 

 

 

 

 

2. . 7‘2»... 12. . .

 

THE“ 4

1]!!!leNIIIIINIWHHIWWWWWilli“!!!

27795

\

‘43

~p
T

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE STYLES OF
HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT AMONG
STUDENTS, FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS

presented by

Franklin Cardona

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

PH. D degreein HIGHER EDUCATION

/ 1/ / /
x‘it {/03 - 1A/

Major professor

s;

N
é‘;\‘
o.) \

LA

‘r"

r / ,1
Date J, 3-!" {’5’
/

I
/

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove thle checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before dete due.

DATE DUE ‘L DATE DUE DATE DUE

maﬁa |
Ll

         
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ﬂ

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU |e An Affirmative Action/Ewe! Opportmlty lnetltuion
Wane-m

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful and forever indebted to the many individuals who have
contributed in some way to the accomplishment of this dream.

My greatest and deepest appreciation is extended to my wife, Lisbedth,
who maintained such marvelous optimism and endurance in the process of the
task.

I would be remiss if I did not include my daughters Jenevieve and
Maresha, who either directly or indirectly kept the ﬁre going.

I am also extremely appreciative of my chairperson, Dr. Louis Hekhuis, for
undaunted support and vision.

My special thanks to my committee members:

Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker for a much needed letter of encouragement and
for traveling so far after retirement.

Dr. John Suehr for his exceptional contribution and expertise in conﬂict
management and for also coming back to help me through this work after
retirement.

Dr. Samuel Moore, who more than once rendered insightful comments,

direction and hope to reach this destination.

ABSTRACT

The researchers purpose in this research was to identify and compare
the differences, if any, that exist among graduate students, faculty members, and
administrators with respect to conﬂict management styles as measured by the
Rahim Organizational Inventory ll, Form A, B, and C.

Form A measured conﬂict management styles in relationship to superiors,
Form B measured conﬂict management styles in relationship to subordinates,
and Form C measured conﬂict management in relationship to peers.

The population for this study consisted of graduate students, faculty
members and administrators recruited from Tennessee State University,
Western Kentucky University, and Vanderbilt University.

The total population was 137 respondents, employed or enrolled during
the Summer/Fall term of 1994. Data was collected by personal visitation,
appointments and referrals. Each participant was given a letter of transmittal with
the questionnaire, ROCI II, with complete instruction and assurance of
anonymity and conﬁdentiality.

An interview was additionally conducted to elicit responses from the
various groups on their perception of conﬂict management styles.

Data was analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance to test the
hypothesis. Interviews were also analyzed by individual answers and compared
to the ANOVA ﬁndings.

Statistical signiﬁcance was found in six sub-hypotheses.

FaCUIty were found to be more compromising and avoiding in their conﬂict

management style than students.

 

Students were found to be more obliging and avoiding in their conﬂict
management style than faculty members.

Females were found to be more avoiding in their conﬂict management
styles than males.

The results of the statistical data and interviews rendered support for
further research in the following areas:

(1) studies to predict choice of conﬂict style among faculty members
dependent upon decisional variables such as (a) desire to remain, (b) superior-
subordinate congruence, and (c) protection from arbitrary action;

(2) further research to ﬁnd out the kinds of conﬂict management training
among Administrators, Faculty members and Students;

(3) since the research rendered an additional ﬁnding on gender
differences, further research on conﬂict management styles among
males/females with follow-up interviews is encouraged, and

(4) studies could be conducted to incorporate direct observation of

administrators, faculty members, and students in actual conﬂict situations.

iv

 

Table of Contents

. INTRODUCTION

The Problem

Commitment to Others Values
Communication

Common Interest in Resolution
Conﬂict Styles

The Purpose of the Study
Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis

Sub Hypothesis

Delimitation of the Study
Assumptions

Signiﬁcance of the Study
Deﬁnition of Terms
Theoretical Framework

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Background

Sociological Philosophical Theory

Social Conﬂict Theory Strategies and Styles
Higher Education Conﬂict Styles

Conﬂict Management Styles Schema

Two Dimensional Model

Social Conﬂict Escalation

Organizational Change / Empowerment
Conclusion

III. METHODOLOGY

Population
Sample
Procedure
Instrumentation
Content Validity
Construct Validity
Interview

Data Selection

AAA-4444‘
mmwmwooo‘mmmm"

21
24
25
32
35

38
39
42

43
43

45
46
47
48

 

IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Research Question 1
Interview Analysis
Additional Tables
Research Question 2

'V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATION, CONCLUSION
Summary
Treatment
Strengths and Limitations of the Study
Future Directions
Recommendations for Further Research
Conclusion

APPENDICES

A. Major Professor's Letter of Introduction
B. Letters of Transmittal
C. Rahim Organizational Conﬂict Inventory

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vi

49
51
61
71

74
75
76
77
77
78

83

85

89

94

 

 

List of Tables

. Measurement of Integrating Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Superiors One-Way
Analysis of Variance

. Measurement of Compromising Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Superiors One-Way
Analysis of Variance

. Measurement of Avoiding Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Subordinates One-Way
Analysis of Variance

. Measurement of Obliging Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Superiors One-Way
Analysis of Variance

. Differences in Avoiding Style Due to Main Effects of Sex,
Group, and Interaction Effects of Sex and Group Across
All Targeted Groups Two-way Analysis of Variance

. Measurement of Dominating Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Superiors One-Way
Analysis of Variance

. Measurement of Avoiding Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Superiors One-Way
Analysis of Variance

. Measurement of Integrating Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Subordinates One-Way
Analysis of Variance

. Measurement of Obliging Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Subordinates One-Way
Analysis of Variance

10. Measurement of Dominating Style of Administrators, Faculty

and Students when Relating to Subordinates One-Way
Analysis of Variance

vii

50

52

58

60

61

62

63

65

 

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Measurement of Compromising Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Subordinates One-Way
Analysis of Variance

Measurement of Integrating Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Peers One-Way
Analysis of Variance

Measurement of Obliging Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Peers One-Way
Analysis of Variance

Measurement of Dominating Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Peers One-Way
Analysis of Variance

Measurement of Avoiding Style of Administrators, Faculty
and Students when Relating to Peers One-Way
Analysis of Variance

Measurement of Compromising Style of Administrators, Faculty

and Students when Relating to Peers One-Way
Analysis of Variance

viii

66

67

68

69

7O

71

 

 

Copyright by
Franklin Cardona
1995

CHAPTER I

 

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

Colleges and universities, like other public and private
organizations, are in need of individuals who can deal effectively with I ~.___
conﬂict. It appears from the literature that administrators, graduate
students, and faculty members often deal with conﬂict poorly.

This research is designed to explore and compare the conﬂict
management styles among graduate students, faculty members and
administrators.

According to M. J. Williams, Jr. (1976), the real point of divergence
between managers in business and industry and managers in colleges
and universities appears to be conﬂict. It has been further observed that
most administrators in higher education feel that conﬂict is destructive
and that it should be avoided if at all possible.

College teachers have always experienced conﬂict with their
students. Hocker (1986) describes a typical interaction between a
teacher and student:

Student: Could I talk with you about my grade on the

ﬁrst paper?

Professor: Sure, come on in.

Student:

Professor.

Student:

Professor.

Student:

Professor:

I'd like to know your criteria for an A.

I worked really hard.

Well, it was a good paper but it had some
ﬂaws. For instance, you had a lot of
proofreading errors, and you didn't follow
the assignment fully.

I didn't know we had to use outside
sources.

I covered that in class. You must have
missed it.

Oh well, thanks.

Sure, anytime.

The professor will likely assume that the above interaction was a

routine inquiry about a grade, in which the student went away satisﬁed.

The student might report to friends that the professor was unclear in

class, unfair in applying standards, inconsistent in interpretation of

requirements, did not read the paper carefully or conducted the interview

in an arrogant, demeaning manner. For the professor, no important

conﬂict may have occurred; for the student, who may be boiling inside,

the episode may be considered a serious conﬂict.

In a somewhat different scenario, Connie, Sharon and Lisbedth

share an old house near the campus where they are seniors at a

university. They have been acquainted with each other for years; they

 

grew up together in the same town. Their roommate relationship has
been fairly smooth thus far, although a recent issue has resulted, since
Lisbedth eats two meals a day on campus at the food court. Connie and

Sharon like to cook, so they prepare their meals at home.

 

They have invited Lisbedth to share the evening meal several f.
times and Lisbedth has accepted it. It's Thursday night, Lisbedth is
rushing to get to the food service before it closes, and the following
dialogue occurs: =~..
Connie: Hey, Lisbedth, you might as well stay and eat with us.
lt'slate. You'll never make it.
Lisbedth: No big deal. If I miss it, I'll get a hamburger or
something. (Lisbedth rushes out the door).
Connie: (to Sharon) That's the last time I'm going to ask her
to eat with us. She thinks she is too good to be
bothered with staying around here with us.
Later, Lisbedth informs the other two women that she will be
moving out because she feels that she has been excluded, and that
Connie and Sharon would rather not have her around. They begin to try
to talk about the decision, since each person interprets the events of the
last few weeks differently.
The expression of conﬂict through the communication process is
carried out through content and relationship information (\Mlmont 1979).
When Lisbedth said, "No big deal..." the content was fairly clear.

"No, I'll go ahead, and if I miss the food service, I’ll get a hamburger."

However, the content was not the problem. Instead, various relational
meanings were communicated by the two women - meanings that led
them into a protracted conﬂict. Connie might have been communicating
any of the following relational messages: ”We feel sorry for you. Please
stay." "I feel guilty when you miss dinner. I don't want you to stay, but I'd
rather you stay than I continue to feel guilty."

Obviously, Lisbedth and Connie needed to clarify the relational
level of their communication about food. Without discussing what is
meant on the relationship level, this particular conﬂict will not be resolved
in a productive manner.

Williams (1976) categorizes certain key factors in resolving conﬂict
sﬂuaﬁons:

Factual Material: In a question of fact, conﬂicts are easy to
resolve, because simple research can provide the needed information.
Little or no energy is expended. For example, Stan Musial either hit over
.300 in 1950, or he did not. A little initiative and a reliable sports guide
can solve the problem.

Methodology: In deciding how to handle a particular issue or work
situation, Mary and John may differ over the approach. Both individuals
want to achieve the same results, and they usually do. The question is
one of how to get there. Mary's experiences may make one method much
more familiar and comfortable for her, and therefore, it is preferable in her

mind.

@an In some cases, a difference arises over the purpose of a
speciﬁc activity or task. The goal of the activity becomes more important
than getting it done. The presumed goal often deﬁnes deadlines and sets
the priority given to speciﬁc activities or approaches. Conﬂict about these
issues can give rise to disagreement about methodology.

Values: Scales of value vary signiﬁcantly, and they can be a

 

particularly troublesome source of conﬂict. What is offensive to one
person may be perfectly acceptable to another, and the issues are often
emotional. The more strongly assailed one's values are, the greater the
intensity of one's feelings.

Although it is clear that different types of conﬂict create different

situations, three elements are common to effective resolution of four kinds

of conﬂict:

Commitment to Others Value;

Regardless of how different their values, approaches, or perception
of the problem, all individuals involved in the conﬂict must clearly see or
be willing to understand that values are held strongly by both parties.

If there is no acceptance that individuals hold different values,

there can be no commitment to resolve the conﬂict.

Communication
Once there is a commitment to resolve the conﬂict, open and

straightforward communication must follow. In most cases, it is initiated

by the participant who ﬁrst becomes aware that there is a proper

atmosphere of commitment and that communication is needed.

Common Interest In Resolution
There must be a willingness to believe that all participants are
interested in resolving the conﬂict. Resolution may be impossible, but
both sides must be willing to discern or believe that the others are willing

to work toward resolution.

Conﬂict Styles

Having considered the general types of conﬂict and the general
principles of resolutions, this particular research emphasis is directed to
the study of conﬂict management styles in higher education. M. Afzalur
Rahim, developed the Rahim Organizational Conﬂict Inventory II. The
ﬁve different conﬂict management styles are: Integrating, Obliging,
Dominating, Avoiding, and Compromising.

The obliging style occupies one end of the continuum. This style is
evident when a person is willing to be cooperative as possible and to
accept whatever solution another individual or the group suggests.

On the opposite end of the continuum are those who carry
assertiveness to its full measure. The dominating or autocratic style ﬁts

this category.

 

 

DI tr
, HI

Part cooperative and part assertive, the compromising style must
aptly describe the effective form of conﬂict resolution, which seeks the
area of compromise that will satisfy both parties. The integrating, or . _
collaborative, style pushes both assertiveness and cooperation as far as
possible. It requires both ﬁnesse and maturity on the part of the
participants.

Finally, neither cooperative nor assertive, the avoiding style avoids

conﬂict by neither cooperating nor pushing for solutions.

The Purpose of the Study

The researchers purpose in this study was to identify and compare
the differences, if any, that exist among graduate students, faculty, and
administrators with respect to conﬂict management styles as measured by
the Rahim Organizational Inventory II, Form A, B, and C. Form A
measures the conﬂict management style in relation to superiors. Form B
measures the conﬂict management style in relation to subordinates. Form
C measures the conﬂict management style in relation to peers.

Additionally, an interview was conducted to ascertain the individual
responses to questions pertaining to self-perception, perception of others,
and ideal manner or preferences in conﬂict management style, among
graduate students, faculty members, and administrators.

