EMPIRICAL PROJECT
Michael Jernigan, Jeremy Latham and Leticia Galdamez
A manager must be able to account for personalities and their influences in relation to
conflict management. An organization should use the personality strengths of individual
managers to create effective teams that can manage conflict effectively on an organizational
level. Is the collaborative model approach to conflict resolution and the incorporation of Rahim
Theory a good base line for conflict resolution? Are the five categories of behavior response
relevant while taking into account our natural concern for ourselves opposed to our concern for
others and can it be incorporated into a team model?
---Managing Organizational Conflict
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine managing organizational conflict within an
organization, but more so in depth within a workplace. Managing conflict has its ways of
applying to all aspect of organizational relations. This paper will address issues and provide the
strategy of managing interpersonal in the workplace, nature of conflicts, managing conflicts
intergroup conflicts, to reduce affective conflict with all levels and how organizational conflict
can be affected within a workplace. M. Afzalur Rahim Theory of Managing Organizational
Conflict will examine the theories, the concept that once was experienced, further provide more
clarification of each theory which could be used within the organization.
The idea of M. Afzalur Rahim Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict (2002) with
in organizations is to explain how managing conflicts can be effective through all aspect in a
workplace. In addition, how employees can deal with different conflicts and resolutions to
manage that conflicts. Organizational conflict does not necessarily imply avoidance, reduction,
or termination of conflict. It is designed effective strategies to minimize the dysfunctional of
conflict and enhancing the constructive functions of conflict in order to enhance learning and
effectiveness in an organization.
Managing Conflict
A Roloff (1987) theory on managing conflict entail employees, engaging in activities that
they are incompatible of doing and does have the same qualities as the other member within the
organization. In order for conflict to occur it has to become intensive experience between both
parties’ understandings, being aware of any conflict and know that conflict has to be recognized
with both parties for conflict to happen. Wall and Callister method on managing conflict is that
organizations need to remove managing conflict and start find way to a conflict resolution. Once
the conflict resolution has been implanted when solving conflict in the organization that will be
affective toward leaning the characteristic on how the manage conflict.
In order for managing conflict to be work there are step that will resolve managing
conflict effectively organizational learning and effectiveness, Need of stakeholders, and ethics.
Finding from (Rahim, Garrett and Buntzman ,1992) when dealing with organizational conflicts
can be difficult but, it takes a good leader to take the role and learning the steps on how to handle
conflict, being an employee advocate, customer and supplier advocate and environmental and
stockholder advocates.
The studies of organizational conflict has taken two directions one of studies measure the
amount of conflict. In these studies affective conflict has to minimize and modern amount of
substantive conflict may has to be attained by other sources of conflict. Other study has looked
at other way to handle conflict with organizational members such as integrating, obliging,
domination, avoiding and compromising. For conflict to be managed functionally one has to be
more appropriate than the other.
The diagnosis of managing of organizational conflict involves the intervention of conflict
and has concluded the measures the amount of conflict, dealing with interpersonal conflict,
source of conflict and learning and effectiveness. Structural intervention aims mainly towards
with maintaining the modern substantive conflict for a routine hat reduces the affective conflict
by using other source of conflict.
The managing conflict process studies show that it is a five step process: diagnosis,
intervention, conflict, learning and effectiveness. With the process it explains a structural design
how this five step process can manage organizational conflict. For example diagnosis is the first
process which is basically the problem solving and finding way to manage conflict effectively.
Also, with conflict diagnosing the problem and figuring out resolutions to maintain conflict.
Intervention explains how much intervention is need toward the conflict. The intervention may
be need if there is too much affective conflict and if the conflict is to substantive conflict and
organizational members are not handling their conflict effectively. Conflict will challenge
people more and more every day. When the problems surfaces, then those conflicts can lead into
change in process, and structural and implementation of recommendation.
Learning and effectiveness; Conflict management require people to be risk takers, in
order to handle conflict effectively it start with experience. Without experience conflicted
situations you won’t understand way on how to manage organizational conflict. Organizations
may have to reward failures in order to learn what is safe to do and avoid risk takers behaviors.
Mangers need to know how to use reinforcements to stimulate conflict management behaviors
which are not associate with performance but with risk taking for improvement with long term
performance.
