study because of our increased interest in looking at how conflict is managed by
the department through all this while.

1.2 Objectives of the study

This study tried to achieved the following objectives:
1. To determine styles of conflict management used by the Student Affairs
Departments employees to resolve interpersonal conflict.
2. To identify Student Affairs Departments perception about conflict.
3. To identify the organizational communication in the Student Affairs Department.

3
2.0 Literature Review
As a foundation to address how a conflict can be effectively managed by an organization
through several styles of managing conflict, it is essential to consider the definition of
conflict in an organization, the nature of conflict, and styles of managing conflict.

2.1 Definitions of conflict

Conflict, generally is disagreements or an expressed struggle between and among
individuals over incompatible goals, resources, or rewards (Borisoff 1989). According to
Pierce & Gardner (2002), a conflict begins when one party perceives that another party
has frustrated, or is about to frustrate, one or more of their concerns. In an organization, a
conflict can be defined as a process of opposition and confrontation that can occur in
organizations between either individuals or groups, when parties exercise power in the
pursuit of valued goals or objectives and obstruct the progress of other parties (Wagner
III & Hollenbeck 2002).

2.2 Nature of Conflict

The nature of conflict is viewed from the perspective of classical organization theorists,
human relation theorist, and modern theorists. In the classical organization conflict tend
to be ignored and if occurs, managers will tried to control, eliminate, and redirect
everyones effort towards organizations goals (Andrews & Herschel 1996). From human
relation theorists, conflict is normal and viewed as a threat where managers tried to
discover ways to avoid conflict to maintain organizational system of harmony and social
support (Andrews & Herschel 1996). Meanwhile, the modern theorist had suggested that
conflict could either be dysfunctional or functional.

Robbins (1996) has pointed out that conflict is destructive and bad for the organizations.
Dysfunctional conflicts would results negative effects such as increased turnover,
decreased employee satisfaction and morale, inefficiencies between work units, sabotage,
labour grievances and strikes, and physical aggression. However, Andrews & Herschel,
(1996) had noted that on an intellectual level, modern managers appreciate the value of
conflict and it can be constructive that produces positive effects. Functional conflicts

4
from the literatures shown that it can lessen the social tension (Wagner III & Hollenbeck
2002, Andrews & Herschel 1996), foster creativity by challenging ideas and
consumptions (Andrews & Herschel 1996), facilitate problem solving by motivate
everyone involved to seek a better solutions and adaptive change (Wagner III &
Hollenbeck 2002, Andrews & Herschel 1996), supplies feedback (Wagner III &
Hollenbeck 2002) and help provide a sense of identity and purpose by clarifying
differences and boundaries between individuals or groups (Wagner III & Hollenbeck
2002).

In conclusion, the nature of conflicts discussed above would be used as a guideline to

develop questionnaire that will be distributed for data collection to identify Student
Affairs Departments perception about conflict.

2.3 Styles of Managing Conflict

Next, the styles of managing conflict are considered. Styles can be viewed as strategies,
tactics or orientation towards conflict (Andrews & Herschel 1996). Based on the
literature, there are several styles that could be used to resolve or managing conflict.
Avoiding, competing, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating are the most
common styles used that were developed by Thomas & Kilmann (1974) described by
Borisoff (1989). These styles are based on two basic dimensions of behaviour, which is
assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness is referred to the extent when
individuals attempt to satisfy his or her concerns while cooperativeness is referred when
the individual attempts to satisfy another party concerns. The styles will be briefly
discussed below.

Avoiding referred to Wagner III & Hollenbeck (2002) is the most unassertive and
uncooperative style, requires staying neutral at all costs and refrain from arguing. The
goal is to delay. Andrews & Herschel (1996) supported the statement and noted that this
style has the strongest negative relationship with employees satisfaction. It was normally
applied when the conflict is trivial or more important conflict is pressing.

5
Competing is assertive and uncooperative style, identified with win-lose behaviour
which one party tries to overpower the other with aim to satisfy ones own interest
(Wagner III & Hollenbeck 2002). Based on Andrews & Herschel (1996), this style is said
to be effective when quick, decisive action is required especially to cope with crisis and
when the goal is to win at all cost.

Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative style that referred to those who willing to
set aside their own concerns and surrendering to those of others with aim to maintain
pleasant interpersonal relationship (Andrews & Herschel 1996). The style is said to be
useful for showing reasonableness, developing performance, creating goodwill, and
dealing with issues of low importance.

Compromising is a mid-range assertive and cooperative style that seeks partial

satisfaction of everyone through exchange and sacrifice, settling for acceptable rather
than optimal solution (Wagner III & Hollenbeck 2002). According to Andrews &
Herschel (1996), this style is considered fair with both parties agreed to interact and put
effort to solve the problem.

Collaborating is highly cooperative and assertive style, which recognized as win-win is

the most integrated and productive conflict handling behaviour. Wagner III & Hollenbeck
(2002) also supported the statement and added that collaborating attempt to satisfy
everybody by working in difference. Based to Andrews & Herschel (1996), this style is
build upon trust building process which, conflict is faced openly and directly, and evoke
intellectual rather than emotionally.

3.0 Background of Student Affairs Department, UUM

Student Affairs Department of Universiti Utara Malaysia is overall responsible in
planning a conducive environment towards students development to achieve the
universitys objective to produce professional, educated, and trained human resources. In
order to identify the styles of managing interpersonal conflict practised by the employees

6
of Student Affairs Department, it is appropriate to view the background of the department
in terms of vision, mission, general objective, and also the customer charter.

3.1 Vision
To be an excellent centre in students development and to be an important component to
Universiti Utara Malaysia in achieving its aspiration as university of management in
producing intelligent, knowledgeable, and decent students.

3.2 Mission
To develop and expand its effective and efficient service and development of students
through a quality and professional structure, process, system, and mechanism.

3.3 General Objective

To develop students potential in physical, mental, and spiritual aspects through
curriculum and non-curriculum programmes and student activities.

3.4 Customer Charter of Student Affairs Department

From the customer charter, we identified that Students Affairs Department is striving
towards:
Developing knowledgeable and respectable students.
To initiate organizational and volunteerism spirit.
To manage and accommodate adequate and comfortable facilities and services.
To take care students harmony and welfare.
To develop students well being.
To perform duty fast, wise, and competently.
To provide adequate dedicated, committed, trained, discipline, responsible, and
productive staff.
To ensure Student Affairs Department is always aware and responsive to the needs and
wants of its customers, students, university, community, and nation.
To increase the prestige and quality of administration profession in Student Affairs
Department.

7
3.5 Organization Charts of Student Affairs Department

Deputy Vice Chancellor

Director Dean of Student Development

Strategic
Business Student
Unit Relation Unit
Admin. Finance & (SBU) College
& Student
Finance Welfare Entrepreneur Ko-K
Unit Unit Unit
Centre

Student Students Career &

Services Medical Counselling
& Centre Centre
Art &
Culture Sports Housing Unit
Unit Centre Rakan Muda Islamic
Secretariat Centre
College Shop

4.0 Managing conflicts in Student Affairs Departments

For the purpose of this study, styles of managing conflict will be focused on interpersonal
conflict. Interpersonal conflict in Student Affairs Department can be defined as a conflict
that might occurs between individuals or between an individual and a unit (Andrews &
Herschel 1996). Individual will be referred to colleagues or employees in the units of
Student Affairs Department, employees in other units, and also between employees and
students. To be successful administrators, conflict situations must be manage effectively.
This requires practising different conflict management styles, depending upon the
conflict situation faced.

8
5.0 Methodology
This research methodology will be using both primary and secondary data. The primary
data is based on results from questionnaires adjusted from instruments developed by M.
A. Rahim (1983) and Mastenbroek (1987). The questionnaires are distributed to several
Student Affairs Department units at UUM that have been randomly selected as a sample.
From 60 questionnaires distributed, 32 questionnaires (53%) returned and only 31 (52%)
applicable for data findings. The questionnaire consisted of two parts where Part 1 needs
the respondents to fill information regarding their demographic factors (job category, age,
gender, length of years in service, and education level). Meanwhile Part 2 will be looking
at how the employees perceived conflict, the styles used in managing conflict, and the
organizational communication that occurs in the department. The questionnaire can be
referred at Appendix 1. For data analysis, all data were computed using Excel for
Windows software.