The interview section of this study was conducted for the following

purposes:

 

‘I

(1) to gather additional data from the experiences of
those interviewed;

(2) to identify any differences from the survey instrument
and actual verbatim discussion of conﬂict
management style;

(3) to gain insight from the interview process for
enhancing skills for future conﬂict management
intervention strategy, and

(4) to acquire information that will facilitate ideas for
further projects and research.

The following study identiﬁed the conﬂict management style of
graduate students, faculty members and administrators in higher

educaﬁon.

Research question I:
Is there a signiﬁcant difference between graduate students, faculty

members and administrators with respect to conﬂict management styles?

Sub—research Questions:
A. Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the conﬂict management

style of integrating among graduate students, faculty
members and administrators in relationship to superiors,

subordinates and peers?

B. Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the conﬂict management
style of compromising among graduate students, faculty
members and administrators in relationship to superiors,
subordinates and peers?

C. Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the conﬂict management
style of avoidance among graduate students, faculty
members and administrators in relationship to superiors,
subordinates and peers?

D. Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the conﬂict management
style of obliging among graduate students, faculty members
and administrators in relationship to superiors, subordinates
and peers?

E. Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the conﬂict management
style of dominating among graduate students, faculty
members and administrators in relationship to superiors,
subordinates and peers?

F. Is there a signiﬁcant difference in gender with respect to
conﬂict management styles among graduate students,
faculty members and administrators in relationship to

superiors, subordinates and peers?

The following hypotheses were generated for this study:

Hymthesis I
There is a signiﬁcant difference between graduate students, faculty

members, and administrators with respect to conﬂict management styles.

Null Hypothesis

There is no signiﬁcant difference among graduate students, faculty

members, and administrators with respect to conﬂict management styles.

Sub Hypothesis
Hypothesis: There is a signiﬁcant difference among graduate

students and faculty members with respect to conﬂict management
styles.

Null Hypothesis: There is no signiﬁcant difference between
graduate students and faculty members with respect to conﬂict
management style.

Hypothesis: There is a signiﬁcant difference between faculty
members and administrators with respect to conﬂict management styles.

Null Hypothesis: There is no signiﬁcant difference with respect to
conﬂict management style between faculty members and administrators.

Hypothesis: There is a signiﬁcant difference with respect to
conﬂict management style between graduate students and administrators

with respect to conﬂict in management style.

10

 

 

IE

aI'

I85

Null Hypgthesis: There is no signiﬁcant difference between
graduate students and administrators with respect to conﬂict management
style.

Hypothesis: There is a signiﬁcant difference among male and
female graduate students, faculty members, and administrators with
respect to conﬂict management style. I

Null Hypothesis: There is no signiﬁcant difference between male
and female graduate students, faculty members and administrators with

respect to conﬂict management style.

Research Question Il:

Is there a difference in self-perception, others' perception and ideal
preference of conﬂict management styles among graduate students,

faculty members and administrators?

Hypothesis II

There is a difference in self-perception, others' perception, and
ideal preference of conﬂict management styles among graduate students,
faculty members, and administrators interviewed.

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference with regard to self-
perception, others' perception, and ideal preference of conﬂict
management styles among graduate students, faculty members and

administrators interviewed.

11

Delimitation of the Study

The study was delimited to:

1

Graduate students at Tennessee State University, Western
Kentucky University, and Vanderbilt University.

Faculty: full-time members of the faculty at Tennessee
State University, Western Kentucky University, and
Vanderbilt University.

Administrators: Administrators will consist of vice-
presidents, deans, associate deans, Chairpersons, and
directors at Tennessee State University, Western Kentucky
University, and Vanderbilt University.

Five conﬂict management styles as measured by Rahim's
organizational Inventory II, Form ABC.

Students enrolled in the summer-fall term of 1994.

Assumptions

This researcher assumed that:

1.

The students, faculty, and administrator's answers on the
Rahim's

Organizational Inventory II would be a true reﬂection of their
conﬂict management style.

There are varied contrasts and discernible preferences for
conﬂict management styles among students, faculty and

administrators in higher education.

12

Signiﬁcance of the §tudy

Conﬂict management is an inevitable and indispensable tool for
effective leadership in today's universities. The student, faculty member,
or administrator must be astutely conscious to make the adjustments
needed to meet the rapid change and conﬂicts that will be forthcoming
(Kerr, 1973).

Erikson (1968, p. 39) states,

The most widespread expression of the discontented search of
youth is the craving for locomotion, whether expressed in a general
"being on the go," "tearing after something" or "running around," or
in locomotion as in vigorous work, in absorbing sports, in rapt
dancing. . . . Their need for locomotion also ﬁnds expression
through participation in the movements of the day. . . . He further
states . . . youth . . . must often test extremes before setting on a
considered course. These extremes, particularly in times of
biological confusion and widespread marginality of identity, may
include not only rebellious, but also deviant, delinquent and self-
destructive tendencies.

According to Wilmot (1976), most conﬂicts between teacher and students
can be reduced to win-lose, with the conﬂict being managed via high-
powered coercive tactics. Students reﬂect that teachers typically escalate
the conﬂict, then use their power to force students to back down.
Consequently, students report that they feel anxious, dumb, helpless,
disturbed, mad, sorry, and revengeful. Recent evidence suggests a need
for exploring conﬂict management styles among students, faculty, and

administrators in higher education.

13

Too often administrators have managed conﬂict poorly because, as
Wilson and Jerrill (1981) delineate concerning administrators:
1. they do not want to deal with conﬂict that cannot be
controlled;
2. they fail to make plans for conﬂict producing situations
because they do not view conﬂict as potentially productive;
3. they fail to accept conﬂict and are threatened by it; and
4. they ﬁnd conﬂict difﬁcult to accept in part due to implications
that conﬂict is equated with change.
The Chronicle of Higher Education May 6, 1987, referred to a

 

student who was caught in a dilemma. Two faculty factions at the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst were in a conﬂict concerning
course requirements and whether the student indeed satisﬁed them. The
student's Ph.D. was at stake. After 48 hours of intense confrontations
among faculty, administration, and the student, a settlement was ﬁnally
established.

February 24, 1986, the Chronicle of ﬁqher Education disclosed
that some 200 Black, Hispanic, and American Indians staged a sit-in over
racial problems on the campus at the University of Massachusetts.

"Students, teachers, administrators . . . are a product of this
competition oriented society. . . whose historical interaction among
groups necessitates proper conﬂict management" (Trusty, 1978). Thus,
this study was focused on conﬂict management style in higher education.

Conﬂicts have escalated and mediation continues to rise. Individuals who

14

were not at ﬁrst connected to conﬂict found themselves drawn and
involved as conﬂicts expanded. Historically, every major student conﬂict
originated between administration and the students, and faculty were
almost immediately caught up in conﬂict (Baldridge, 1971 ).

I Conﬂict is inevitable and managing conﬂict through effective
communication and styles will be a useful tool for anyone interested in
maintaining satisfying and productive relationships (Hatﬁeld, 1984).

In accordance with Filley (1975, p. 25) a chairperson, or academic
dean, who may say to a faculty member, "You must do that because I am
telling you to do so," is indeed utilizing a power conferred by the
university. This exerting inﬂuence is quite evident, and its utilization
leaves no alternative but for the receiver to respond to the directive. The
faculty member usually has a feeling that helshe has lost. This
represents a domination style, or win-lose situation, where the
administrator wins and the faculty member loses.

The avoidance style, or lose-lose, usually ﬁnds all of the
individuals in conﬂict, leaving the situation dissatisﬁed. Compromise is a
lose-lose method, particularly when it is pivoted on the assumption that to
win part is better than to lose all. Another avoidance technique, or lose-
lose, may involve side payments. The faculty member agrees to a
problem-solution for a favor from the administrator. Universities are users
of side payment to an extent of high cost, providing faculty members with
additional resources to do disagreeable tasks. The results depict that

both sides in the conﬂict are partial losers.

15

The win-lose and lose-lose styles of conﬂict management in the
university setting have some distinctive common characteristics. Both
sides perceive the issue only from their own perspective, rather than
deﬁning the problem in terms of mutual needs. Robbins states, "The
academic administrator who desires to manage a conﬂict as a positive
force for effective change must recognize the existence and utility of
conﬂict, . . . and consider the management of conﬂict as a major
responsibility."

This study led to an awareness of conﬂict management style, and
promoted an avenue for more dialogue, seminars, and education
concerning interdependent relationships in higher education. In view of
the foregoing, students, faculty, and administrators may have an overall
style of conﬂict management and this study was designed to survey those

styles and compare the differences.

Deﬁnition of Terms

The following terms were used throughout this study:

m: An interactive state in which perceived incompatibility or
opposition exists between individuals, groups, or organizations (Robbins,
1974; Rahim, 1986). Interpersonal conﬂict is a dyadic process (Thomas,
1976) that occurs over the issues pertaining to the control of scarce
resources, of opposing behavioral preferences, of values held by one
individual but not shared by the other, of different beliefs or perceptions of

reality, and of the nature of the relationship between the two parties

16

(Deutsch, 1973). Overt behaviors depicting conﬂict situations include
"tension, frustration, verbal abuse, annoyance, anxiety, interference,
rivalry, etc." (Rahim, 1986).

Conﬂict Management: A process which is primarily focused on
handling conﬂict in such a manner that is at best productive for the
organization and for the individuals involved, or at least not destructive to
management's objectives (Thomas, 1976; Rahim 8. Bonoma, 1979).

Conﬂict Management Style: The way in which a person handles
conﬂict is measured on two factors, concern for self and concern for
others (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Ruble & Thomas, 1976).

In combining these two dimensions, ﬁve conﬂict management
styles have resulted as deﬁned by Rahim and Bonoma (1979). The ﬁve
styles studied are:

1. Integration is the problem solving ideal. The relationship is
fully preserved while new approaches are suggested which allow both
parties to achieve their goals.

2. Obligation generally means “giving in.” The party feels that the
relationship is so important that achieving the personal goal is not worth
ﬁghting for. This conﬂict management style results in a win/lose situation
wth the obliging party or “friendly helper,” the loser.

3. Domination involves achieving one’s goals at all costs,

regardless of the consequences for others.

17

4. Avoidance often stems from the perception that all conﬂict is
unpleasant and destructive and must be avoided at all costs. Avoiders
remove themselves from conﬂict whenever possible.

5. Compromise allows both parties to accept that something is
better than nothing. If both parties truly feel that they get the best of the
deal, it may work out to be a win/win situation. Frequently, however,
neither party is satisﬁed and each side views the resolution of the conﬂict
as a lose/lose situation.

Higher Education: Institutions for education above the secondary
school level that identify teaching, research, and service as their primary
missions; and that offer baccalaureate and graduate-level programs of
study.

Higher Education AdministrLor. An administrator is deﬁned as any
person occupying one of the following positions: president, vice
president, dean of a school/college, department chair, assistant to the
chair, associate dean, assistant dean, specialists, administrative
assistant, and project directors.

Graduate Student: One who is currently enrolled in a master's
level program or doctoral program at a university.

.F_ac_u_lt_y: The body of persons responsible for instruction in a
college or university.

Tenured System Faculty: Faculty members who have been hired
as assistant professors, or associate professors with three-year periods of

review, at which time tenure may be granted.

18

Tenured Faculty: Faculty members who have been granted tenure

after a maximum of seven years of experience.

Theoretical Framework
The literature appears to suggest that students tend to be more
dominating in conﬂict situations (Chronicle of Higher Education, 1987),
faculty more compromising with administrators (Lupton, 1984), more
dominating with students (Hocker, 1986), and administrators more
avoiding in their conﬂict management styles (WIISOI‘I & Jerrill, 1981 ).
The reality of avoiding conﬂict is an integral component of the

ethos of modern management theory.

Although there are various alternatives in dealing with a conﬂict
situation, an administrator who intentionally avoids a conﬂict,
wishing that it will go away, is probably lacking strength of
leadership, for ignoring a problem does not solve it (Grifﬁn, 1984,
p. 14).

Lupton (1984) mentions a number of schisms in academia, such as
faculty grievances against superiors because of inadequate pay raises,
lack of being promoted, and lack of respect.

Other evidence, such as the recent sit-ins at Ferris State, Michigan
State, and University of Michigan campuses and in South Africa, indicates
that students are confronting racial tensions and targeting their demands
to administrators who have avoided dealing with their concerns (Chronicle

of Higher Education, 1987).

 

19

The university president who wishes to perform effectively must be
knowledgeable and cognizant of the sources and styles of conﬂict
management (Vogt, 1975). According to Glenny (1975), the key to
institutional survival in the next two decades will be the emergence of new
administrative conﬂict management styles to deal effectively with

inevitable conﬂict.

20

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Background

Historically, the phenomena of conﬂict have fallen within the
domain of the historian, the novelist, the philosopher, and the theologian,
and have been treated and investigated in all of the biological and social
sciences. Conﬂicts between nations, political parties, and ideologies
have been studied by political scientists; conﬂicts in the market place
have been explored by economists; group conﬂicts of such diversity as
familial, social and social class have been investigated by sociologists,
and the struggle for survival by species of differing genetic endowments
has been studied by biologists (Nightingale, 1974).

The following is an overview of classical conﬂict philosophy, social
conﬂict theory strategies and styles, higher education conﬂict styles,
conﬂict style schema, the two-dimensional model, social conﬂict
escalation, and organizational change and empowerment as each relates
to conﬂict management.

