 

2008

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

Th:s Is to certify that the
dissertation entztied

(UMMUNICATION NETWORK APPROACI—JES TO
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AT THE WORKPLACE AND

Ph D.

 

JOB SATISFACTION

presented by

HYE EUN LEE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in COMMUNICATION

 

 

T Major Professor's Signature

08/1 512mg

 

Date

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K.IProi/Acc&Pres/ClRC/Date0ue Indd

COMMUNICATION NETWORK APPROACHES TO CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT AT THE WORKPLACE AND JOB SATISFACTION

By

Hye Eun Lee

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment ofthe requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Communication

2008

ABSTRACT

COMMUNICATION NETWORK APPROACHES TO CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT AT THE WORKPLACE AND JOB SATISFACTION

By
Hye Eun Lee

The current study examined the relationship between conﬂict management
styles and job satisfaction. Based on Balance Theory, it was predicted that. as an
employee has more and more balanced conﬂict management styles with all employees
with \\ hom he or she communicates in an organization. he or she will be more and
more satisfied with his or herjob. Next. it was questioned whether there are any
dillerences among styles regarding the relationship between a balanced style and job
satisfaction. One hundred and thirty-three employees from l5 small organizations in
South Korea completed a questionnaire where communication networks at the
workplace and each participant‘s conﬂict management style and job satisfaction were
measured. It was found that similarity in integrating as a style of conﬂict management
among employees in a communication network was positively related to each
employee'sjoh satisfaction. In contrast, similarity in compromising. dominating. or
ohliging styles were not related to each employee’s job satisfaction. Finally.

implications and limitations ofthese ﬁndings were discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my dissertation chair and adviser. Dr. Hee Sun Park. for the
guidance. friendship and support she has provided during my graduate student life in
Michigan State University. She always has been the perfect role model of a genuine
scholar. I would never have made it this far without her helpful insights and
suggestions. I also wish to thank my committee members, Dr. Mary Bresnahan, Dr.
Tim Levine and Dr. Yoonhyeung Choi for their patience. expertise and insightful
feedback they have contributed to my dissertation.

To my parents and parents-in-law, thank you for your support and belief in
me. Thanks to many friends who shared so much with me and enriched my life.
Thank you especially to J ina, Soony. Mikyoung. JaeMin and Laura.

Finally I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dear husband.
Ilyunjin. whose love and support made this possible. Also thank you to little Eugene

who. born in the middle of my Ph.D.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. v

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. I

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 2
Conﬂict and Conﬂict Management Styles ............................................. 2
Balance Theory ........................................................................... (I
Relationship between Conﬂict Management Styles and Job Satisfaction .......... 9
Hypothesis and Research Question .................................................... l4

CHAPTER 2

METHOD ........................................................................................ I6
Sample ..................................................................................... l6
Procedure .................................................................................. l6
Measures .................................................................................. I7
Operational Deﬁnitions .................................................................. I8
Procedure to Analyze ..................................................................... 2t)

FOOTNOTES ................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS ....................................................................................... 2|
Overview .................................................................................. 2 I
Eﬂects of Similarities from Styles in Conﬂict Management Styles on Job
Satisfaction 22
Effects ofSimilarities from Items in Conﬂict Management Styles on Job
Satisfaction ................................................................................ 22

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 24
Implication for Conﬂict Management Styles .......................................... 24
Implication for Similarities 2‘
Limitations and Directions for Future Research ...................................... 26
C onelusion ................................................................................. 27

APPENDICES .................................................................................. 28

REFERENCES .................................................................................. 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table I. Reliabilities, CFA Results and Correlations ........................................ i ’3

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Conﬂict Styles. Similarities in Conﬂict Styles and

’1

Job Satisfaction .................................................................................. 53

Table 3. The Effects ofConﬂict Styles and Similarities from Conﬂict Styles on Job

Table 4. The Effects of Conﬂict Styles and Similarities from Items of Conﬂict Styles
on Job Satisfaction“

CHAPTER]

INTRODUCTION

Conﬂict is inevitable and pervasive at the workplace. Before 1990. most of the
organizational literature presumed that conﬂict is detrimental (Jehn & Bendersky. 2003).
but ifconﬂict is managed appropriately. conﬂict has been found to lead to beneﬁcial
ell‘ects for individuals. teams, and organizations (Chen. Liu. & Tjosvold. 2005; De
Church & Marks. 2001; De Dreu & Weingart. 2003; Pondy. I992; Putnam 8: Wilson.
I982). Constructive management of conﬂicts and successful resolution ofdisputes can
provide opportunities for coworkers to get to know each other better and strengthen their
relationships (Tjosvold. Hui. & Sun. 2004). Conﬂict management. however. is not easy.
Different ways to manage conﬂicts exist. and individuals can differ in their conﬂict
management preferences. When disputants try to manage conﬂict with disparate styles.
such dissimilarity may become an additional inhibition against successful resolution.
Although such resolution can be achieved when individuals share similar conﬂict
management styles. not all conﬂict styles need to be shared. For example. two individuals
with similar cooperative styles are more likely to resolve their conﬂicts and to develop a
satisfying relationship with each other than are two individuals with similar avoidance
styles. It is questioned whether it is a particular style of conﬂict management preference
that is related to job satisfaction and/or if it is the extent to which coworkers are balanced
concerning their preferences for a particular style of conﬂict management in their

workplaces.