The secondary data consisted of readings from books, and articles about conflict from the
Internet. Findings from the questionnaires and secondary data were then be analysed and
used to clarify all the objectives of the study.

6.0 Findings
Below are the findings resulted from the data analysis.

From the demographic factors in Part 1, the support staff is outnumbered the other job
category with 74.19 percent compared to middle management with 22.58 percent and top
management with just 3.22 percent. In terms of age, respondents in the range of age 25 to
35 represented the higher percentage with 58.06 percent compared age below 25 with
32.26 percent and age 36 to 45 with 9.68 percent. Most of the respondents were female
with 64.52 percent compared to men with 35.48 percent. Those who already in service
between 1 to 5 years contributed the highest percentage with 54.84 percent compared to 6
to 10 years with 35.48 percent, 10 to 15 years with 6.45 percent and below 1 year with
3.23 percent. Meanwhile for the educational level, respondents with SPM and STPM that
been described in the questionnaire as Others were the highest with 74.19 percent

9
compared to Diploma and Bachelor Degree with 16.13 percent, Master with 6.45 percent
and PhD with only 3.22 percent. Refer Appendix 2.

In Part 2, the employees perception about conflict have been summarized in the Table 1
below.

Perceptions about conflict Agree (%) Disagree (%)

Conflict is bad and should be ignored 45.16 54.84
Conflict is normal and should be avoided 64.52 35.48
Conflict is good to determine the need of 61.29 38.71
change
Conflict should be valued as it can gives 67.74 32.26
positive effects.
Conflict is destructive and produces negative 64.52 35.48
effects
Conflict is when individual try to cope with 87.1 12.9
their mutual interdependency in a changing
environment.
Table 1: Perception about conflict

Next, the findings for the styles of managing interpersonal conflicts are considered. For
managing conflict with colleagues in the same unit, competing, and compromising styles
were identified to be most preferred with 20.91 percent and 20.72 percent. Meanwhile
collaborating styles contributed 20.18 percent followed by accommodating with 19.27
percent and lastly avoiding 18.91 percent as shown in Table 2.

10
 Managing conflict with colleaques in the same unit

21.5
21
20.5
Percentage

20
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5

Avoiding
Collaborating

Accomodating

Compromising
Competing

Table 2:Managing conflict with colleagues in the same unit

For managing conflict with colleagues in other unit, compromising was the most
preferred styles with 21.24 percent followed by collaborating and accommodating with
both contributed to 20.18 percent. Avoiding scored 20 percent and finally the least
preferred style was competing with 18.41 percent. Refer Table 3.

Managing conflict with students

21.5
21
20.5
Percentage

20
19.5
19
18.5
18
Collaborating

Avoiding
Competing

Compromising
Accomodating

Table 3: Managing conflict with colleagues in other unit

11
For managing conflict with students, collaborating was the most preferred style with
21.18 percent followed by competing with 20.26 percent. Compromising,
accommodating, and avoiding each contributed to 19.71 percent, 19.52 percent, and
19.34 percent. Refer Table 4.

Managing conflict with students

21.5
21
20.5
Percentage

20
19.5
19
18.5
18
Collaborating

Avoiding
Competing

Compromising
Accomodating

Table 4: Managing conflict with students

In terms of communication, the results were summarized in Table 5.