The philosophers Plato and Aristotle did not write a separate
treatise on social conﬂict. Both discussed at length the necessity for
order in society. Plato maintained that both in the individual and in the
state, justice rests in order.

Aristotle, on the other hand, differed with the Platonic thesis, which

called for "extreme uniﬁcation" or communism, arguing that it was neither

21

practical nor possible. Although differing with Plato on the form of
government, Aristotle shared and sympathized with the Platonic view of a
need for order in society and the state.

Plato and Aristotle stressed that the absence of conﬂict is a sine-
qua-non for the attainment of the just form of life in the city-state. To them
"strife is a sign of imperfection and unhappiness." Order is the essence
which makes for a good life and disorder the opposite. Conﬂict is a threat
to the success of the state and should be kept at an absolute minimum,
and removed altogether if possible (Sipka, 1969). The conclusion of the
classical philosophers was that they ascribed to social conﬂict a
pathological status.

Hegel's philosophical treatise is depicted as a notion of the
dialectic, which has evolved throughout the years and obtained different
meanings such as:

(a) arriving at the truth;

(b) dialogue or dialectics;

(c) process of ascertaining the unrestricted truth, and

(d) process of change through the conﬂict of opposing

forces (ﬁrst doctrine).

To overcome the opposition one is required to reconcile the
opposing concepts by coming to a third position (synthesis, or third
doctrine). The dialectical method thus affects a synthesis of opposites.
The synthesis in turn becomes a new thesis.

The dialectics of Marx and Hegel are quite different. Marx viewed
human history as resplendent with conﬂict between classes, which is the
mechanism of change and development. Marx contended that the class

struggle (between the “haves" and "have nots") would ultimately result in

22

a classless society which would be devoid of oppression where human
beings would be, for the ﬁrst time, truly free. This new society would be
free from conﬂict and the individuals would be perfectly reconciled to
themselves and their fellows.

Charles Darwin (1809-1822) was a scientist and naturalist who
formulated the theory of evolution, which indicated that biological species
survive and grow by confronting environmental challenges. Darwin wrote,
"All nature is at war, one organism with another, or with external nature.
Seeing the contented face of nature, this may at ﬁrst be well doubted, but
reﬂection will inevitably prove it is true" (Darwin, 1871). These concepts
called for a re-investigation of the classical views of the role of social
conﬂict in human development.

Darwin (1871) and his followers (the Social Darwinists) found and
recognized the role the environmental conﬂict plays on human growth,
which engendered the advancement and evolution of the doctrine of "the
survival of the ﬁttest." Darwin (1871, p.16) stated, "Man has no doubt
advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence
consequent on his rapid multiplication, and if he is to advance still higher
it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle.
Otherwise, he would sink into indolenCe, and the more gifted men would
not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted."

Darwin believed that the growth of human beings is a function of
their response to conﬂict with the environment. If conﬂict were altogether
absent, as appears to be the ideal in much of classical philosophy,

progress of human beings would be retarded.

23

The evolutionary emphasis on the essential role of conﬂict in
human development is a hallmark of the nineteenth century. Through

Damin it found its way into virtually all facets of science.

Sociological Philosophical Theory

Georg Simmel is among the classical sociologists who have made

 

signiﬁcant contributions to the study of conﬂict theory. Simmel's
hypothesis was that "a certain amount of discord, inner divergence and
outer controversy is organically tied up with essential elements that
ultimately hold the group together; it cannot be separated from the unity of
the sociological structure." Simmel believed that the conﬂict would
therefore be signiﬁcant for small groups and marital couples.

Similarly, Park (1921) and Burgess (1929) concluded, "Only where
there is conﬂict is behavior conscious and self-conscious; only here are
the conditions for rational conﬂict." And Talcott Parsons (1949) later
added to his structural-functional theory a contrasting point of view when
he indicated that society is inherently stable, integrated, andfunctional,
and as a result, conﬂict is viewed to be abnormal and dysfunctional.
Sipka (1969) states that Parson’s “model is thoroughly an equilibrium
model and the dynamics are relegated to the level of 'deviation.‘ All this
stems, perhaps from Parsons' extraordinary, Hobbesian preoccupation
with the natural tendency of men to hostility, and the difﬁculty of
controlling them adequately.“

During the 1950's a number of theorists arose and presented
positions which opposed Parscnian Analysis. Lewis Coser (1956),
focused on the productive potential of conﬂict, had much to do with this

renewal of interest. A realistic position is that conﬂict has productive as

24

well as destructive potentials (Assael, 1969; Deutsch, 1969; Wilson
Jerrell, 1981). The functional and dysfunctional outcomes of conﬂict in

organization are as follows:

Functional Outcomes:
organizational decision making may be improved;
alternative solutions to a problem may be formed;
people may be required to articulate and clarify their
positions; conﬂict may stimulate innovation, creativity and
growth, and individual and group performance may be
enhanced.

Dysfunctional Outcomes:
conﬂict may cause stress and job burnout;
communication between employees may be reduced;
a climate of distrust and suspicion can develop;
job satisfaction of performance may be reduced;
resistance to change can increase, and

organizational commitment and loyalty may be affected.

Sociai Conﬂict Theory Strategies and Styles

Webster (1983) expressed that the term “conﬂict" originally meant
a ﬁght, struggle, or battle. The signiﬁcance of the word "conﬂict” conveys
a physical confrontation between parties. The meaning of this term has
broadened to included psychological motivation for physical confrontation
as well as emotional confrontation (Rubin, Pruett, Kew, 1994).

One way social psychologists have dealt with the broadening of the
meaning of the word “conﬂict” is to deﬁne it more concisely. Rubin, Pruitt,

and Kim (1994) deﬁne conﬂict as perceived divergence of interest or a

25.

belief that opposing parties' current aspirations cannot be achieved
simultaneously. By deﬁning conﬂict as perceived rather than a true
divergence of interest, the social psychologists are departing from a tenet
of the social sciences.

The rational for this departure is that perceived divergence of
interest is more useful in prediction what people actually will do. This is
because perceptions ordinarily have an immediate impact on behavior
(that is, in the case of conﬂict, on the choice of strategies) whereas,
reality works more slowly and with less certainty. Social psychologists
including Rubin, Pruitt and Kim identify three basic conﬂict strategies,
contending, problem solving ( or integrating), and yielding.

Contending, (expressed by Rubin as dominating conﬂict
management strategy) the ﬁrst of these basic conﬂict strategies, involves
attempts to resolve a conﬂict with respect to each other's interests. When
people deal with conflict by contending, each is trying to do well at the
other '5 expense. The parties involved tend to engage in a set of moves
and counterrnoves that potentially intensify the conﬂict.

When a party utilizes a strategy of contention, that party maintains
its own inspiration and tries to persuade of force others to yield. Various
tactics may be used by a party when it selects this style. These tactics
include threats and imposing penalties with the understanding that the
penalties will be withdrawn if the opposing party concedes. If a party is
trying to reach a negotiated settlement of the controversy, contending
may also involve persuasive arguments, making demands that far exceed

what is actually acceptable, committing itself to an "unalterable" position

or imposing deadlines.

26

The second conﬂict strategy “problem solving" or “integrating,”
attempts to clearly identify issues toward a solution that appeals to both
sides. When one side employs this strategy, attempts are made to
maintain both side's aspirations. There are various tactics which are
implemented in this problem-solving approach.

These tactics include risky moves, such as conceding the
expectation of receiving a return concession. Tactical maneuvers such as
mentioning possible avenues of compromise are talking points and reveal
one party’s underlying interests. Problem solvers also seek other means
to negotiate a possible solution including, hinting possible compromise,
sending intermediaries to discuss the issues, communicating through
back channels, and using a mediator.

Yielding, the third conﬂict strategy deﬁned by social psychologists
involves lowering the aspirations of the parties involved in conﬂict.
Yielding need not imply total capitulation; it may simply imply having to
make some concessions in arriving at an agreement.

Pondy (1967) provided more support for being able to predict the
conﬂict management behavior of subordinates. He declared that it is the
imposition of rules which deﬁnes relationships with superiors. These
theories are viewed as the key in robbing subordinates of any autonomy.
The main issues, then, is the high value that organizations placed on
control over subordinates.

Musser (1982) examined conflict management styles among
subordinates and provided a model for predicting the choice of style by
subordinates in high stake conﬂict. He hypothesized that the preferred
choice of managing conﬂict among subordinated depended upon three

decisional variables that they employ: ( 1) desire to remain, (2) superiorl

27

subordinate congruence, and (3) protection from arbitrary action. Thus,
based on these three variables, it was proposed that it was possible to
anticipate the subordinate’s choice of managing conﬂict.

If a faculty member does not have a desire to remain in a particular
organization, for example, there is a low risk in taking chances; that is,
low risk in being competitive. On the other hand, if there is an interest in
remaining in the organization, high risk would be involved and one of the
non-competitive modes of managing conﬂict, such as yielding or obliging,
would be preferred. ‘

As to which of these three conﬂict strategies is best, Rubin, Pruitt
and Kim (1994) suggest that selecting a single strategy from among the
three basic strategies eliminates the possibility of choosing the other two.
At times these three strategies may need to be combined. The strategies
are somewhat compatible, because each is an alternate means of moving
toward the same goal - agreement between conﬂicting parties.

Rahim (1993) appears to be in agreement with social conﬂict
scholars. It is Rahim's contention that to have effective management of
conﬂict, one’s involvement must match the style of conﬂict resolution with
the situation presented. To determine the appropriate form of conﬂict

resolution certain the following criteria should be considered:

1. contribution to the effectiveness of the organization;
2. satisfaction of social needs, and
3. fulﬁllment of the moral and ethical needs of the

organizational member.
Rahim (1993) also reported results from twenty workshops among
managers in industry which revealed how the ﬁve conﬂict management

styles were effective in certain situations.

28

Integrating Style

The integrating style was found to be most useful in dealing with
variety of complex problems. If a party simply cannot solve the problem
( i.e., a synthesis of views needed to come up with a solution to the
problem) then, integration should be considered. The integrating style is
also quite useful in that the opportunity is available to utilize the skills,
information and resources possessed by the various parties to deﬁne and
re-deﬁne the problem. This style engenders an alternative solution and
offers an adequate blending of collaborative effort.

The integrating style was also less effective in certain situations.
For example, it is inappropriate when the task or problem is simple or
trivial. When there is not time for problem-solving, immediate action is
required. There is also the problem that one party may not have sufﬁcient

training or sufﬁcient experience to problem-solve.

Obliging Style

The obliging conﬂict management style is very useful when a party
is not familiar wit the issues, or the other party is correct in their stance
and it appears to be quite important for the other party to win. The
appropriateness of this style is most useful when a party is willing to give-
up something with the hope of obtaining some reward or beneﬁt. This
style is also appropriate when a party is dealing from a strategic position

of weakness. 'The incentive to oblige or concede is motivated by a desire

to preserve the relationship.

29

The obliging style is inappropriate when a party is dealing from a
strategies position of weakness. The incentive to oblige or concede is
motivated by a desire to preserve the relationship. This style is also
Inappropriate if a party believes they are right, and the issues in a conﬂict
are important. Obliging is also inappropriate to use when a party appears

to be convinced that the other party is wrong, or acting unethically.

Dominating Style
The dominating conﬂict management style is considered most

useful when the issues in a conﬂict are important to a party. It is also
signiﬁcant to use this style when an unfavorable decision by the other
party may be harmful or damaging to this other party. The utilization of
this style by a supervisor becomes pragmatic when the issues are rather
routine and some speedy decision is required. A supervisor may be
compelled to use this style when subordinates are especially assertive, or
do not have the experience or expertise to make technical decisions.

The dominating style is inappropriate when facing some complex
issues. There may be very little time to make a good decision. When two
parties of equal power use this style, a stalemate may result. It is only by

changing the style of conﬂict that such a stalemate may resolve.

Avoiding Style
The avoiding style is of conﬂict management may be useful in
presenting a negative result in an open confrontation. If one party views
the potential dysfunctional effects of the confrontation, then that party may

decide it is best to avoid the confrontation.

30

This style is useful when dealing with some minor issues and
problems which may require a "cooling off” period. The leveling off period
may provide useful preparation time for dealing with more complex
problems.

The avoiding conﬂict management style is inappropriate when the
conﬂict issues are deemed important to a party. The style is also
considered inappropriate when it is the responsibility of the party to make
straight-forward decisions and the parties are unwilling to stall or wait. It

is also inappropriate to use this style when prompt action is needed.

Compromising Sgle

The compromising conﬂict management style is utilized when two
parties which are equally powerful have become "gridlocked.’ The two
parties cannot reach a consensus, and some kind of tentative solution to
a more complex-compound problem is demanded. The other conﬂict
management styles may have been employed, but were ineffective with
the issues. The compromising style may also be useful to avoid a
prolonged conﬂict. This style, however, seems to be inappropriate in
dealing with issues of a complex-mature nature.

Too often, management practitioners often resort to compromise in
dealing with complex problems. The result of misusing this style has led
to ineffective long-term solutions. Compromising style may also be
inappropriate if a party is more powerful than another and has a strong
conviction that they are right. This style has also proved inappropriate
when dealing with conﬂicts involving values.

The strategies or conﬂict styles purviewed are supportive of the

contingency theory of conﬂict management. There is consistency and

31

support to theories of leadership in organizations including, F ieldler’s
contingency theory of leadership (1967), House's path-goal theory of
leadership (1971), and Vroom and Yetton’s normative theory of
leadership (1973). According to these various theories of leadership,
there is no best style for dealing with different situations effectively.
Whether a particular leadership style is appropriate or inappropriate

depends on the situation.