The current study focuses on the relationship between conﬂict management
styles and job satisfaction by examining communication networks at the workplace in
order to fully identify conﬂict management at multiple levels. The position of each
employee in the communication networks affects with whom he or she is likely to face
conﬂicts in the workplace and if conﬂicts need to be managed between only two people
at a time and/or among multiple group members collectively. By applying Balance
Theory (Heider. 1958) to conﬂict management styles among coworkers. the current stud y
investigates the extent to which the relationship between individuals’ preferred styles and
their coworkers‘ preferred styles of conﬂict management are related to individual job
satisfaction.

For this, this paper will ﬁrst deﬁne conﬂict. explain various causes and eﬂ‘ccls.
and explain five conﬂict management styles. Next. a brief overview of the basic elements
and assumptions of Balance Theory and its various empirical applications will be
presented. After that. how this theory can be applied in understanding the relationship
between conﬂict management styles and job satisfaction will be discussed. Finally. a
rationale will be provided for the hypothesis and research question regarding the positix e

relationship between balanced styles and job satisfaction.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Conﬂict and Conﬂict Management Styles
Conﬂict refers to a process whereby one party perceives that its interests. goals.
values. needs. or behaviors are being opposed, disagreed with. or negatively aﬂ‘ected by

another party (or other parties) (Wall & Callister. I995). Conﬂict can happen in

[\2

interpersonal relations with subordinates, peers. and superiors and in intragroup and
intergroup relationships at the workplace and across organizations. There are various
causes ofconﬂict at the workplace. including differences in individual characteristics
such as personality. values. and commitment to position (Putnam & W ilson. I982).
communication failure, usually misunderstanding each other (Putnam & Poole. I987;
Thomas & Schmidt. 1976). and previous interactions (Tjosvold & Chia. I989). to name a
few:

Interpersonal conﬂict in organizations can have both beneficial and detrimental
effects on individuals, groups. and organizations. On the one hand, conﬂict leads to
negative emotional reactions such as tension, stress. hostility, distraction from performing
tasks. communication difficulties, endangering of relationships. and finally reductions in
effectiveness (for a review. see De Dreu. I997; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; .Ielm &
Bendersky. 2003; Wall & Callister. 1995). In an extreme case. conﬂict can be a cause of
workplace violence (Stone. 1995). Because of these negative effects. people try to avoid
interpersonal conﬂict. and. if it occurs. people try to resolve it as soon as possible.

On the other hand. conﬂict can be positively related to performance in groups.
Avoiding and suppressing conﬂict reduces creativity. innovation. decision quality.
communication among group/team members, and opportunities to build strong
relationships between employees (De Dreu, 1997; Jehn & Bendersky. 2003; Tiosvold.
Ilui. & Sun. 2004). In addition, conﬂict is useful for the understanding ofdiverse
viewpoints and a variety of options (Eisenhardt & Schoonhonven. I990; Schwenk. I990).

Due to the double-edged nature of conﬂict, boundary conditions for COIISII‘UCII\ e

conﬂict over destructive have been examined. Three approaches have been suggested so

far. The ti rst approach is to reduce or avoid conﬂict. Although the value of conﬂict to
open discussion is emphasized (Jehn. I997; Simons & Peterson. 2000). the scholars
supporting this approach have claimed that conﬂict should be minimized or shunned at
the workplace since conﬂict itself inherently has negative consequences (cf. Jehn &
Bendersky. 2003). Because conﬂict is inevitable at the workplace. where employees must
interact. this approach is considered unrealistic (Leung & Tjosvold. 1998).

The second approach is to encourage one type of conﬂict over another type of
conﬂict. .Iehn (1995) identiﬁed task conﬂict and relationship conﬂict as two major types
of conﬂict at the workplace. Task conﬂict includes various disagreements about work and
different viewpoints and ideas about the topics of interest or decisions. and relationship
conﬂict is about personnel problems due to incompatibilities in personalities and attitudes
of employees. Task conﬂict tends to lead to positive outcomes. whereas relationship
conllict causes negative outcomes (Jehn & Bendersky. 2003; Simons 8; Peterson. 20l )0).
Since task conﬂict sometimes triggers relationship conﬂict or vice versa. it is not
practically feasible to encourage task conﬂict while discouraging relationship conﬂict
( Simons & Peterson. 2000).

The ﬁnal approach is to manage conﬂict. If conﬂict is managed in appropriate
manners. it results in beneﬁcial effects (Chen, Liu, & Tjosvold. 2005; DeChurch &
Marks. 2001; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Pondy, I992; Putnam & Wilson. 1982). De
Dreu and Weingart (2003) pointed out the importance of conﬂict management in work
groups. and De Dreu and Beersma‘s (2005. p. 106) also commented on the “unfortunate"
state of scholarly affairs concerning the lack of attention on the eﬂ‘ect of conﬂict

management on “soft” outcomes (e. g.. satisfaction. well-being. and health).