In Conclusions, managing conflict within organizations is not easy. Organizational
conflict represents an opportunity for productive change. The use of effective communication
lies at the heart of this view. Organizational conflicts develop for a reason. By acknowledging
the existence of the conflict and divining the source of it, the business leadership opens the door
for creative solutions. The simple act of acknowledging and seeking solutions to organizational
conflicts can defuse them and draw employees into a stronger relationship with the business. It
can also encourage an adaptable organization that copes efficiently with the rapid changes faced
by modern businesses. Organizational conflict produces negative outcomes. Conflicts cause
stress, which reduces worker satisfaction. This diminished satisfaction can lead to increases in
absenteeism and turnover. Conflict can also diminish trust in supervisors and fellow employees,
which can slow or stop progress on projects. The pileup of internal negative consequences, such
as lost trust and slowed progress, can generate a negative impact on customer satisfaction due to
missed deadlines and reduced work quality. Rahim theory with managing organizational conflict
is to understand the different aspect on how conflict can occur and once the conflict has been
presented Rahim theory explains how managers are able to finds different resolutions to handle
the conflict correctly.
----
The article Toward Theory-Based Measures of Conflict Management provided a look at
the theory of the managerial grid that classifies behavior styles into the five categories of
compromising, avoiding, accommodating, collaborating, and competing. The managerial grid
reflects the relationship of these styles of management with regard to concern for people verses
concern for production. ROCI (Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory) and MODE
(Management of Differences Exercise) are two of the most recognized instruments of
measurement of this theory. This study takes a more scientific approach at evaluating this theory
in a comparison study of six previous studies conducted using the ROCI and MODE methods.
The study was broken down into four parts to that make up the hypothesis. First, that the
two dimensions of concern for people and concern for production supported similarities and
differences within the five behavior categories based on a theory supported by Blake and Mouton
(1964). To depict this theory a value of 1-9 is given to each dimension as shown in Figure 1.
The preset values of the five behavior categories was avoiding 1/1, accommodating 9/1,
collaborating 9/9, competing 1/9, and compromising 5/5. Second, the values of 1-9 are
directional values that can be combined as a method of measurement (value/value = concern for
people/concern for production). Third, the two dimensions of concern for people and concern
for production are not separate; a value of each is needed to identify with the five behavior
categories. Fourth, the distances depicted on Figure 1 are equal measurements between four of
the behavior categories with compromising falling directly in the center of the other four. Figure
1 is shows the correlation between the two types of concern and the five behavior categories.
Figure 1 as depicted by Blake and Mouton (1964)
Competing
Collaborating
Concern for production
9
Compromising
1
Avoiding
1
Accommodating
Concern for people
9
The method used for this study was based on the instruments of the MODE and the
ROCI. The data was referenced from a secondary analysis of six previous studies using these
two instruments. MODE was a questionnaire used in studies by O’Reilly and Weitz (1980) with
140 participants; Mills, Robey, and Smith (1985) with 199 participants; and Kravitz (1987) with
96 participants. ROCI uses a 5-point scale system that provides a value selection that depicts the
conflict style; the higher the rating the more applicable the conflict style. The ROCI was used in
studies by Rahim (1983a) with 1,219 participants; Kozan (1986) with 134 participants; and
Weilder-Hatfield and Hatfield (1987) with 125 participants. A comparison of the MODE and the
ROCI was completed by reanalysis of the previous test results. The first step verified the
validity of Figure 1 in comparison to the two types of concerns and the five behavior categories.
The second step used MINISSA, a program designed by Lingoes and Rokam (1973), to arrange
the data into a two-dimensional grid similar to Figure 1. This grid would then reflect the actual
depiction of the data collected from the six studies previously conducted.
The results indicate the MODE and the ROCI are accurate methods of testing while using
the grid form of depicting managerial conflict styles as found in Figure 1. The difference in the
questionnaire style used by the MODE and 5-point scale system used by the ROCI was not large
enough to place validity of one over another. The results of both instruments showed little
difference between avoiding and accommodating categories giving an inaccurate value range in
relation to the other categories. The results of both instruments also indicated the category of
compromising is not found center of the other four categories as shown in Figure 1. One
difference between the method results is the ROCI did depict competing and collaborating more
accurately than the MODE.
The research does support the theory based measures of conflict management in relation
to the grid shown in Figure 1 but the categories are not completely accurate in relation to the
scale proportion of 1-9. The differences appear to be rooted in how behavior is defined in
relation to each category and its interpretation. The grid depicted in Figure 1 is more of a
foundation to establish the parameters of the research that can be easily depicted and not an exact
measurement of each category. Behavior is subject to perception and interpretation which can
make obtaining an exact measurement without error difficult. It is possible the study may be
improved by more clearly defining each category for the participants and what type of behavior
falls into those categories.
The MODE and the ROCI are tools that can still be useful as measures of conflict
management as supported by previous studies conducted in this field of research. The five
behavior categories used in correlation with the concern for people and production remain
relevant in understanding conflict management and management styles.