Higher Education Conﬂict Stvle_s
According to Yates (1985), an emerging problem in higher
education is for students, faculty, and administrators to identify their
conﬂict management style. Educational conﬂicts are reported in direct
reference to conﬂict between students, between students and faculty, and
between faculty and administrators, which is often an extension of
conﬂicts that have existed in society (Mudd, 1967).
Hocker (1986) refers to an incident when a professor reported that
a graduate student submitted an unsatisfactory plan for his thesis
research. The professor indicated in the report the following dialogue:
Student: 80 what do you want me to do to make it
acceptable?
Professor: If you don't know by now, I don't know why
we are having this meeting. Produce a
valid and reliable design and then I'll see
if it's okay.
This graduate student and professor were using two different styles
fOr their conﬂict, styles which were learned as rational (if not desirable) for

that situation (Shuetz, 1975). Conﬂict styles are not an inherent part of

32

personality; instead, they are learned as people encounter life
experiences which put them into conﬂict. Rahim ( 1986) maintains that the
management of personal conﬂict involves enabling the members of an
organization to learn the ﬁve styles of handling conﬂict. Thus, the
purpose of analyzing one's conﬂict management style is not to discover
underlying personality dynamics, but to gain information about what one's
repertoire of styles contains.

In the college community, there are a number of issues with
respect to civil disputes, student and faculty interpersonal conﬂicts,
dormitory problems, fraternity concerns, and conﬂicts ranging from racial
to sexual tension (Rifkin, 1980). Kerr (1973) indicates that among the
strains and tensions in higher education, the following are included:

1. a desire on the part of students for more inﬂuence outside

their sphere of control of extracurricular activities;

2. a tendency for students to become hostile as they make their
choices of academic and vocational specialization, while
faculty are becoming less adaptable with higher average age
and higher percentage of tenure;

3. a desire on the part of the faculty to be more sympathetic to
collective bargaining and unionization;

4. a desire on the part of some faculty members to insist on
divergent views about essential academic matters;

5. a desire on the part of women and members of ethnic
minorities to break into and move up within faculty ranks on a
large scale at a time of declining opportunities, and

6. a desire on the part of younger faculty to work and face the

increasing numbers of middle and older faculty.

33

Grifﬁn ( 1984) maintains that conﬂict situations are a fact of life, and
must be contended with in a positive and realistic manner. Administrators
who adopt an avoidance style consistently will aggravate, and jeopardize
students and faculty alike. For example, a seeming inability to manage
conﬂict successfully led to sit-ins at the University of Michigan, Wayne
State University, and Michigan State University. This situation is the
product of racial tension and lack of equity in faculty employment (The
Detroit Free Press, May 18, 1989).

From another perspective, Marx and Schulze (1991 ) studied
interpersonal problem solving among depressed and non-depressed
college students. The study supported the hypothesis that depressed
students have been less effective in handing conﬂict situations than non-
depressed students. The authors suggest that training in problem solving
may be useful to counteract the negative problem solving orientation
among depressed college students.

It appears that communication is central to both the development
and resolution of conﬂict (Hocher and Wilmot, 1985). These authors
seem to suggest that basic study in the resolution of conﬂict among
college students can be a most effective means for educational
discussion of how to best handle conﬂict and to prevent violence of any
kind.

While management of conﬂict has been considered as the pivotal
basis of success in administration, there are few studies which have
focused on conﬂict management in higher education. The literature
documents that, in essence, there are a number of conﬂict-producing
issues resulting from economic conditions, changing demographics, and

skepticism about the value of higher education (Alm, Ehrle & Webster,

34

1977; Bailey, 1983; Behrens, 1972; Cheit, 1971; Jelleman, 1972). Bower
(1986) has indicated that as an organizational management tool conﬂict

management styles are considered crucial in higher education, but often

overlooked.

Conﬂict Management Styles Schema

Blake and Mouton (1964) ﬁrst presented a schema for classifying
the styles for handling interpersonal conﬂict, which includes: forcing;
withdrawing; smoothing; compromising; and problem solving. Their
description conveys the ﬁve modes for handling conﬂict on the ground of
attitude of the manager.

They believed that the goals of production and a concern for
human relations were not incongruent. Instead they proposed that
managers could be taught to identify different styles of management and
the context in which those styles were appropriate. They deﬁned a
continuum from “concern for production” to "concern for people." The
grid measured the two concerns on the horizontal (production) and
vertical (people) axes and was divided into nine possible positions or
combinations of those two concerns.

The extremes ranged from total concern for production with no
concern for people and vice-versa to the 9/9 position in which the
manager is able to maximize both production and human relations. Blake
and Mouton concentrated on ﬁve positions on the grid, each of which
represented a major management theory, although they admitted that
there were many other positions. It is important to state that in each of
the theories, some conﬂict is considered by the authors to be one of the

important management functions.

35

Position 1/1 on the grid represents a minimal amount of concern for
both production and people to get the job done. A manager who uses the
911 style is most concerned with the efﬁciency of the operation and with
arranging the working conditions so that human elements interfere as little
as possible. The 1l9 position reﬂects the opposite concern; the
emphasis on creating the most comfortable and happy atmosphere for the
workers. The 5/5 marks a compromising position, stemming more from a
concern for the sake of appearance than from a committed concern for
either end of the scale; it is a balancing act to achieve adequate
organizational performance by getting work out and maintaining
satisfactory morale. The ideal position, 9/9, is based on the idea that
"work accomplishment is from committed people; interdependence
through a 'common stake' in organizational purpose leads to relationship
of trust and respect" (Blake and Mouton, 1964).

Conﬂict, for Blake and Mouton, was one of the most important
elements of management. In their description of each major position on
the grid and the personality associated with it, the authors devoted a
section to the predictable method of managing conﬂict. Their assumption
is that conﬂict is positive, and that it promotes innovation, creativity, and

the development of new ideas that enhance organizational growth.

Two-Dimensional Model
The two-dimensional model or dual concern schema was originally
developed as a theory of individual differences in conﬂict style (see
Figure 1) (Blake and Norton 1964; Filley, 1975; Rahim, 1983; Rahim and
Bonoma 1979; and Thomas 1976). Conﬂict style is the way a person

most commonly and precisely deals with conﬂict (Pruitt and Camevale,

1993). The two-dimensional model indicates that the conﬂict style or
strategy is determined by the strengths of two variables, concern for self
outcomes, and concern for other outcomes. The results of this model has
led to two lines of research.

The ﬁrst track of research traditionally was to perform a multi-
dimensional scaling analysis on a party's self-report about the methods it
utilizes in dealing with conﬂict (Van de Vhert, 1990; Van de Vhert and
Prein, 1989). The ﬁndings of these scholars have indicated with
signiﬁcant consistency the predictions of the two-dimensional model.

The model depicts that the greatest distance lies between
dominating and obliging, and between obliging and integration, or
problem solving. There appears to be a discrepancy in that yielding and
avoiding, or as Rahim (1993) would denote, accommodation and
avoiding, are closer to each other than the model predicts.

The second track of research tradition emerges from organizational
settings, focuses on the development of instruments to measure a party’s
distinctive preferences for various conﬂict styles such as: problem solving;
contending; yielding; avoiding; and compromising (Hall 1969; Kilmann
and Thomas, 1977; Lawrence and Larsch, 1967; and Rahim, 1983).

These various instruments have been utilized across various
studies. They have been used to show the relationship between
personality characteristics, and conﬂict styles (Kabriniff, 1987). Musser
(1982) studied the impact of status differences on conﬂict styles (Putnam
and Poole, 1987; Rahim, 1986).

Rahim (1986) found that managers use different styles for handling
interpersonal conﬂict with superiors and subordinates. A study which

further illustrates this differentiation was done by Steinherz and Dobson in

37

1987. College students were asked to describe recent interpersonal
conﬂict situations with the same sex peer, opposite sex peer, and a
parent. After completing their descriptions, the survey participant rated
the extent to which each of the several styles of conﬂict resolution was
characteristic of their own style. The subjects demonstrated strong
preferences for certain styles of conﬂict resolution, but they also
demonstrated strong consistency in their styles across different
interpersonal conﬂicts.

The management of conﬂict will also require anticipation of
different positions taken in the conﬂict, dispersal of conﬂict over a period
of time and place in order that conﬂicts do not ignite and inﬂame each
other, agreement in advance of the game, and incorporation of all
signiﬁcant groups into a political process so that each may have a part in
a peaceful, constructive conﬂict management. Conﬂict, if allowed to

escalate, can become much more intense (Kerr, 1973).

Social Conﬂict Escalation

The escalation of conﬂict is indicated by Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim
(1994) to indicate results from a vicious cycle of action and reaction.
They refer to this as Spiral Model of Escalation. Much research on
aggression (Baron, 1977; Berkowitz, 1993; Green, 1990) has been
interpreted with sources and outcomes of anger.

According to Meyer (1994) this escalation of conﬂict has produced
a vicious cycle of violence throughout the United States and the rest of
the world. It appears that a growing number of people are afraid and that

fear leaves them feeling helpless. They feel there is little that can be

done to change their situation.

38

The current dilemma has created a demand among college
students for more coursework in conﬂict management. It appears that
education and training will ﬁll the dire need for change in society and in
the cultural milieu of the university.

Sometimes fear results from others harsh actions, threats and
defensiveness ( Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 1994). Threats to a party’s image,
the notion of "how it looks” for this party as an administrator is an
important source of escalation. Escalation of conﬂict is particularly likely
when a party's image of power, status, forcefulness, adequacy, autonomy,

loyalty or integrity is threatened.

Orqanizptional Change I Empowerment

Today, across the spectrum of management in organizations is the
concept of high involvement or empowerment. Bylan (1993) has
described empowerment as a source of energy that drives continuous
improvement behavior in critical areas such as quantity, quality, and
customer service, or cycle time reduction. It becomes imperative in the
diagnosis of an organization to assess the ability to change its culture.
The initial step is to start with the administrators of the organization. The
questions include: Do they live their values?; Are they too forward on the
bottom line to make decisions to increase student satisfaction and
loyalty?; Do they act as a team with other administrators, or is team work
something they expect from other lower levels?

Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim (1994) have suggested that in handling
interpersonal conﬂict, the importance of interest produces high, moral
aspirations, which is the same thing as having a strong concern for a

party's outcome. Interest in the outcomes of conﬂict may result

39

in the ability of administrators, faculty members, and students to align
and bring about some high involvement in the cultural arena of the

university.

4O

CONCERN FOR OTHERS

Integrative and Distributive Dimensions of the Styles of Handling
Interpersonal Conﬂict

 

CONCERN FOR SELF

 

 

 

 

 

HIGH J LOW
INTEGRATING ' OBLIGING
I
Q
I
_ Distributive
Dimension
" COMPROMISING --
_. Integrative
Dimension
3
O
_I
DOMINATING AVOIDING
I
Figure 1:

A two-dimensional model of styles of handling interpersonal conﬂict

(Rahim and Bonoma, 1979).

41

Conclusion
Summarily, conﬂict has historically permeated into various
disciplines and had an impact upon higher education. As Wilson Jerrell,
one of few experts in conﬂict and conﬂict management in higher
education states, "Conﬂict is often the process for evaluating and
restructuring roles and prescribed behavior systems - it is like a lubricant.
Thus they concluded that it could be a means to enrich and improve

productivity" (1 981 ).

42

Chapter III

Methodolo

This study was descriptive and comparative and used a survey
research design. The study included an on-site or phone interview of the
subjects. Conﬂict management styles were identiﬁed between graduate
students, faculty members, and administrators in higher education. This
chapter describes the Population, Sample, Procedure, Instrumentation,

and Data Analysis.

Population
The population for this study was graduate students, faculty

members, and administrators at Tennessee State University, Western
Kentucky University, and Vanderbilt University. The population consisted

of graduate students, faculty members, and administrators. The total

number of respondents was 137.

Sample

The sample methodology consisted in recruiting volunteers to
participate in the survey. This convenient sample solicited graduate
students, faculty members, and administrators to complete the
questionnaire and participate in an interview. The sample of volunteers
was recruited from Tennessee State University, Western Kentucky

University and Vanderbilt University.

43

Procedure

Administrators and faculty members were recruited by personal
visitation, appointments, and referrals. The names and locations were
obtained from on-site visits, and university directories.

Graduate assistants were solicited to help in recruiting graduate
students to complete the questionnaire. Permission of the faculty was
requested to allow time for students to engage in this study and complete
the instrument during or after classes.

Graduate students were recruited at various student unions and
received personal invitation to participate in the research survey.
Appointments were made and interviews conducted on a onezone or
phone interview.

Each participant received a transmittal letter with the ROCI-ll (see
Appendix B), describing the purpose of the study and instruction on how
to complete the questionnaire. The letter contained a permission clause
and a statement declaring the assurance of anonymity and conﬁdentiality.

All participating graduate students, faculty members or
administrators wishing to mail back their survey were given a self-
addressed stamped envelope to facilitate that procedure. The date by
which all data was to be completed and returned was September 30,

1994.

lnstrpmentation
The survey instrument used was the Rahim Organizational Conﬂict
Inventory II, Form A, B, & C (Rahim, 1983). ROCI-II was developed to
identify the styles of handling interpersonal conﬂict with a superior (Form

A), with subordinates (Form B), and with peers (Form C).