Rahim (1983) deﬁned ﬁve conﬂict management styles m-integrating. obliging.
dominating. avoiding. and compromising—based on two dimensions: concern for self and
concern for others. Integrating involves high concerns for both parties involved in a
conﬂict. Individuals using this style collaborate with the other party to reach a solution
acceptable to them both. This style is characterized by openness. an active exchange of
information. and examination of differences. Obliging engages low concern for selfand
high concern for the other party. People using this style attempt to deemphasize the
differences and underscore characteristics in common in order to satisfy the other part y‘s
concerns. Dominating involves high concern for self and low concern for the other party.
This style is associated with a win-lose orientation and forcing behaviors to satisfy the
concems for self. Avoiding employs low concerns for both parties. The characteristics of
avoiding are non-confrontation and withdrawal. so people using this style play down the
importance of the conﬂict issues and try not to think about them. F inally. compromising
involves moderate concem for self as well as the other party. People using this style give
up something in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

Conﬂict literature has embraced the five style paradigm (ye.g.. Blake & Mouton.
1964; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976). but it has been empirically difficult to dichrcntiate
among integrating. obliging, and compromising styles (cf. Weider-Hatﬁeld. 1988). At a
more macro level. integrating, obliging, and compromising may all indicate collaborating
with the other party like one cooperative style (De Dreu & Van de Vliert. 1997).
Compared to avoidance and domination styles. managing conﬂicts through collaboration
by integrating. obliging, and/or compromising can lead to greater individual and team

effectiveness (De Dreu & Van de Vliert. 1997). When a conﬂict is managed through

collaboration. employees can confront reality to create innovative solutions to
challenging problems (De Dreu & Van de Vliert. 1997). Also. employees are more likely
to ex press their needs. positions, and interests, understand the other parties. and become
less egocentric (Leung & Tjosvold, 1998). Compared to domination. collaboration leads
to hi gher-quality decisions and stronger relationships (Tjosvold. 1998).

The ﬁve conﬂict management style paradigm has been widely used in Asian
countries as well as in the US. (cf. Chang, & Cho. 2006; Holt. & DeVorc. 2005: Kim.
Wang. Kondo. & Kim. 2007; Lee. 2002). Although Asians tend to choose avoiding more
than Americans (Lee. & Rogan, 1991; Lee, 2002; Tjosvold. Hui. & Sun. 2004; Tjosvold.
& Sun. 2002). Korean employees have been reported to use all of these ﬁve styles (Kim.
\Kv’ang. Kondo. & Kim, 2007; Lee. 2002).

In general. conﬂict can negatively affect job satisfaction (see De Dreu & Van de
Vliert. 1997: De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). If conﬂict is managed constructively through
open discussion and mutual understanding, however. people are more likely to reach
mutually beneﬁcial solutions. reduce the likelihood of future conﬂict. and build quality
relationships and trust. In this way, job satisfaction may increase. Accordingly. how
conﬂict is managed is an important consideration for job satisfaction. Heidcr‘s (1958)
Balance theory provides insight into how this is so.

Balance Theory

Balance Theory provides an explanation of how an employee’s balanced
preference of conﬂict management styles is related to his or herjob satisfaction. Balance
Theory posits relationships among three types ofelements (Heider. I958). The three

elements include a focal person (P). another person (0). and an event (A) that is

perceived by the two people. Balance Theory focuses on PS three kinds of
interpretations: that of his or her relationship with 0, that of his or her perception of .\'.
and that of 0’s perception of X. Although Balance Theory involves relations among these
three elements. the relations between only two of the elements can be considered at a
time. In other words. a dyadic relationship can be assumed to exist between P and () (or
between P and X) when P considers only one relation with () (or X). On the other hand. a
triadic relationship exists among P. 0, and X when P considers the three relations
between P and O, O and X . and P and X simultaneously.

Some more speciﬁc relationships among these three elements can be
characterized by sentiment and unit formation (Heider. I958). Sentiment refers to the
way P feels or evaluates O or X. Although sentiment can take various types and forms.
IIcider originally classiﬁed it into two types: liking and disliking. Some researchers later
broadened the boundary of the sentiment to include more complicated types of
evaluations. such as approving and disapproving and agreeing and disagreeing (e. g..
Curry & Emerson, 1970; Insko, 1981).

Unit formation occurs when P perceives himself or herself to belong with 0.
when P perceives himself or herself to belong with X, or when P perceives () to belong
with X. There are a number of factors that inﬂuence unit fomtation. For instance. if two
people share similarity, proximity, or interaction. they may form a unit. or ifa person
owns an entity, 3 unit is made up of the person and the entity. Although I-Ieider (1958)
suggested that unit relations can be roughly divided into two types~belongs and does not
belong --~like sentiment. Insko (1981) pointed out that “does not belong" does not have a

negative relation to "belongs." For example. it is clear that "P likes X' is a negative

\I

relation with “P dislikes X“ in the sentiment relation. In terms ofthe unit relation.
however. it is unclear which has a negative relation to “P is married to 0“ between "P is
divorced from 0” and “P is not married to 0.” This is partly the reason why most
researchers after Heider explored only positive unit formation while both positive and
negative sentiments have been treated together (e.g.. Eagly & C haiken. I993: Insko.
I981: Petty & Cacioppo. 1981).