The article Toward Theory-Based Measures of Conflict Management provided by VanDe-Vliert and Kananoff (1990) examines the correlation between the five management styles and
the five personality traits. Interpersonal conflict in the workplace is a reality for everyone. How
people respond to conflict varies based on individual personality. By recognizing and
understanding these different personalities a manager can influence conflict resolution within an
organization and also recognize his or her own strengths and weaknesses in dealing with conflict.
Personalities are seen as divided when considering his or her level of concern for self or
the level of concern for others. Those who have more concern for others are most likely to have
an agreeableness management style. The predictions provided in this study was agreeableness
would be the strongest predictor of conflict management style with a high concern for others;
extraversion relate to the dominating style with low concern for others; conscientiousness and
openness relate to integrating and compromising conflict management style with moderate to
high concern for others; and neuroticism relate most to avoiding conflict management style with
low concern for others.
The method used was a survey of 621 undergraduate students (45% males and 55%
females) ages 18-23 years. The response categories were the five conflict management styles of
integrating, obliging, avoiding, compromising, and dominating; making up the five conflict
management styles. There was also 240 items in the survey that used results from the five
personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
Cross-validation was then used to complete the analysis.
The findings support the correlation between the five management styles and the five
personality traits. Agreeableness did indicate differences in which of the five management styles
was most likely based on personality traits and the understanding of concern for others verses
concern for self.
The agreeableness personality trait provides the strongest predictor of conflict
management style. Managers are also able to gain trust building interpersonal relationships with
employees because agreeableness fosters a work environment that supports integrating, obliging,
and compromising conflict management styles. The emphasis on concern for others and not self
allows for a positive work culture that is more likely to sustain itself through difficult challenges.
In conclusion the five personality traits and conflict management styles are supported by
the result of the survey provided. Agreeableness is a key personality trait because it is the
predictor of conflict management styles. The traits of avoiding and dominating were viewed as
negative and not preferred personality traits of conflict management because neither supports a
solution that is viewed as acceptable to both the concern for self and the concern for others
perspective. Agreeableness, as a personality trait, is a reliable predictor of conflict management
styles.
---In the article Team Roles Preference and Conflict Management Styles by Aritzeta,
Ayestaran, & Swailes (2005) we take a closer look at team roles and various conflict
management styles. We break down the group dynamics and predictions on what individuals will
fit into what role. In some teams you can already predict who will be a leader or who will not
contribute to the same level as the rest of the team members. Having a good understanding of all
possible predicts within a group will give you the best outcome or higher productivity. Things to
be aware of vary from how anxious an individual is to the emotional state that person is in, also
being aware not to confuse the two attributes. Sometimes over-confidence can be as bad as not
having confidence, because you lose that credibility that other group members expect when
working as a team. Being able to work with this conflicting styles is the key to the team’s
success.
According to the research, team dynamics are split into nine different sections. The
sections are Completer Finisher (CF), Implementer (IMP), Team Worker (TW), Specialist (SP),
Monitor Evaluator (ME), Co-ordinator (CO), Resource Investigator (RI), Plant (PL), Shaper
(SH) (Aritzeta, Ayestaran & Swailes, 2005). It is believed that every team member fits into one
of these categories. In some situations there are multiples of the same categories in a single team.
These categories are then broken down by their description of various attributes they exhibit
during problem solving or planning as a team. This table also explains their strengths and
weaknesses by a series of emotions or key words to reflect the individual’s state of being.
Completer Finisher (CF) In exploring the different roles that can create conflict we begin with
Completer Finisher (CF). The CF role would be a very anxious and submissive person that
would most likely be afraid of what other team members think of their ideas or actions during a
team task. Their weaknesses would call for a lot of worrying especially if they are place in the
center of attention. For example someone who is chosen to explain their findings or to present
the groups work to a management board.
Implementer (IMP) The IMP plays a vital role and is an individual that is conservative and very
systematic. The IMP can be efficient when putting plans into actions and can remain disciplined.
This role is great once the team has agreed on their findings and can understand with the
information that was given to them. The IMP’s weaknesses is in handling new information once
the team has a majority of task done. In other words the individual is not as flexible with
continuous change during the task at hand.
Team Worker (TW) Some people tend to agree with this role because, they just want to get the
work done with minimal effort. This role plays a supportive and likeable part of the group
dynamics. A good thing about this role is they are very co-operative and listens to the team
members when they have an opinion on what they are working on. They are also good to have on
a team because they seem to settle others down when they begin to argue or disagree on certain
issues. They also avoid conflicts themselves. This is vital when dealing with deadlines and very
stressful situations. The only drawback is when they are put on the spot to make a difficult
decision they can become very indecisive.