Issues Agree (%) Disagree (%)

We learn from each other experience 74.19 25.81
Communication from all levels especially 64.51 35.49
with higher levels is all right.
Ideas and initiatives from employees are 64.51 35.49
taken seriously in this unit or department.
Everybody who works here knows what the 64.51 35.49
unit/department stands for
We have clearly been defined in areas of 70.96 29.04
responsibility in our unit/department
This unit does a great deal and take good care 64.68 35.32
of its members.
Table 5: Communication

12
7.0 Conclusion
Overall, it could be concluded that the findings had achieved the objectives of this study.
For the first objective, conflict as perceived by the employees of the Student Affairs
Department, Universiti Utara Malaysia was both valuable and destructive. They agreed
that conflict could contribute to positive effect and could determine the need of change.
Even though, it represented only 60 to 67 percent, it showed that the employees had
appreciated the occurrence of conflict rather than avoiding it. However, nearly 90 percent
respondents agreed that conflict is when individual try to cope with their mutual
interdependency in a changing environment.

For the second objectives of the study, it could be summarized that compromising and
collaborating styles are preferred and commonly practised by the employees of Student
Affairs Department with 20.57 percent and 20.51 percent. It showed that the employees
had reflected their effort in providing a quality and professional service parallel to the
departments customer charter. However, other styles did not varied much with
competing contributed 19.84 percent followed by accommodating style with19.42%, and
avoidance with the least of 19.42 percent. Refer Table 6 below.

In managing conflict with colleagues in the same unit, the rational competing style was
high might due to competition among employees in the unit to strive for rewards such as
raises, promotion or recognition. Thus, they tried to overpower the other to satisfy their
self- interest. This condition applied to definition of conflict by Borisoff (1989)
mentioned in the literature review. Meanwhile, employees could be said tried to be fair
and willing to set aside their own concern to maintain pleasant relationship in solving
conflict with colleagues in other department by compromising and accommodating. As
well as managing conflict with students, compromising and collaborating styles showed
that the employees were promoting win-win situation that tried to satisfy everybody by
working in difference.

13
 Summary of styles in managing conflict

20.8
20.6
20.4
20.2
Percentage

20
19.8
19.6
19.4
19.2
19
18.8

Avoiding
Collaborating

Accomodating

Compromising
Competing

Table 6: Styles of Managing Conflict in Student Affairs Department

For the third objectives, the organizational communication showed that there is a high
interdependency among employees that resembles their dedication and motivation to the
department. Communication was both upward and downward where participation was
encouraged and the employees were highly inspired to achieve the departments goals.

8.0 Recommendation
To maintain and ensure the professionalism and quality of service provided by the
employees, it is recommended that the employees interpersonal skill and knowledge
must be continuously developed in managing conflict. More attention must be
emphasized to the support staffs that represent 74 percent of the respondents as they had
lower educational level compared to the other respondents. It can be implemented by
improving their understanding on the strength and weaknesses of those five styles of
managing conflict and work towards the appropriate use depending on situation.

Apart of that, employees perception on conflict should also be improved as the findings
showed that still 45 percent respondents agreed that conflict is bad and should be ignored.
Conflict also could be better managed by improving employee awareness in accepting

14
and appreciating the diversity of individuals within their department. As competing style
was high while managing conflict within the same unit, the management also is
recommended to identify ways to encourage more collaborative styles to promote healthy
and harmonious environment.

From the findings, it showed that about 35 percent expressed their dissatisfaction with the
management and the responsibilities assigned to them. Thus, the management is
recommended to identify the internal problems that might occur in the Student Affairs
Department and improve effective communication to improve conflict management. This
is important not only to enhance the units interdependency and cohesiveness for building
a better relationship but also to ensure the mission and vision can be achieved.

15
References
Andrews, P.H. and Herschel, R.T. (1996). Organizational communication: empowerment
in a technological society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Borisoff, D. and Victor, D.A. (1989). A communication skills approach. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Mastenbroeck, W.F.G. (1993). Conflict management and organization development.

West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Pierce, L.P. & Gardner, D. G. (2002). Management organizational behavior: an integrated

perspective. Ohio: South Western.

Robbins, S.P. (1996).Organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wagner III, J.A. & Hollenbeck, J.R (2002). Organizational behavior: securing
competitive advantage. 4th Edition. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc.

Walters, J. (1993). Conflict resolution and communication. www.ivysea.com

16