Balance Theory explains P 's cognition of a balanced state or an imbalanced state
with the relationships of these sentiments and unit formation. If P and 0 make a unit and
have a similar attitude toward X of liking or disliking or ifP (or 0) owns X and P and ()
have similar interpretations about X. P has a balanced state. Otherwise. P‘s cognitive state
is imbalanced. Namely. a balanced state refers to a stable situation because a perceived
unit and sentiments coexist without any stress on PS cognitive organization.

One main assumption of Balance Theory is that human beings prefer harmonious
states over imbalanced states (Heider, I958). As balance increases. people’s pleasure
increases. so people try to increase balance while decreasing imbalance. In addition. ex. en
when a person achieves a balanced state, generally positive sentiments create more
pleasantness than negative sentiments because similarity in liking between P and ()
toward X creates attraction effects along with balance effects, whereas similarity in
disliking does not (Jordan, 1953; Zajonc, 1968). If people experience imbalanced states.
they try to resolve these disharmonious states. For example, P may deny the unit or
change his or her attitudes toward 0 (or X). From time to time. however. P does not
resolve the disharmony, even when he or she is aware of the unbalanced situation. In

these cases. P experiences tension and stress to change. The greater imbalance a person

faces. the more stressed and uncomfortable the person is (Insko, 1981).

Although Balance Theory was originally formulated to explain individual
psychology related to the context of interpersonal relations (Heider, 1958). the theory has
been broadly used to explain and predict attitudes. persuasive arguments. management
techniques. social networks. and so on. For example. Curry and Emerson ( 1970) found
that people tended to perceive another person‘s attraction toward a third person as similar
to their own attraction to the third person. Aronson and Cope (1968) supported Balance
'l'heory with the ﬁnding that people like their friends” friends and their enemies“ enemies.
and dislike their friends' enemies and their enemies’ friends. Also Woodside and Chcbat
(2001 ) argued that consumers‘ behavior could be explained by Balance Theory. That is.
the purchasing behavior of consumers can be explained by a balanced triadic relationship
among a consumer, the quality of a product, and a producer. Finally. social scientists have
attempted to expand the application of Balance Theory to the study of social networks
(e.g. Markiewicz. Devine, & Klausilas, 2000).

Relationship between Conﬂict Management Style and Job Satisfaction

Balance Theory can be applied to understand the relationship between conflict
management styles at the workplace and job satisfaction. As stated before, when l’. as an
employee. interacts with 0. another employee. conﬂict between the two parties (P and U)
can occur. If P perceives ()‘s conﬂict management style to be incompatible with P's own
style. it can lead to cognitive imbalance for P. Given that people prefer balanced states to
imbalanced states (Heider. 1958). there are four possible reactions to imbalanced states.
First. I’ may break off the relationship with 0. That means that P denies the unit

formation. As employees generally cannot decide with whom to work on their own at the

9

workplace. leaving the organization is the only solution for this. A second way would be
for P to change his or her own style to be compatible with ()‘s. Like the first reaction. it
causes P to eliminate the cause of the imbalance. The third way is for P to persuade or
in II uence 0 to change 0’s style to be compatible with P‘s. It is not easy. however. for
people to break off their relationships. adjust their conﬂict management styles to be
harmonious with those of others. or to persuade others to change theirs. Thus. people may
choose the fourth way of dealing with an imbalanced state: enduring the imbalanced
state. If P and 0 have to spend a lot of time working side by side at the workplace. P
must continue to bear the inconsistent state. Enduring the inconsistent state leads to
unpleasantness. tension. or stress for P if not only conﬂict itself but also disagreements
on how to manage it cause negative emotional reactions. These negative feelings may
become relevant to an individual’s job satisfaction. The current study focuses on this last
case.

Job sun's/action. Job satisfaction is defined as an overall emotional reaction to a
job that results from employees‘ comparisons of actual outcomes with expected ones
(Cranny. Smith, & Stone. 1992). According to this deﬁnition.job satisfaction consists of
three components: affection, outcomes related to a job. and comparison processes.
Employees with greaterjob satisfaction perceive theirjobs to be more meaningful and
have more motivation to do their jobs better.

Job satisfaction has received great attention because job satisfaction significantly
influences positive organizational outcomes (C ranny et al.. 1992). In the short term. if
employees have higher levels of job satisfaction, their productivity increases and their

absences and intention to turnover decrease (e.g., Katzell. Thompson. & Guzzo. 1992:

It)

Smith. 1992). In the long term. higher levels ofjob satisfaction are positively associated
with employees‘ active attitudes toward adapting to a change in environment. such as
downsizing. cooperative attitudes with coworkers, and positive contributions toward
organizational culture and climate (Smith, 1992). Lambert (199]) also contended that job
satisfaction positively influences employees” motivations to do theirjob well. lastly.
higher levels ofjob satisfaction are related to less stress regarding work (lronson. 1992 ).
Employees’ interpersonal relationships in the workplace are positively related
with job satisfaction. Although many studies have focused mainly on job characteristics.
management styles. and employees’ characteristics as predictors ofjob satisfaction
(_(_ilisson & Durick. 1988; Neumann, 1993), increasing attention has been paid to
employees‘ workplace relationships with superiors, subordinates, or coworkers as new
predictors ofjob satisfaction. For example, the Leader Member Exchange model (LMX )
shows how the quality of the relationship that employees have with their superiors
influences their job satisfaction. According to LMX. superiors do not use the same st} le
in dealing with all subordinates but rather develop a different type of relationship or
exchange with each subordinate. These relationships range from those that are based
strictly on employment contracts (e.g., low quality LMX) to those that are characterized
by mutual trust. respect. liking. and reciprocal inﬂuence (e.g.. high quality LMX) (Graen.
Novak. & Sommerkamp, I982). Workers who perceive their relationships with their
superiors as having a higher quality of interaction reported higher levels of job
satisfaction (Epitropaki & Martin. 1999; Graen et al.. 1982). The reason is that employ ees
with higher quality LMX have less diﬂiculty in maintaining the relationship (Lee. [903;