Specialist (SP) These would be your subject of the matter experts which are highly skilled in the
task that is given to the team. They bring in a better insight if they work closely with the issues
they are trying to solve. SP can be very defensive on their positions which they believe is correct
regardless of anyone else’s ideas or experiences.
Monitor Evaluator (ME) ME are needed in teams because of their dependability and how they
work with an open mind within a group. They listen to everyone’s opinion without judgment.
The only negative thing about this role is how they lack motivation and don’t inspire others
within the group.
Co-ordinator (CO) Every team needs positive members and the CO does just that. They are
usually mature and dominant which for some teams this can be a big issue because some teams
just want to argue or discuss the issues over and over. The CO provides self-discipline and selfcontrolled, they provide leadership and displays confidence. The CO promotes putting plans into
action as well as making decision if need be. Some find this role can be too influential.
Resource Investigator (RI) The RI can be like the CO but the difference is that the RI can be
very flexible, and optimistic which sometimes struggling groups need. They can be very
enthusiastic and positive on what they are working on. A good thing is that they understand the
value of communicating within a group. They find contacts that will assist with the issues at
hand along with looking for other avenues when running into dead ends. The only set back is
they lose interest if projects consume too much time or no deadlines are given.
Plant (PL) PL team members can be a bit extreme on some of their decisions, and can be very
imaginative. They can solve very difficult problems and creative solutions. They are original in
what they believe in and can sometimes become dominant. Their weakness is that they are deep
in thought sometimes they don’t communicate effectively.
Shaper (SH) The SH is probably the role people hate the most, because they are labeled as the
arrogant, and impatient persons that no one wants to work with. Their strengths are they thrive
on pressure so they try hard to be correct on the information they present to the group. They
encourage themselves to find an answer to all the issues the group is given. The also offend
others in the group and provoke disagreements. (Aritzeta, Ayestaran & Swailes, 2005)
The study was conducted on 169 undergraduates that were in their senior year of their
degree. The students were from Basque Country University located in Spain. The students were
separated into 26 teams. Sometimes the teams consist of 5-8 members. Data was collected for
three years and was collected at the beginning of the semester as well as at the end of the
semester. The teams had 85% females and the average age of the team members were 23 years
old. The teams were given eight task to complete and two of those were about analyzing and
discuss certain topics. The task were meant to have real work issues to get a better insight on
team goals, time pressure and other obstacles that can hinder teams from achieving their goals.
The teams then categorized themselves into one of the nine sections to evaluate how they saw
their team functioning together. This evaluated their roles as a team and also displayed their
perception of being dominating, integrating, avoiding, obliging and compromising. These areas
made the team members aware of behaviors that can be detrimental to the team. It also allowed
them to pick up queues on members that are vital for overall success. (Aritzeta, Ayestaran &
Swailes, 2005)
We believe that in order to have a very successful team environment, you need to have a
combination of the nine categories and also be able to understand the conflict management styles
which you can adjust by approaching those team members that are not as helpful a certain way.
Approaching them with the understanding of what role they play on your team. This will limit
the number of disagreements and countless hours of arguments. The limitations here is that
unless you are selecting the team members yourself, you will have to work with someone to find
out what role they fit. The study prepares you to look for signs and concerns that team members
give off in their behaviors.
The study gives you a better understanding on how management can use these
applications and can structure better teams that with maximize their productivity to their highest
level. The study gives you a variety of avenues that you can take in order to have a productive
team after conflict because not all conflict can be eliminated. To truly screen individuals, these
principles should be taken into consideration. This way their behavior response can provide an
insight of the individuals and better fit them within the five categories. After analyzing your team
dynamics some categories will demonstrate that you can’t have more than one member belong to
a certain role. Some corporations can use this study to their advantage. If you ignore this
judgment from a managerial standpoint you will have more conflict than expected. You can’t
always assemble the greatest team and should always expect some draw backs or disagreements
but, you can limit these issues by having more resources which permit you to select the best team
possible.
Reference:
Aritzeta, A., Ayestaran, S., & Swailes, S. (2005). Team Roles Preference and Conflict
Management Styles. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(2), 157-182.
Komarraju, M., Dollinger, S., & Lovell, J. (2012). Agreeableness and conflict
management styles: a cross-validated extension. Journal of organizational
psychology, vol. 12(1), 19-31.
Rahim, A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The
International Journal of Conflict Management
Van-De-Vliert, E., Kananoff, B., (1990). Toward theory-based measures of conflict
management. Academy of management journal, 33, 1, ProQuest research
library, 1990.