The ﬁnal instrument contained 35 items, and was sent to 4000
executives randomly selected from the Denton/IPC list of 1.3 million
management organizational members: Form A, handling conﬂict with a
superior; Form 8, handling conﬂict with a subordinate; and Form C,
handling conﬂict with peers.

The instrument was mailed out together with a letter explaining the
purpose of the study, and a demographic questionnaire; 1219 usable
responses were returned. The responses were factor analyzed using
principal factoring iteration and varimax rotation. The ﬁnal instrument was
reduced to 28 items (Appendix C). Test-retest reliability was completed
with 119 part-time MBA and undergraduate students from Youngstown
State University who took the test twice within each week. The reliability
scores ranged between .60 and .82 (p < .001) (Rahim, 1983).

Reliability of the instrument was further tested using the Cronbach
alpha, the Spearman-Brown reliability, Guttman Lambda, and Kristofs
unbiased estimate of reliability. The internal reliability estimates were
satisfactory. The coefﬁcient alphas ranged from .72 to .77. These results
were quite high when compared to the Cronback alpha for the instruments
developed by Hall, which ranged between .39 and .73; Lawrence-Lorsch
between .37 and .59; and Thomas-Kilman, between .43 and .71.

Content Validity
Nunnally (1978) submits two major standards for safeguarding that
test items adequately represent the sampling domain, namely item
representativeness and sensible test construction. The items that
compose the ﬁve conﬂict style subscales appear to be representative of

the constructs they aim to assess. Rahim's approach appears to be

45

selective in item choice, careful and methodical. Additionally, the items
are worded in a manner that facilitates ease in understanding and

completing the questionnaire.

onstruct Validi

Evidence indicates that a Rahim's measure of conﬂict styles is
related to similar and communication-related theoretical constructs
(Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Speciﬁcally, there were signiﬁcant positive
relationships found between dominating scores and respondents' self-
reports of engaging in assertive behavior (Richardson & Hancock, 1987.
Young (1984), correlating 253 respondents' scores on the ROCI-II with
their scores on the Rhetsen Scale (Hart, Carlson, a Eadie, 1980),
observed that dominating is negatively related to rhetorical reﬂectiveness
(concern for others' wishes) and positively related to noble-self (concern
for one's own wishes) scores. Thus individuals who select a dominating
style for handling conﬂicts show high tolerance for conﬂict, self-reports of
assertiveness, and concern for self in interactions.

For the avoiding style, Richardson and Hancock (1987) found a
signiﬁcant negative relationship between avoiding and comfort with self-
assertion, while Hodges (1987) found negative relationships between
tolerance for conﬂict and both avoiding and obliging. In a similar fashion,
passive, indirect orientations to conﬂict were positively related to
rhetorical reﬂectiveness.

For the integrating style Young (1984) observed, counter to her
hypothesis, that integrating was signiﬁcantly negatively related to
rhetorical sensitivity and positively related to a noble-self orientation.

Also, a problem-solving style (represented by combining integrating and

compromising) correlated positively-respondents' self-reports of
engaging in assertive behavior and their tendencies to empathize with
others (Richardson & Hancock, 1987). Therefore, integrating seems to
parallel dominating in conﬂict situations of frequent self-assertion. The
two constructs differ in that integrators exhibit a high degree of empathy
that is not characteristic of dominating style.

As a whole, these students presented convincing evidence that
Rahim's ﬁve conﬂict styles were linked to other relevant constructs in the

conﬂict domain.

Elle—ﬁlle—W
An interview was conducted as a second phase to the study. The
purpose of these individual interviews was to elicit responses from the
groups on self-perceptions on conﬂict management style.
The questions were:
1. What is your present manner in handling of a conﬂict
sﬁuaﬁon?
2. How do you believe others perceive your present
manner in handling a conﬂict situation?
3. What is your preference in handling a conﬂict situation?
These interviewed persons selected from among ﬁve conﬂict
management styles and discussed why they made the selection. The
styles offered were:
(1) Dominating; (2) Compromising; (3) Avoiding; (4) Integrating;
and, (5) Obliging.

47

Data Selection
Data was entered for a one-way analysis of variance for each style,
to test the hypothesis. The interviews were studied from a Gestalt
approach.
The interviews were examined as a whole. Further study of these
interviews indicated individual and idiosyncratic differences among the

groups surveyed.

48

CHAPTER N

RESULT§

The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the
differences in conﬂict management styles among administrators, faculty
members and graduate students. A one-way analysis of variance was
presented in order to identify the differences in conﬂict management
styles among the three groups. The various styles were integrating,
obliging, avoiding, compromising and dominating. Each style was
presented and analyzed for differences among the three groups in
relationship to superior, subordinates and peers.

‘ This chapter presents the research questions, tables and
discussion. There is an analysis of the interview process as it relates to
the research question. This chapter is divided by presenting the
signiﬁcant results and discussion ﬁrst. The following section presents the
results that were not signiﬁcant at the < .05 level. In the last section the
second research question is stated and followed by a discussion of the

results.

Research uestion I
Is there a signiﬁcant difference between graduate students, faculty

members and administrators with respect to conﬂict management styles?

49

Sub-Research Question A

Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the conﬂict management style of
integrating among graduate students, faculty members and administrators

in relationship to superiors, subordinates and peers?

Table 1

 

Measurement of Integrating Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Superiors

 

 

 

One-Way Analysis of Variance
Group [1 Mean SD *Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 18 4.14 .30 .04
Faculty (2) 53 4.23 .51
Students (3) 43 3.99 .43

 

*Group 2 was signiﬁcantly different from group 3.

Table 1 presents a one-way analysis of variance of the integrating
conﬂict management style among administrators, faculty members and
students. A signiﬁcant main effect was obtained among the three groups.

The integrating conﬂict management style was greater among
faculty members than the other two groups when relating to superiors at a

<.05 level of signiﬁcance.

50

Interview Analysis
The research included some thirty interview from among

administrators, faculty members, and students. The research also
included an interview survey from among administrators, faculty
members, and students. Herein are presented some excerpts with
verbatim questions and answers. There is an analysis drawn from those
interviewed as well .

For example, administrators indicated an interest in wanting to be
perceived in a positive way and maintain a favorable image. In one
particular interview with a female Vice President of Financial Management
and a former manager in industry, the statement was made, "I feel
everyone has an opinion—we need to talk them out of it. They'll need to
give in or give up. My perception is that l have an integrative conﬂict
management style." It appears that administrators tend to want to be
perceived as integrating and compromising. However the comments
generated from faculty is that they tend to be dominant and controlling.

By contrast, faculty appear to be integrating and compromising on the one
hand, but express having no recourse but to be obliging to administrators.
One administrator when asked "How do others perceive your present
manner in handling a conﬂict?", the answer was, "It would have to be

domineering." Why? The answer: "I am just perceived that way."

Sgb-Research Question B
Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the conﬂict management style of
compromising among graduate students, faculty members and

administrators in relationship to superiors, subordinates and peers?

51

Table 2

Measurement of Compromising Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Superiors
One-Way Analysis of Variance

 

 

Group 5; Mean _Q "Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 19 3.82 .44 .04
Faculty (2) 54 3.98 .59

Students (3) 43 3.67 .56

 

"Group 3 was signiﬁcantly different from group 2.

Table 2 presents the one way analysis of variance of the
compromising conﬂict management style among administrators, faculty
members, and students. A signiﬁcant main effect was obtained.

The compromising conﬂict management style was greater among
Faculty than the other two groups when relating to superiors at < .05 level

of signiﬁcance.

Interview Agalvsis
Among those who were interviewed there appears to be a
difference based on perception The ﬁrst interview question, "Is there a
difference in the conﬂict management styles of faculty members and
administrators as indicated by the interviews?“ was applied to the

interviews conducted. It appears that there was a difference with respect

52

to conﬂict management styles between faculty members and
administrators.

For example, administrators indicated an interest in wanting to be
perceived in a positive way and maintain a favorable image. In one
particular interview with a female Vice President of Financial Management
and a former manager in industry, the statement was made, "I feel
everyone has an opinion—we need to talk them out of it. They'll need to
give in or give up. My perception is that I have an integrative conﬂict
management style."

In another interview conducted with a physics professor and chair,
the professor described the style in these terms: "I generally tend to be
extremely assertive—domineering." Why? "I wouldn't have survived in a
ﬁeld dominated by men. I started out in engineering. I had to be
assertive as a manager." But compromising is the key to get what you
want without creating enemies. It was asked, "Are you saying that you
prefer to be compromising? "My chair has told me, 'You're aggressive.‘ I
wish I were a little more ﬂexible. But I don't think others need to see me
as a pal. I see people afraid to be disliked. They feel that it won't be a
popular thing to do this or that. It's not that important to be a pal. Why
not?"

"I learned in a sorority. I came up in the ﬁfties. I wasn't very
assertive. My roommate would ask, 'What do you want to do tonight?‘ I
answered, 'Let's do this..." She would say okay. The next day, I would
come around and she would ask again, 'Where would you like to go
tonight?’ I would answer, 'Let's go here, to this place.’ The answer would
come back, 'Okay.‘ The next few days would be very similar, except this

one okay, my roommate became withdrawn and isolated. I asked, 'What

53'

is wrong?‘ 'I'm sick and tired of doing what others want me to do, and not
what I want to do.‘ I told my friend, 'If you wanted to do something
different, why didn't you say so?‘ I'm accused of not including others."

It appears that so much depends on human perception and that is
impacting administrator and faculty relations. It was asked how others
perceived her conﬂict management style. The professor answered,
"Some see me as domineering and yet others see me as compromising.
I'm stuck between the two. I have to be ﬁrm in the ﬁnal analysis."

It appears that perception again plays a major role in making
decisions about who is in control and who is subservient. The sense of
power and need for self-esteem are the basic goals which can enhance
and inspire people in leadership roles, teaching roles or learning roles.

In another interview, a University Chancellor stated, "I would try to
listen to the problem and look at the policy and see how we could meet a
happy medium-deal with the hostility..." How would others perceive your
most likely manner of handling a conﬂict?

"Because I like to communicate with an individual about their
conﬂicts or problems, they, I believe, often perceive me as dominating. I
come across as dominating with people who don't know me." There is an
element of the "incognito" leader. Faculty members too often are
unknown to each other in the great maze of the university activity. This is
another important aspect to conﬂict management productivity. If the team

doesn't know the coach, can the team win the game?

Faculty members appeared to be more conciliatory, more obliging.
In several interviews, faculty members expressed a sense of low power
and thus feeling a need to be obliging to administration. The statement:
"I prefer obliging — what else can you do? I also like Integrating —- I like to
see both sides."

It is therefore evident that although faculty members have been
shown to be more integrative and compromising. There is also the
additional aspect as brought out in the interviews that they often feel
powerless and become obliging to their superiors.

Interestingly, one professor who had become a chair felt a need to
be dominant. Administrators are often perceived as being dominant in
their conﬂict management style by faculty members. Faculty members
who become administrators may have a tendency to change their conﬂict
management style. It seems that a change ofjobs within a university

setting may produce a change of conﬂict management style as well.

Sub—Research Question C

Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the conﬂict management style of
avoidance among graduate students, faculty members and administrators

in relationship to superiors, subordinates and peers?

55

Table 3

Measurement of Avoiding Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Subordinates
One-Way Analysis of Variance

 

 

___eGrou a Mean _0 39m
Administrators (1) 16 2.97 .66 .03
Faculty (2) 46 2.81 .85

Students (3) 36 3.27 .68

 

*Group 3 was signiﬁcantly different from group 2.

Table 3 presents the one-way analysis of variance of avoiding
conﬂict management style of administrators, faculty members and
students when relating to subordinates.

It appears that the avoidance conﬂict management style was
greater among students than the other two groups at .05 level of

signiﬁcance.

Interview Analysis

The sub-research question was applied to the interviews.

Is there a difference in the conﬂict management styles between
faculty and students? Both faculty and students appeared to express
similarities of opinion when it came to their particular conﬂict management
styles. One faculty member stated, "I'm a student of Ghandian Conﬂict
Resolution. Truth seeking is not win/lose, it is to see things new and

liberating."

In a similar sense a student expressed a preference to be
integrative: "I like the idea of not having to give up anything in reaching a
solution to a problem."

Another faculty member was asked about the most likely manner in
handling a conﬂict. The answer was "Compromising." "It's a give and
take. You have to respect the ideas of others. Listen to others—reach
common ground." Similarly, other faculty members expressed
compromise as a preferential conﬂict management style. One student,
with not much experience, simply stated , 'Working in a research project
involving other people has given me the impression that I'm
compromising."

As a student, what would your preference or ideal conﬂict style be
in handling a conﬂict? Answer: "I think that the best way is to work out a
compromise."

Students and faculty members appear to be quite similar from the
interviews conducted. It seems that both want to be integrative and
compromising in order to achieve their goals or pursuits for an education
or tenure. The signiﬁcant difference is that the avoidance mode was
depicted to be highest among the students. In the sense that this
avoidance prevails, it may prove to be ineffective and destructive in future
conﬂict situations.

The avoidance style is useful, but if pervasive may curtail the

enhancement of interpersonal relationships.

57

Sub-Research uestion D
Is there a signiﬁcant difference in the conﬂict management style of
obliging among graduate students, faculty members and administrators in

relationship to superiors, subordinates and peers?

Table 4

Measurement of Obliging Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Superiors
One-Way Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

Group [1 Mean __D_ *Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 19 3.52 .61 .02
Faculty (2) 53 3.48 .71

Students (3) 43 3.85 .53

 

"Group 2 was signiﬁcantly different from group 3.