Lee & .labfin. 1995). greater satisfaction with their supervisors (Duchon. Green. 8; ~l‘aber.

ll

1986). a higher level of satisfaction in communicating with their superiors (Lee. 1099:
Mueller & Lee. 2002). and more social support from their superiors (Wayne. Shore. 8;
liden.1997)

Balanced styles afconﬂict management. Similarities generally positively affect
job satisfaction. If individuals” values and traits are congruent with their perceptions of
the climate of their workplace. they perform better and express greater job satisfaction
(Downey. Hellriegel. & Slocm. 1975). Wexley. Alexander. Greenawalt. and Couch (l080)
reported that. if a subordinate is aligned with his or her supervisor in terms of attitudinal
similarity. the subordinate is more satisﬁed with his or her job. The more superiors and
subordinates agree with each other on communication assumptions (i.e.. interaction
norms related to asking for suggestions, requesting instructions. informing about policies.
etc.). the more subordinates are satisfied with their jobs.

Balance theory explains why similarities among employees lead to hi gherjob
satisfaction. Similarities can be interpreted as balanced states for employee cognition. In
the same vein. the relationship between conﬂict management styles and job satisfactitm
can be explained. Among the conﬂict management styles discussed above. integration.
which involves high concerns for both self and the other party. is supposedly the most
ideal way to manage conﬂict. What if, however. A prefers the integration style whereas B
prefers the domination style when A and B have conﬂict at the workplace? If both parties
do not have balanced styles. the conﬂict could be more difficult to resolve.

('(mummication networks. In order to understand the complete dynamics of
conflict management. they should be examined in relation to communication networks at

the workplace. Most studies have focused only on individual levels (e.g.. Brewer.

Mitchell. & Weber. 2002; Thomas & Schmidt. 1976). dyadic levels (e.g.. Tiosvold 84
Sun. 2002). or group levels (e.g.. Simons & Peterson. 2000; De Dreu. 2006; Lovelace.
Shapiro. & Weingart. 200] ). Communication networks are defined as “the patterns of
contact that are created by the ﬂow of messages among communicators through time and
space" (Monge & Contractor. 2003. p.3). Communication networks describe who
communicates with whom at the workplace. and so are able to identify relationships that
could potentially have conﬂict at the various levels of personal. dyadic. triadic. group.
and organizational.

The position of each employee in the communication network of the organization
provides a clue regarding the other party or parties who are relevant to understanding
each employee‘s conﬂict management and job satisfaction. For example. if A only
interacts with his or her superior. B. conﬂict in the dyadic relationship between A and B
should be focused on; however. if A works as a team member. all conﬂict in the team will
need to be examined. lfA is an employee who links to two groups that would otherwise
not be linked but is not a member of either group (i.e.. liaison; Brass. f995) or is an
employee who is a member of two or more groups (i.e.. bridge; Brass 1995) in the
organization. only multilevel analyses using communication networks can grasp the full
dynamics of the relationship between conﬂict management and job satisfaction.

In sum. when applying Balance Theory to the relationship between conﬂict
management styles and job satisfaction. it can be argued that imbalanced styles among
employees at work can lead to unpleasantness and stress. Especially if they involve
incompatible conﬂict management styles. employees have greater difficulties in

managing conﬂict. Different conﬂict management styles result in misunderstandings.

incompatibility of goals and values. and disagreements. As a result. employees with
imbalanced styles will be more dissatisfied with theirjobs. On the contrary. if they hax e
balanced conﬂict styles, employees can manage conﬂict in constructive ways. build trust.
improve performance, and accordingly increase job satisfaction.
Hypothesis and Research Question

Communication networks at the workplace should be considered in order to fully
understand the relationship between conﬂict management styles and job satisfaction. If an
employee has a balanced style with one employee. but an imbalanced style with another.
the balance and the imbalance can cancel each other out. If an employee has only
balanced (or imbalanced) styles with all employees with whom he or she works. however.
the relationship will be strengthened positively (or negatively). Therefore. the following
hypothesis is presented.

Hi: If an employee has more balanced conﬂict management styles with the
employees with whom he or she communicates in the organization. he or
she will be more satisfied with his or herjob.

Although similarities in integrating. obliging, or compromising styles of conflict
can represent a balanced state for the individuals involved and can positively affect job
satisfaction. similarities in domination or avoidance do not necessarily reflect a balanced
state and may be even worse than dissimilarities. If both parties involved in a conﬂict use
the same style. domination or avoidance. similarity in domination or in avoidance does
not have the same effect as similarity in other styles. such as integrating. obliging. and/or
compromising. In the same way that similarity in liking creates attraction effects whereas

similarity in disliking does not (Jordan. 1953; Zajonc. 1968). similarity in collaboration is

a genuine balanced style. but similarity in domination or in avoidance may be imbalanced
styles like dissimilarity in styles.

The "five conﬂict management styles are differentiated by the different concerns
for selfand the other party. If two parties in a conﬂict have similarities in integrating.
obliging. or compromising styles. each party perceives that the other party has high or at
least moderate concern for the other party. For instance. even when A has the obliging
style (i.e.. low concern for self and high concern for the other party). if B. the other party.
also has the obliging style. both parties receive high concern from each other. In contrast.
if people in conﬂict have similarity in domination or avoidance. neither cares about the
other party. which might be an uncomfortable and unpleasant situation leading to
cognitive imbalance. Accordingly. “similarity” in all styles may not necessarily lead to a
“balanced style." It is possible that a balanced state from a particular style may be
associated with job satisfaction more strongly than from other styles. Therefore. the
following research question has been developed.

RQl: Is there any difference among the styles in terms of the relationship between

the resultant balanced style and job satisfaction?

15

CHAPTER 2
METHOD

Sample

One hundred and thirty-three employees (age M = 34.81. SD =— 8.16. and 56.49. 0
male) from 15 small organizations in South Korea participated in the study. As it is
desirable for all employees in the organizations to participate in the study in order to
obtain complete communication networks. many organizations were contacted. All of the
participants were ethnically as well as culturally Korean. All of the full-time employees
in l 7 organizations agreed to participate in the study. Since not all of the employees in
two of the organizations completed communication networks. data from these were
excluded for further analyses. Participating organizations were two fire stations. four
branches of insurance companies, two food companies. two design companies. two
hospitals. two schools. and an advertising company.

The average number of the employees was 8.48 (SD = 4.88). ranging from 5 to l9.

The employees worked for 72 months on average (SD = 72.95). ranging from f to 34 I.
For education level. 59 (44.4%) of the participants had 4-year college degrees. 33
(24.8%) had community college degrees. and 22 (16.5%) had high school degrees.
Procedure

Participants were asked. in the questionnaire. to identify those with whom they
communicate when looking at a list of all of the employees. Accordingly. pre-approv als
from all of the employees were obtained before the questionnaire was developed. After
the communication networks were measured. participants were asked to indicate their

own conﬂict management styles and job satisfaction.

16

Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to investigate employee's
job satisfaction related to conﬂict management styles. To protect participant
confidentiality. all participants were instructed to directly mail their completed
questionnaires to a designated person unrelated to the organizations or participants. Then.
the designated person changed the participants“ names into ID numbers (ex. A l . A2 etc. ).
That person was designated by the researcher before the questionnaire was distributed to
the employees. In addition to the questionnaire. participants received envelopes with a
return address and postage. Finally. those who completed the questionnaire were paid five
dollars in exchange for their participation.

Measures

The questionnaire consisted of communication network measures. scales for
conflict management styles. a job satisfaction scale. work-related information (e.g..
employment length and job types). and demographic information (See Appendix I -~ III
for details).

(.‘ommunicalion network measure. Participants were asked to indicate how often
they talk about work-related activities on a regular basis with each individual on the list
ofall of the employees at their work (See Appendix I for details). The response format for
the measure was a 5-point scale (1 = never. 2 = hardly. 3 = sometimes. 4 : frequently. 5
always).

( 'on/lict management sat/es. The Rahim Organizational Conﬂict Inventory l l
(ROC-ll) was used to measure ﬁve the conﬂict management styles: Avoiding.
('ompromising. Dominating. Integrating. and Obligating. Each subscale had four to seven

items. See Appendix II for the items of each style. The response format for these

17‘

measures was a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree. 5 = strongly agree).

When using AMOS. the CFA results for multidimensionality of five factors were
not acceptable. so C FAs were repeatedly conducted to find items and factors consistent
with multidimensionality and parallelism. The model generating applications are
reasonable (foreskog. 1993) when the initial model does not fit the data and is modified
based on theoretical sense and reasonable statistical correspondence to the data. A fter
several items were removed and compromising and integrating were merged into one
factor. integrating. the results showed acceptable multidimensionality (See Table] ). The
reliabilities (Cronbach’s a) of the four factors ranged from .77 to .81.

Job satisfaction. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) short form
(Weiss. Dawis. England. & Lofquist. 1967) has been widely used to measure job
satisfaction with acceptable reliabilities (e.g.. .Corbett. Martin. Wall, & C legg. 1989;
Naumann. 1993; Watson & Slack. 1993). Therefore. 14 items from the MSQ were used
for the study (see Appendix II). The response format for the measure was a 5-point scale
( l 2 strongly disagree. 5 = strongly agree). The CFA results produced a unidimensional
model with the eight items; therefore. these items were used for further analyses. The

reliability (Cronbach's a) of thejob satisfaction scale in the current study was .88.

Operational Deﬁnitions

Operational definition ofcommunication networks. The communication link
between two people was measured on a continuous scale (1 = never. 2ihardl y. 3
sometimes. 4 = frequently. 5 = always) once for each individual. with the measurement
with the other being computed by averaging the two measurements. For example. if A

reported that A communicates with B with 5 (always) on the scale and B reported that B

communicates with A with 3 (sometimes) on the scale. then the link has 4 (frequently) on
average. This method is more reliable than the usual self-reported single measurement.