Table 4 presents the one-way analysis of variance of the obliging
conﬂict management style among administrators, faculty members and
students when relating to superiors. A signiﬁcant main effect was
obtained among the three groups.

The obliging style was greater among students than the other two

groups at <.05 level of signiﬁcance.

58

Interview Analysis
In the third research question applied to the interviews conducted,

the question was, "Is there a difference in the conﬂict management styles
among students and administrators?

There appear to be more obliging-compromising inferences drawn
from the student population than administrators.

Student comments were stated: "If you're able to work out a
solution, why be dominating?" Administrators appear to desire to
maintain a positive image and seek out problem-solving, but in the ﬁnal
analysis, 'We have to maintain the policy of the institution."

Students appear to be more obliging than administrators. There
appears to be some inﬂuence in the kind of conﬂict style one chooses
with status. It inevitably resides with the individual and the conﬂict
situation as to which style will be most effective.

The literature had suggested that students were more dominant
and administrators more avoidance. In this research, the obliging-

avoidance style seems to be utilized by students.

Sub-Research Question F

Is there a signiﬁcant difference in gender with respect to conﬂict
management styles among graduate students, faculty members and

administrators in relationship to superiors, subordinates and peers?

59

Table 5

Differences in Avoiding Style Due to Main Effects
of Sex, Group, and Interaction Effects of Sex
and Group Across All Targeted Groups:
Two-way Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

M p Mean "Sig. Level
SEX .19
Females 182 3.13
Males 122 2.99
GROUP .001
Administrators 50 2.90
Faculty 155 2.96
Students 99 3.34
TWO-WAY INTERACTIONS .001
Sex & Group

 

*Signiﬁcant group effect and signiﬁcant interaction effect for sex and
group.

An ANOVA was performed, and there was a main effect among

male and female. An interactive effect was also found. It appears that

60

females had a greater use of the avoiding conﬂict management style than
males.

There was an interactive effect with regard to gender among the
three at the <.05 level of signiﬁcance among the groups when relating to

superiors. Further research is encouraged.

Additional Tables

The following tables denote results which were found to not be
signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

Table 6
Measurement of Dominating Style of Administrators,

Faculty and Students when Relating to Superiors
One-Way Analysis of Variance

 

 

Group g Mean _D "Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 19 3.37 .65 .76
Faculty (2) 53 3.24 .79

Students (3) 43 3.21 .78

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.
Table 6 presents the one-way analysis of variance of the
dominating conﬂict management style among administrators, faculty

members and students when relating to superiors.

61

There was no signiﬁcant difference among the three groups when

relating to superiors at a .05 level of signiﬁcance.

Table 7

Measurement of Avoiding Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Superiors
One-Way Analysis of Variance

 

 

Group [1 Mean _S_Q "Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 18 3.01 .78 .01
Faculty (2) 53 2.98 .84

Students (3) 43 3.45 .61

 

"Group 3 was signiﬁcantly different from group 2.

Table 7 presents the one-way analysis of variance of avoiding
conﬂict management style among administrators, faculty members, and
students when relating to superiors.

The avoiding conﬂict management style was greater among

students than faculty at < .05 level of signiﬁcance.

62

Table 8

Measurement of Integrating Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Subordinates

 

 

 

One-Way Analysis of Variance
Group [1 Mean __D_ "Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 15 4.19 .30 .12
Faculty (2) 46 4.30 .45
Students (3) 36 4.12 .33

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.

Table 8 presents the one way analysis of variance of the
integrating conﬂict management style among administrators, faculty
members and students.

There was no signiﬁcant difference among the groups when

relating to subordinates at the .05 level of signiﬁcance.

63

Table 9

Measurement of Obliging Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Subordinates
One-Way Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

rou 9 Mean _Q "Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 16 3.52 .42 .09
Faculty (2) 46 3.29 .60
Students (3) 36 3.53 .44

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.

Table 9 presents the one-way analysis of variance of obliging
conﬂict management style of administrators, faculty members and
students.

There appears to be no signiﬁcant difference among the three

groups at a .05 level of signiﬁcance when relating to subordinates.

Table 10

Measurement of Dominating Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Subordinates

 

 

 

One-Way Analysis of Variance
Group [1 Mean SQ "Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 15 3.21 .55 .90
Faculty (2) . 46 3.31 .76
Students (3) 36 3.29 .79

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.

Table 10 presents the one-way analysis of variance of dominating
conﬂict management style of administrators, faculty members and
students when relating to subordinates.

There appears to be no signiﬁcant difference among the three

groups at a .05 level of signiﬁcance.

65

Table 11

Measurement of Compromising Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Subordinates

 

 

 

One-Way Analysis of Variance
rou p Mean S_D ﬁig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 16 3.95 .33 .68
Faculty (2) 46 3.92 .62
Students (3) 36 3.84 .39

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.

Table 11 presents the one-way analysis of variance of
compromising conﬂict management style of administrators, faculty
members and students when relating to subordinates.

There was no signiﬁcant difference among the three groups at the

.05 level of signiﬁcance.

Table 12

Measurement of Integrating Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Peers
One-Way Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

Group [1 Mean ﬂ "Sig. Level
Administrators (1) 18 4.21 .46 .34
Faculty (2) 59 4.32 .52

Students (3) 40 4.1 8 .43

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.

Table 12 presents the one-way analysis of variance of integrating
conﬂict management style of administrators, faculty members and
students when relating to peers.

There was no signiﬁcant difference among the three groups at the

.05 level of signiﬁcance.

67

Table 13

Measurement of Obliging Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Peers

 

 

 

One-Way Analysis of Variance
Group p Mean _Q i . Level
Administrators (1 ) 19 3.26 .42 . 12
Faculty (2) 59 3.38 .62
Students (3) 40 3.56 .51

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.

Table 13 presents the one-way analysis of variance of obliging
conﬂict management style.
There was no signiﬁcant difference among the three groups when

relating to peers at the .05 level of signiﬁcance.

68

Table 14

Measurement of Dominating Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Peers

 

 

 

One-Way Analysis of Variance
Group [1 Mean _Q "Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 18 3.32 .47 .82
Faculty (2) 59 3.19 .78
Students (3) 40 3.22 .86

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.

Table 14 presents the one-way analysis of variance among
administrators, faculty members and students when relating to peers.
There appears to be no signiﬁcant difference among the three

groups at the .05 level.

69

Table 15

Measurement of Avoiding Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Peers

 

 

 

One-Way Analysis of Variance
rou V 11 Mean _Q "Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 18 2.81 .83 .37
Faculty (2) 59 3.06 .80
Students (3) 38 3.14 .87

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.

Table 15 presents a one-way analysis of variance of avoiding
conﬂict management style of administrators, faculty members and
students when relating to peers.

There appears to be no signiﬁcant difference among the three

groups at the .05 level.

70

Table 16

Measurement of Compromising Style of Administrators,
Faculty and Students when Relating to Peers

 

 

One-Way Analysis of Variance
Group p Mean __D_ "Sig. Level
Administrators (1 ) 18 3.94 .39 .15
Faculty (2) 59 4.06 .55
Students (3) 40 3.87 .42

 

"No two groups are signiﬁcantly different at the .05 level.

Table 16 presents the one-way analysis of variance of
compromising conﬂict management style of administrators, faculty
members and students when relating to peers.

There appears to be no signiﬁcant difference among the three

groups at the .05 level of signiﬁcance.

Research uestion ll
Is there a difference in self perception, others perception or ideal
preference of conﬂict management styles among graduate students,
faculty members and administrators. The three questions which were
asked in the interviews are:

( 1) What is your most present manner in handling a conﬂict?

71

(2) What do others perceive your most present manner in

handling a conﬂict?

(3) What is your idea manner or preference in handle a conﬂict

sﬁuaﬁon?

Administrators as a whole perceived themselves in a positive
manner whether or not in conﬂict with superiors, subordinates or peers. It
seems that the impression conveyed in dealing with conﬂict was crucial to
their status and authority. Administrators felt that they were
compromising and integrating in their approach with faculty disputes. It
appeared from the interview that the impression or image was upper most
in administrative minds. When queried about what others thought about
their conﬂict management style, comments were often made conveyed of
dominance. But as the administrators stipulated, it is a misperception. If
faculty members actually knew them better, their opinion would be
different. Faculty members had a dual attitude towards conﬂict
management style. It appeared that with students, they would be willing
to set down the rules and procedures for course requirements and plan
accordingly. If matters got conﬂicting, dominance would be used to settle
the issues. It was the opposite effect when dealing with administration.
The faculty to often felt a sense of needing to oblige or give into the
desires of administration. Faculty members thought of themselves as
being powerless in many of the situations that evolved. It was further
elaborated that in many instances compromise was the idea style for
handling most of the disputes.

In summary, one's self-perception of conﬂict management styles,
perception by others of one's conﬂict management style and one’s ideal

preference for conﬂict management are quite dissimilar. The dissimilarity

72

of perceptions has an impact on conﬂict management style in
interpersonal relationships.

The most evident conclusion is that there is some data that would
indicate a need to clarify interpersonal misperceptions. When the conﬂict
management styles of administrators decry a need to "look good," and are
too often perceived as “aloof" or "dominating," there is a problem.

It appears that at some point a further analysis is required to clarify
certain misperceptions and induce further communication and conﬂict
management among those in turmoil. The concept of perception and
conﬂict management styles is encouraged to be a basis for further

research.

73

CHAPTER V

Summa Treatment tren ths and Limitations of the tud
Future Directions Recommendations Conclusion

 

Summary

The researchers purpose in this study was to identify and compare
the differences, if any, that exist among administrators, faculty members,
and graduate students with respect to conﬂict management styles as
measured by the Rahim Organizational Conﬂict Inventory II, Forms A, B,
and C. Form A identiﬁed any differences in conﬂict management style in
relationship to superiors. Form 8 identiﬁed any conﬂict management style
in relationship to subordinates. Form C identiﬁed any conﬂict
management style differences in relationship to peers.

The following hypotheses were presented for this research.
Hypothesis I stated that there would be differences in conﬂict
management style among administrators, faculty members and graduate
students. Hypothesis ll stated that there would be a difference with
respect to conﬂict management style between students and faculty
members. Hypothesis Ill stated that there would be a difference between
faculty members, administrators and graduate students with respect to
conﬂict management style in relationship to superiors, subordinates and
peers. Hypothesis IV stated that there would be a difference among male

and female among administrators, faculty members and students with

74

respect to conﬂict management styles in relationship to superiors,

subordinates, and peers.

Treatment

The subjects for this research were drawn from Tennessee State
University, Western Kentucky University, and Vanderbilt University. This
was a convenient sample and volunteers were invited to participate in
completing the self-report inventory. An additional interview was
conducted with a sub sample of the population. There were 137 cases
which were tested with a one-way analysis of variance.

Sub Hypothesis A was supported. There were differences among
the three groups with respect to conﬂict management styles. Hypothesis
8 was also supported. There were signiﬁcant differences between faculty
members and graduate students. Faculty members had a greater use of
the integrating conﬂict management style than students when relating to
superiors.

It appears that graduate students were more obliging in their
conﬂict management style than faculty members when relating to
superiors. It was also found that graduate students were additionally more
avoiding in their conﬂict management style than faculty members when
relating to superiors. The compromising conﬂict management style was
used more among faculty members than graduate students when relating
to superiors.

Additionally, Hypothesis C was supported. There was signiﬁcant
difference in conﬂict management styles between administrators, faculty

members, in relationship to superiors, subordinates and peers.

75

Hypothesis D was supported. There were was signiﬁcant
differences between administrators and students in conﬂict management
- style in relationship to superiors, subordinates, and peers. Hypothesis E
was also supported. There appears to be a signiﬁcant main effect by sex
and group.

It appears that females were more avoiding in their conﬂict
management style than males. It also appears that this interactive effect

was greater among the graduate student group.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

The researcher was able to conduct and complete this survey with

several strengths and limitations. The positive results included:

1. the utilization of a highly respected, valid and reliable
conﬂict management instrument, The Rahim Organization
Inventory, ll;

2. this was original research. This was the ﬁrst time that this
kind of research was ever conducted. The research will
generate further studies and new research;

3. there was formal statistical signiﬁcant differences among the
six sub-hypotheses, and

4. the more subjective interview research engendered

additional insights and support to the ANOVA results.
The limited results of the study revealed that:

1. this was not cause/effect research. This was survey

research;

76

2. this research allowed the researcher to make some
assumpﬁons from the ﬁve conﬂict management styles and

the three groups surveyed.

Future Directions

There appears to be a need for more open dialogue and
communication between administrators, faculty members, and students.
The creation of a new culture within higher education will enhance and
facilitate communication and encourage empowerment.

Conﬂicts will continue to be part of university settings. It will be to
the beneﬁt of administrators, and faculty for management training
seminars which explore the conﬂict management to be conducted
periodically. Faculty members need to create courses to in conﬂict
management and encourage students to take them. Students are
involved in many situations in which the knowledge of conﬂict

management strategies would be tremendously helpful.

Recommend_ations for Further Research

In view of this research, the following recommendations are

submitted:

( 1) Studies to predict choice of conﬂict style among faculty
members dependent upon decisional variables.

(2) Further research to ﬁnd out the kinds of conﬂict
management training among administrators, faculty
members and students.

(3) Since the research rendered an additional ﬁnding on gender

differences, further research on conﬂict management styles

77

among males/females with follow-up interviews is
encouraged.