After computing averages. the communication links were identified
dichotomously. That is. employees rated at least 3.5 were considered to have
communication links at the workplace. The average number of links was 7.27 (SD .—
342). ranging from f to 16.

Operational definition ofsimilarity in style. There are two main ways to compute
the similarity of each style. Each style was measured with three to five items. One way is
to compute similarity from the values of styles. After calculating the mean of each style
from the values of items. absolute differences between means of employees were
obtained. Since the possible maximum value of difference is four (the difference between
five [strongly agree] and one [strongly disagree]). the difference between five and the
obtained difference is the similarity score. This method to calculate similarity is referred
to as similarity from styles.

The other way is to calculate similarity from the values of items. The absolute
differences obtained from each item for the styles can be averaged and then subtracted
from five. This method to calculate similarity is referred to as similarity from items. For
example. if person A and person B answered one. three, five. three and three. three. three.
three for one style with four items. four would be obtained from the first method while
three would be obtained from the second method. Among the pairs of ( l . 3). (3. 3). (5. 3’).
and (3. 3). however. only two pairs are similar. If the means of each style are compared.
the dissimilarity of the first pair is canceled out by the dissimilarity of the third pair. The

second method covers broader disparities than the first method. but the first method

If.)

conceptually represents the similarity. Therefore. the data were analyzed with both
methods in the study.
Procedure to analyze

The similarities in style were obtained using SPSS MATRIX. With the
similarities. SPSS LINEAR REGRESSION was used to investigate the effects ofthe
similarities in four styles on job satisfaction. Before conducting the linear regression. the
assumption of linearity was roughly confirmed through scatter plots between similarities
in conﬂict management styles and job satisfaction.

For the possibility of a multilevel effect on conﬂict management styles. variance
in conflict management styles was decomposed to see ifa substantial amount of variance
was attributable to having the same organization (i.e.. 2"d level effect). Overall. having
the same organization accounted for little of the variance in preferences for conﬂict
management styles. For avoiding. more than 93% of the variance was attributable to
individual employees (i.e.. 1Si level). More than 89% for dominating. more than 96% for
integrating. and more than 91% for obliging were also attributable to individual
employees. Finally. more than 89% of the variance for job satisfaction was attributable to

individual employees. There were no significant organizational differences for any of the

. . . . . 1
styles. 1 herefore. a multilevel anaIySIS was not used for the mam analyses .

FOOTNOTES

Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results showed consrstent findings from Regression analyses. so

only Regression results were reported.

2 f)

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Overview

The results show that integrating (M = 3.58. SD = 0.62) is the most preferred
style. followed by obliging (M = 3.45. SD = 0.58). while dominating is the least preferred
style (M = 2.62. SD = 0.77). as shown Table 2. Mean scores of integrating. obliging and
avoiding were significantly higher than the scale mid point (3) (one-sample t [132 =‘—
10.87. p < .001 for integrating: one sample t [132] 2‘ 8.91.19 < .001 for obliging: one-
sample 1 [132] = 2.48. p < .05 for avoiding). Particularly. about 80% of the participants
reported greater than the scale mid point ( 3) in integrating and more than 70% of the
participants reported greater than the scale mid point (3) in obliging. Mean score of
dominating was significantly lower than the scale mid point (3) (one-sample t [l32| -
5.66. p < .001). Less than 30% of the participants reported greater than the scale mid
point (3) in dominating. Therefore. it is concluded that integrating and obliging are
mostly used while dominating is not used very commonly.

The results in Table 2 also show that similarities in integrating (M 1 4.34. 81)
0.38 for similarity from conﬂict styles; M = 4.26. SD = 0.27 for similarity from items)
and in obliging (M = 4.36. SD = 0.36 for similarity from conﬂict styles: M 1‘ 4.26. SD
0.25 for similarity from items) are higher than similarities in avoiding (M = 4.16. SI) ‘—
0.44 for similarity from conﬂict styles; M = 4.18. SD = 0.36 for similarity from items)

and in dominating (M = 4.18. SD = 0.36 for similarity from conﬂict styles; M = 4.07. SI)

.—_- 0.33 for similarity from items).

The hypothesis predicted that. if employees have more similar preferences for
conﬂict management styles with the employees with whom they communicate in the
organization. they will be more satisfied with their jobs. The research question asked
whether there is any difference among the styles regarding the relationship between the
resultant balanced style andjob satisfaction. For the hypothesis and the research question.
two regression analyses were conducted for the dependent variable (iob satisfaction). as
shown Tables 3 and 4.

Effects of Similarities from Styles in Conﬂict Management Styles on Job Satisfaction

The regression analysis showed significance. adj. R2 = .32. F (8. 124) II 8.79. p
I<.001 (See Table 3). Integrating (B = .489. t = 5.74.p < .001) and similarity in
integrating (B = .23. t = 2.47. p = .02) predicted job satisfaction. whereas avoiding
(B : —.01,t= -0.10.p —I .92). dominating (B = .07, t = 1.00. p I .32). obliging (B 2.15.!
II 1.62. p 'I .1 l ) and similarities in avoiding (B = .04, t = 0.43. p I .67). dominating
(B = —.02, t = -0.26. p I .80) and obliging (B = -.15, t = —1.70. p I- .09) did not predict
job satisfaction.