(4) Studies could be conducted to incorporate direct
observation of administrators, faculty members, and

students in actual conﬂict situations.

Qonclusion

The primary conclusion drawn from this research is that
administrators, faculty members and students need to be empowered. As
indicated by Bylam (1993) empowerment is a source of energy that drives
— and can affect vital changes in academia.

It is the conveyance of empowerment that instills the idea that it is
beneﬁcial for the university community to speak up for students' rights,
faculty rights and administrators’ rights. Empowerment is the tool that can
strengthen self-concept, create positive mental health, and help to shape
life goals.

Empowerment suggests that administrators and faculty members
and students no longer need to persist in their mutual misperceptions of
one another. The implementation of empowerment of the community is
designed to facilitate open communication. Empowerment promotes the
notion that students and faculty alike can make a difference in the cultural
dynamics of universities across the country.

To determine whether or not a university community is empowered,
administrators must ask the following important questions:

1. How is conﬂict handled?
2. Are we seeking diverse opinions actively, or are we

not?

78

3. Are we listening?

4. Are we discussing conﬂicts rationally or are conﬂicts
stiﬂed or avoided?

5. How open are faculty and administrators to new ideas
about policy?

6. Is there a freedom to disagree with or even challenge

the power structure?

There is a need to have a clear message sent that it is possible to
disagree with the higher levels of administration, and the everyone's
opinion is valued and respected. If there is a diagnosis of the university
and the preceding questions are answered afﬁrmatively, then
empowerment/higher involvement may take place within academic circles.

There may be some who do not want to become empowered I
higher involved. It is part of empowerment to know how far and how fast
one can change. It is, however, imperative that the choice to become, or
not to become, empowered be available. It is important for colleges and
universities to address the challenge of future conﬂict and issues of
empowerment in a proactive fashion.

The University of Tennessee is an institution of higher Ieaming
which seems to understand the need for a proactive position. The
University of Tennessee implemented a program which was designed to
improve the performance of academic and middle-management staff. An
eight day workshop called the Institute for Leadership Effectiveness was
held.

The scope of the institute addresses such topics as the formation

of networks. The institute seeks to offer information about the personnel

79

and environment of an institution. Participants must complete self-
assessments which provide insight into their communication strategies,
leadership abilities and conﬂict management styles.

The participants are given an opportunity to exchange views with
state legislators, community ofﬁcials and recognized leaders in higher
education. The participants are additionally exposed to a variety of
reading materials and case studies which enable them to examine
pertinent higher education issues, the diversity of roles, and the conﬂicts
and rewards of leadership. The institute explores topics that are generally
ignored in professional management workshops. The institute has
fostered, and continues to foster, excellence in management throughout
the University of Tennessee. It is a model program that can be
transferred to other college and universities to facilitate future conﬂict
management.

To underscore the importance of addressing this issue and to show
that it moves beyond the classroom and into the broader community, it is
necessary to turn to two pioneers in the area of conﬂict management,
Mary Parker Follett and John Dewey (1922, 1937).

Mary Parker Follett wrote: "We can often measure our progress by
watching the nature of our conﬂicts. Social progress in this respect is like
individual progress; we become spiritually more and more developed as
our conﬂicts rise to higher levels." Dewey elaborates this further when he
contends that conﬂict is a "gadﬂy' to human thought and inventiveness.
He further states the conﬂict is a means to shock us out of more
passivity; it moves us to be more observing and contriving. Dewey
maintains that when conﬂicts interrupt the ﬂow of life, it is then that

individuals must use their intelligence to readapt and even change their

mode of conﬂict management. It is at the point of conﬂict when one
needs to utilize the choices among conﬂict management styles. The right
choice, or combination of choices, can effectively make a difference in the

situations that arise inside and outside the classroom.

81

APPENDICES

82

APPENDIX A

Major Professor's Letter of Introduction

83

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COILEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN 0 48824-1034
DEPAITIENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
RICKSON HALL

December 17, 1990

To Whom It May Concern:

Franklin Cardona is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Educational
Administration at Michigan State University and is one of my advisees. Your
assistance in helping Frank with his dissertation research would be greatly
appreciated. As a part of his research he is conducting a survey of conflict
management styles among faculty and administrators in higher education. The
purpose of this research is to identify and compare the differences (if any)
among faculty and administrators with respect to conflict management styles as
measured by the Rahim Inventory II.

If you have any questions about the above research, please feel free to call or
write to me. Again, any help or assistance you can give Frank would be greatly
appreciated.

Sincere ,
//' I
“,1 , I"T?

ﬂy!” 7 . Mix/At,

ouis F. Hek is
Professor
Higher Education

  

a4

MSU it on Affirmative Action/Equal Q:;:¢!:22é!_y Institution

APPENDIX 8

Letters of Transmittal

85

Tennessee State University
3500 John Merritt Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37209

March 1, 1994
Dear :

By way of introduction, my name is Frank Cardona and I am a doc-
toral student in education at Michigan State University. I am
presently conducting a survey on conflict management styles among
faculty, administrators and graduate students. The purpose of
this study is to identify and compare the differences, if any,
that exist among faculty and administrators and graduate students
with respect to conflict management styles as measured by the
Rahim Organizational Inventory II, form A, B, and C. Form A
measures the conflict management style in relationship to superi-
ors. Form B measures conflict management styles in relationship
to subordinates. Form C measures conflict management styles in
relationship to peers.

In filling out and returning this questionnaire you are indicat-
ing your desire to participate in this survey. Please be assured
of your complete anonymity and confidentiality.

Please return by March 30, 1994. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

 

Frank Cardona, M.Div., M.A.

Western Kentucky University
1526 Russellville Road
Bowling Green, KY 42101

March 1, 1994

Dear :

By way of introduction, my name is Frank Cardona and I am a doc-
toral student in education at Michigan State University. I am
presently conducting a survey on conflict management styles among
faculty, administrators and graduate students. The purpose of
this study is to identify and compare the differences, if any,
that exist among faculty and administrators and graduate students
with respect to conflict management styles as measured by the
Rahim Organizational Inventory II, form A, B, and C. Form A
measures the conflict management style in relationship to superi-
ors. Form B measures conflict management styles in relationship
to subordinates. Form C measures conflict management styles in
relationship to peers.

In filling out and returning this questionnaire you are indicat-
ing your desire to participate in this survey. Please be assured
of your complete anonymity and confidentiality.

Please return by March 30, 1994. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

 

Frank Cardona, M.Div., M.A.

87

Vanderbilt University

Dept. of Teaching and Learning
P.O. BOX 330

Peabody

Nashville, TN 37203

February 25, 1994
Dear Ms. Mackey:

By way of introduction, my name is Frank Cardona and I am a doc-
toral student in education at Michigan State University. I am
presently conducting a survey on conflict management styles among
faculty, administrators and graduate students. The purpose of
this study is to identify and compare the differences, if any,
that exist among faculty and administrators and graduate students
with respect to conflict management styles as measured by the
Rahim Organizational Inventory II, form A, B, and C. Form A
measures the conflict management style in relationship to superi-
ors. Form B measures conflict management styles in relationship
to subordinates. Form C measures conflict management styles in
relationship to peers.

,In filling out and returning this questionnaire you are indicat-
ing your desire to participate in this survey. Please be assured
of your complete anonymity and confidentiality.

Please return by March 30, 1994. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

 

Frank Cardona, M.Div., M.A.

88

APPENDIX C

Rahim Organizational Conﬂict Inventory

89

You may have incompatibilities, disagreements, or differences (i.e.,
conﬂict with your superior. If you are a student, your superior would be your
teacher, administrator, etc; if you are a faculty member, a chairperson, dean,
etc; if you are an administrator, your next level superior, etc. . . .). Try to recall
as many recent conﬂict situations as possible in ranking these statements. Fill
in your responses in the appropriate circle on your data sheet. There are no
right or wrong answers. The response which is most characteristic of your
behavior, in a situation of conﬂict with your superior, is the best answer. Any
other answer, which may be considered as more desirable or acceptable will
simply be misleading. Fill in the most characteristic manner of your behavior:
Place data sheet under each question and ﬁll in the circle that applies: 0 =

strongly agree, 1 = agree, 2 = undecided, 3 = disagree, 4 = strongly disagree.

1. I try to investigate an issue with my boss to ﬁnd a solution
acceptable to us.

2. I generally try to satisfy the needs of my boss.

3. I attempt to avoid being "put on the spot" and try to keep my
conﬂict with my boss to myself.

4. I try to integrate my ideas with those of my boss to come up with a
decision jointly.

5.. I try to work with my boss to ﬁnd solutions to a problem which
satisfy our expectations.

6. I usually avoid open discussions of my differences with my boss.

7. I try to ﬁnd a middle course to resolve an impasse.

90

10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.
28.

I use my inﬂuence to get my ideas accepted.

I use my authority to make a decision in my favor.

I usually accommodate the wishes of my boss.

I give in to the wishes of my boss.

I exchange accurate information with my boss to solve a problem
together.

I usually allow concessions to my boss.

I usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.

l negotiate with my boss so that a compromise can be reached.

I try to stay away from disagreement with my boss.

I avoid an encounter with my boss.

I use my expertise to make a decision in my favor.

I often go along with the suggestions of my boss.

I use "give and take" so that a compromise can be made.

I am generally ﬁrm in pursuing my side of the issue.

I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can
be resolved in the best possible way.

I collaborate with my boss to come up with decisions acceptable to
us.

I try to satisfy the expectations of my boss.

I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation.

I try to keep my disagreement with my boss to myself in order to
avoid hard feelings.

I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my boss.

I try to work with my boss for a proper understanding of a problem.

91

Fill in your response in the appropriate circle on your data sheet. There

are no right or wrong answers. The response which is most characteristic of

your behavior in a situation of conﬂict with your subordinate is the best answer.

Examples of subordinates include, if you are an administrator, your subordinate

would be a teacher, if you are a teacher, your subordinate would be a student;

and if you are a student, your subordinate would be someone who has worked

for you. If you have never had a subordinate, stop here, and ﬁll in the

information on the demographic data sheet at the end of this questionnaire.

29.

30.
31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

37.

38.
39.

I try to investigate an issue with my subordinates to ﬁnd a solution
acceptable to us.

I generally try to satisfy the needs of my subordinates.

I attempt to avoid being "put on the spot" and try to keep my
conﬂict with my subordinate to myself.

I try to integrate my ideas with those of my subordinates to come
up with a decision jointly.

I try to work with my subordinates to ﬁnd solutions to a problem
which satisfy our expectations.

I usually avoid open discussions of my differences with my
subordinates.

I try to ﬁnd a middle course to resolve an impasse.

I use my inﬂuence to get my ideas accepted.

I use my authority to make a decision in my favor.

I usually accommodate the wishes of my subordinates.

I give in to the wishes of my subordinates.

92

40.

41.

42.

43.

45.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.
53.

55.

I exchange accurate information with my subordinates to solve a
problem together.

I usually allow concessions to my subordinates.

I usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.

I negotiate with my subordinates so that a compromise can be
reached.

I try to stay away from disagreement with my subordinates.

I avoid an encounter with my subordinates.

I use my expertise to make a decision in my favor.

I often go along with the suggestions of my subordinates.

I use "give and take" so that a compromise can be made.

I am generally ﬁrm in pursuing my side of the issue.

I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can
be resolved in the best possible way.

I collaborate with my subordinates to come up with decisions
acceptable to us.

I try to satisfy the expectations of my subordinates.

I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation.

I try to keep my disagreement with my subordinates to myself in
order to avoid hard feelings.

I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my subordinates.

I try to work with my subordinates for a proper understanding of a

problem.

93

Bibliography

Alm, K G., Earle, E. B., and Webster, 8. R. (1972). Managing Faculty
Reductions. The Journal of Higher Education. 5S: 153-163.

Assael, H. (1969). Constructive Role of Interorganizational Conﬂict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1_4: 573-582.

Astin, W. Alexander, Christian E. (1977). What Do Administrators Know About
Their Institutions. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. XLVII, No. 4: 389-
410.

 

Atkins, Stuart. (1978). Life-Training Discovery Workbook. Beverly Hills,
California: Stuart Atkins, Incorporated.

Bailey, S. K (1982). Coping with the Crises of Funding Standards and
Purposes and Expanding Role for Trustees. Shange. 1_4: 26-28.

Baldridge, Victor. (1971). Power and Conﬂict In the University. New York: John
Wiley and Son, Inc.

Bao-Lord, Bette. (June 12, 1989). Bloodbath. Newsweek, pp. 24-29.

Behrens, A. J. W. (1972). Higher Education with Fewer Teachers.
Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development, Inc.

Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston: Guild.

Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1978). The New Managerial Grid. Houston:
Guild.

Blake, R. R., Shepard, A., and Mouton, J. S. (1964). Managing lntergroup
Sonﬂict in Industry. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Boulding, K E. (1968). Preface to a Special Issue. Journal of Conﬂict
Resolution. j_2_ (4).

Boulding, K E. (1962). Conﬂict and Defense: A Seneral TheoLy. New York:

Harper and Row.

Buehmer, B. (1976). Social Judgment Theory and the Analysis of Interpersonal
Conﬂict. Psychological Bulletin. S3 (6): 985-1003.

Burke, R. .I. (1970). Methods of Resolving Superior-Subordinate Conﬂict: The
Constructive Use of Subordinate Differences and Disagreements.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. S: 393-411.

Byham, WC. (1993). A Suide to Implementaion of Higher Involvement
(Emmwennent) Strategy. Monolith No. 19. Pittsburgh Development

Dimensions Intemationa.

Byham, WC (1990). ZAPP! The Lightning of Empowerment. New York, NY:
Harmony Press.

Campbell, S. M. (1984). Beyond the Power Struggle: Dealing with Conﬂict in
Love and Work. Palo Alto, CA; Impact.

Carmines, E. G. and Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validig Assessment.
New York Park, CA: Sage.

Chandler, K Margaret. (1985). Dispute Resolution: in the Year 2000. mg
Journal of the College and University Personnel Association. _3_6_: 16-20.

Cheit, E. F. (1971). The New Depression in Higher Education. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.

 

Conway, A. James. (1984). The Myth and Mastery of Participating Decision
Making. In Educational Administrative Quarterly. Vol. E, No. 3: 11-40.

Cosand, J. (1982-83). Who \Mll Make the Decisions. Communiy College
Review. 19: 24-29.

Coser, L. A. (1956). The Function of Social Conﬂict. Glencoe, IL: The Free
Press.

Coser, L. A. (1968). Conﬂict: Ill Social Aspects. In D. L. Sills (Ed),
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Vol. S, pp 232-236).

New York: Crowell Collier and Macmillan.

Darling, R. and Leeward, J. Brownlee, Jr. (1984). Conﬂict Management in the
Academic Institution. Texas Tech Journal of Education. ﬂ: 243-256.

95

Darwin, K (1975). A law of diminishing returns in Organizational behavior?
Personal Journal, _55, 616-619.

Derr, Brooklyn C. (1978). Managing Organizational Conﬂict. California
Management Review. WNO. 2: 76-82.

Deutsch, M. (1969). Conﬂict: Productive and Destructive. Journal of Social
Issues. £511): 7-41.

 

Deutsch, M. (1994). Constmctive Conﬂict Resolution: Principles, Training and
Research. Journal of So_cial lssge_s_, S91, 13-32.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conﬂict. New Haven: Yale.

Dewey, J. (1957). Human Nature and Sonduct. New York: Modern Library.
[originally published 1922].

Dixon, Wayne A and Heppnerr, David P. (1991) Problem Solving Appraisal,
Stress, Hopelessness and Suicide in a College Population. Journal of

Qounseling Psychology.
Erikson, Erik E. (1968). Identig Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.

Etzioni, A. "On-seIf-encapsulating conﬂict." Journal of Conﬂict Resolution. _8_,
No. 3 (September, 1964).

Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management. London: Pittman.
Originally published 1916.

Ferrell, C. 8. Students Protesting Racial Bias at University of Mass. End
Occupation of Campus. _Chronicle of Higher Education. February 24,
1986, Vol. 34, No. 21.

Filley, A. C. (1975). lnterpersongl Conﬂict Resolution. Glenview, "L: Scott
Foresman.

Fink, C. F. (1968). Some Conceptual Difﬁculties in the Theory of Conﬂict
Resolution. 3: 412-460.

Fly, E.H. and High, Katherine. (1984). Management Development at the
University of Tennessee. Business Ofﬁcer November, 1984. pp 32-34.

 

Follett, M. P. (1941 ). Dynamic Administration: The Collected Works of Maggy
Parker Follett. H.C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (Eds). New York: Harper

[originally published 1926).

Freder, F .E. (1967). A Theoty of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.

Goodsell, R. David (1972). The Academic Dean and Conﬂict Management.
Journal of Higher Education. 5S: 693-718.

Glenny-Lyman A (1975). Coordination and Planning Despite Competition and
Confusion. New Direction for Institutional Research. gzz, 13-22.

Grifﬁn, Leon E.. (1984). Resolving Conﬂicts. Journal of Physical Education,
Recregtion. and Advance. January, 1984, Vol. g, No. 1, 33-40.

Hall, J. (1973). The Conﬂict Management Survey. The Woodlands
Teleometrics, International, Texas.

Hall, J. (1993). Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain. Newsbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Hammond, Martine F. (1985). The College President As Crisis Manager.
Association for the Study of Higher Education. Palmer House, Chicago,

IL.

Hart, R. P., Carlson, R. E., and Eadie, W. F. (1980). Attitudes Toward
Communication and the Assessment of Rhetorical Sensitivity.

Communication Monographs. _4_7_: 1-22.

Hatﬁeld, D. (1984, June). Relationships among conﬂict management styles,
levels of conﬂict, and reactions to work. Paper presented at the First
International Conference of the Conﬂict Management Group, Fairfax,
Virginia.

Hocker, L. Joyce and Wilmot, W. W. (1985). lntemersonal Sonﬂict (2nd Ed). ,
Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown.

Hocker, L. Joyce. (1986). Teacher-Student Confrontations. Journal of Higher
Education. Issue 26, 71-82.

Hoverland, Hal, McInturff, Pat, and Rohm, C. E. Tapie. Crisis Management in
Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

97

House, R.J. (1971) A Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 16: 321-338.

Howard, Ann (1994). Diagnosis for Organizational Change. New York, NY:
The Guildford Press.

James, 0. Thomas. (1986). Can We Chose A Management Style? Journal of
Higher Education. Issue 27, 59-73.

Jellema, W. W. (1972). Efﬁcient Collpge Management. San Francisco: Bass.

Jones, Steve. More Race Tensions Feared at MSU, Protest Leaves Some
Uneasy About Issues. Caron Free Press, May 18, 1989, p. 3A.

Kabanoff, B. (1987). Predictive Validity of the Mode Conﬂict Instrument. Journal
of Applied Psychiatry. 72: 160-163.

Kerr, Clark. (1973). Administration in an Era of Change and Conﬂict.
Educational Record. 54: 38.

Kramer, Gerald H. (1982). A Comparison of the Responsibilities of Universig
and Corporate Presidents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
Rocky Mountain Educational Research, Albuquerque, NM.

 

Lawler, E. E., III, (1992). The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the Higher-
Involvement Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organizations and Envirgnment.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Lee, Sung Eun. (July, 1985). Conﬂict Resolution Styles of Korean-American
College Students, doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, La Verne,

California.

Lupton, Keith D. (1984). Resolving Faculty Disputes: The Educational
Ombudsman Proposal. lnngvative Higher Education.

Marx, K (1906). Capital. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co.
McMillen, Liz. (May 6, 1987). Colleges Are Trying to Establish New Ways to

Settle Campus Grievances. Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 33, 14-
17.

98

Mudd, S. (1967). Conﬂict Resplution and World Education. Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press.

Nightingale, D. (1974). Conﬂict and Conﬂict Resolution. In G. Strauss, R. E.
Miles, C. C. Snow & A S. Tannenbaum (eds), Organizational Behavior:
Research and Issues (pp. 141-163). Madison, WI: Industrial Relations
Research Association.

Nunnally, J. M. (1978). Psychometric Theog (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Park and Burgess, E. W. (1929). Introduction to the Science of Sociology (3rd
ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [originally published in
1921}

Parsons, Talcott (1949). Essays in Sociological Theopy Pure and Applied. New

York: Free Press.

Perlman, H. Daniel. (1973). New Tools and Techniques in University
Administration. Educational Record. 341-42.

Pfeiffer, J. W., Heslin, R., and Jones, J.E. Instrumentation in Human Relations
Mg, 2nd Ed. La Jolla University Associates Inc., 1973.

 

Pruitt, 0G, and Camevale, P.J. (1993) Negotiation in Social Conﬂict.
Buckingham Open University Press.

Pruitt, D. G., and Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conﬂict: Escalation, Stalemate and

Attention. New York: Random House.

Putnam, Linda, special issue editor. Management Communication Quarterly, An

lntemational Journal. February, 1988, Vol. 1, Issue 3.
Rahim, M. A. (1986a). Managing Conﬂict in Organizations. New York: Praeger.

Rahim, M. A (1986b). Referent Role and Styles of Interpersonal Conﬂict.
Journal of §ocial Psychology. 126: 79-86.

Rahim, M. A. and Bonoma, T. V. (1974). Managing Organizational Conﬂict: A
Model for Diagnosis and Interventions. Psychological Reports. 44: 1323-
1344.

99

Rahim, M. A and Buntzman, G. F. (1987, August). Relationship of Leader

Power to Styles of Handling Conﬂict with Subordinates, Compliance and
Satisfaction. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting,

New Orleans, Louisiana.

Rapaport, A (1974). Fights, Cames, and Debates. The University of Michigan
Press.

Richardson, D. R. and Hancock, G. S. (1987). lnteﬂrsonal Conﬂict
Management In Close Relationships Motivation Versus Skills. Paper

presented at the First International Conference of Conﬂict Management
Group, Fairfax, Virginia.

Rifkin, Janet. (1980). Legal Studies and Mediation, New Direction for Higher
Education, No. 32. Resolvin onﬂict in Hi her Education. Vol. 8, No. 4:
49-54.

Rubin, Jeffrey Z. (1994). Models of Conﬂict Management, Journal of Social
Issues. _5C:1.

Rubin, Jeffrey 2., Pruitt, G., and Kim, HS. (1994). Social Conﬂict Escalation,
Stalemate and Settlement. Second Edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Ruble, T. L., and Thomas, K W. (1976). Support for a Two-dimensional Model

of Conﬂict Behavior. Crganizational Behavior and Human Performance.
16: 143-1 55.

Robbins, Steven P. (1974). Managing Organizational Conﬂict. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Scheffé, HA (1953). A Method for Judging All Possible Contrasts in an
Analysis of Variance. Biometrika. 40: 87-104.

Scherer, KR. (1975). Human Aggression and Conﬂict. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Shuetz, J. E. (1975). A Contingent Model of Argumentation Based on Game
Theog Paradigm. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Colorado.

Simmel, G. (1955). Conﬂict (K H. Wolff, Trans.) and The Web of group

Afﬁliation (R. Bendix, Trans.) Glencoe, IL: Free Press. [Originally
published in German 1908].

100

Sipka, T. A (1969). Social Conﬂict and Reconstruction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Boston College, Boston.

Tagliacozzo, Daisy M. (1984). Conﬂict Avoidance and University Management.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San

Francisco, CA.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientiﬁc Management. New York:
Harper & Row.

Thomas, K W. (1977, July). Toward Multidimensional Values in Teaching: The
Example of Conﬂict. Academy of Management Review. 484-490.

Thomas, K W. and Kilman, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilman Conﬂict Mode
Instrument. Tuxedo, New York: Xicom, Inc.

Thomas, K W. and Pondy, L. R. (1977). "Toward an Intent Model of Conﬂict
Management Among Principal Parties." Human Relations, 30.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organization In Action. New York: McGraw Hill.

Trusty, Francis M. (1978). Strategy Development for Managing Selected
Educational Conﬂict. Documentation, US. Dept. of Health, Education

and Welfare, National Institute of Education. 1-69.

Van de Vhert, E. et al (1989). A Theoretical Position of Compromising Among
Other Styles of Conﬂict Management. Journal of Social Psychology.

Van de Vhert, E, and Pren, HQ (1989). The Difference in the Meaning of
Forcing in the Conﬂict Management of Actors and Observers. In M. P
Rahim, Ed. Managing Conﬂict: An lnterdisciplinagg Approach. New York,
NY: Prager. 51-63.

Van de Vhert, E. (1990). Positive Effects of Conﬂict: A Field Assessment. fie,
International Journal of Conﬂict Management, 1:69-80.

Vargus, lone D. (1982). Communication and the Black Agministrﬁator. A paper

presented to the Black Experience Workshop. The University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill.

101

Vogt, T. Molly (1975). Conﬂict Management: An Aid fowniggrsitv
Development in a Turbulent _Environment. A paper for American Council

on Education, Washington, DC. 2-24.

 

Wall, Victor 0., Galones, Gloria J., and Love, Beth Sue. (1987). Small, Task-
oriented Groups Conﬂict, Conﬂict Management Satisfaction, and
Decision-Quality. Small Group Behavior. 18: 31-35.

Warehime, C. Robert. (1984). The Management of Conﬂict. New Direction for
Higher Education. 33-37.

Weber, M. (1947). The t_heory of social and economic organization. New York:
Oxford University Press. Originally published, 1929.

Webster, N. (1983). New Tweittieth Centug Dictionary. 2nd Edition. New
York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Williams and James. (1986). The Management of Conﬂict. ,NiW Dirgtionslr
Higher Education. 33-37.

Williams, Jr., M. J. The Management of Conﬂict. New Direction for Higher
Education No. 50, Jossey-Bass, June, 1985.

Wilmot, J. H. and Wilmot, W. W. (1978). lntemersonal Conﬂict. Dubuque,
Iowa: William C. Brown.

Wilmot, W. W. (1976). The Inﬂuence of Personal Conﬂict Styles of Tgcher on
Student Attitudes Toward Conﬂict. A paper presented to the International
Communication Association Convention, Portland, Oregon.

Wilson and JerriII. (1981). New Directions for Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, J. A., and Jerrill, S. L. (1981). Conﬂict, Malignant, Beneﬁcial, or

Benign. In J. A. VVlIson (Ed.) New direction for Higher Education
Management Science to Acgdemicigminisﬂtion (pp 105-123). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Young, C. ’M. (1985). The Relartionship Between Rhetorical Sensitiviry and
Conﬂict Management Style.

Yates, Douglas, Jr., (1985). The Politics of Management. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc.

102

“llllllllllllllr