Various results showed that there was minimum collinearity among eight
predictors (i.e.. Avoiding. dominating. integrating. obliging. similarity in avoiding.
similarity in dominating. similarity in integrating. and similarity in obliging). Tolerance
of the predictors ranges from .62 to .96. and Variance Inﬂation Factor (VIF) ranges from
1.04 to 1.61.

Effects of Similarities from Items in Conﬂict Management Styles on Job Satisfaction

The regression analysis showed significance. calf. R2 = .34. F (8. 124) II 79}. p

.001 (See Table 4). Integrating predicted job satisfaction. B = .47. I II 5.47. p s: .001.
whereas avoiding (B = —.01, t = —0.07. p : .95). dominating (B = .06. I II 0.73. p .47).
obliging (B = .18. t = 1.96. p I .05). similarities in avoiding (B = .05. 1‘:— —0.60. p -' .55).
integrating (B = .09. t = 1.15.}? ; .25). dominating (B = —.02. t = —0.26. p .79). and
obliging (B = -—.10, t = —1.36. p = .18) did not predictjob satisfaction.

Various results showed that there was minimum collinearity among eight
predictors (i.e.. Avoiding. dominating. integrating. obliging. similarity in avoiding.
similarity in dominating. similarity in integrating. and similarity in obliging). Tolerance
of the predictors ranges from .64 to .94. and Variance Inﬂation Factor (VIF) ranges from

l.()6 t0 I.57.

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

The data were partly consistent with the hypothesis predicting a. positive
relationship between similarity in conﬂict management styles and job satisfaction. The
finding is that the similarity from styles in integrating as a balanced style is positively
related to employee job satisfaction.

Implication for Conﬂict Management Styles

Conﬂict literature has conceptually supported the five style paradigm (e.g.. Blake
& Mouton. 1964; Rahim. 1983; Thomas. 1976). and Rahim and Magner’s (1995)
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) reported acceptable fit indexes for a five factor
model. but it has been empirically difficult to differentiate among integrating.
compromising. and obliging styles (cf.. Weider-Hatfield. 1988). The current study
showed a four factor (i.e. dominating, avoiding. integrating. obliging) model with
acceptable fit indexes using Korean participants. The Rahim Organizational Conflict
Inventory 11 (ROC-II) has been widely used by conﬂict management research in Korea
(Kim. Wang. Kondo. & Kim. 2007; Lee. 2002); however. only reliabilities are usually
reported. Although the inventory was developed in the US. the current study shows that
R( )C II is an acceptable measurement scale with four factors in Korea.

Particularly. the findings show that similarity in integrating is positively related
to employee job satisfaction. This can be interpreted to mean that similarity in integrating

is a real balanced state whereas similarities in domination. avoidance. and submission do

24

not reflect a balanced state. Employees who similarly choose integrating in a conﬂict
situation will perceive that the other party has high concern for the other party. This
perception makes each employee more collaborative. Compared to avoiding and
dominating. integrating leads to positive organizational outcomes. such as individual and
team effectiveness (De Dreu & Van de Vliert. 1997). innovative solutions to challenging
problems (De Dreu & Van de Vliert. 1997). higher-quality decisions. and stronger
relationships (Tjosvold. 1998). Integrating itself is important as an ideal conﬂict
management style. but similarity in integrating with coworkers with whom each
employee communicates is also an important factor to consider at the workplace.
Implication for Similarities

The similarity scores in conﬂict management styles were used as predictors in
the linear regressions. The similarity scores were computed from the absolute difference
between participants’ own scores and their coworkers’ scores. These diﬂ‘ercnce scores
have been pervasively used in organizational behavior research (Edwards. 1994) and in
personality research (Watson. Hubbard. & Wiese. 2000). In spite of their widespread use.
difference scores suffer from some methodological problems (Edwards. 1994). The
current study shares these problems. One of the main problems is failure to compute the
reliability of difference scores. According to the well-known formula (Guilford. 1954).
the reliability of difference scores can be articulated in terms of reliabilities of the pre-
scores and post-scores. When participants’ scores and their coworkers‘ scores are
considered as the pre-scores and the post-scores. the reliability of the pre-scores are very
similar to the reliability of the post-scores because participants’ coworkers also are

participants in the current study. As a result. the reliability of the difference scores is not

2:3

obtained with this method. Moreover. the absence of the reliability of the difference
scores makes it difficult to evaluate measurement errors of the difference scores.

When the difference scores are computed from participants’ scores and their
coworkers‘ scores. the assumption of independent observation is violated because
participants‘ coworkers are also participants in the current study. As a result. the
significant tests may be biased and misleading. Finally. if the difference scores are used
as an independent variable. the range of the variable is restricted and subsequently
reduces the explained variance (Edwards. 1994).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This research represents a theory-driven examination of how similarities in
conﬂict management styles among employees in communication networks relate to job
satisfaction. For this. information on all communication networks within organizations
was acquired and an effect ofa group of employees with whom each employee
communicates was investigated. Usually cognitive inconsistency is a hypothetical
construct. so it was measured indirectly by the strength of attempts to decrease it in
consistency research (Oshikawa. 1970), but this study tried to measure imbalance directly
through the differences among coworkers in conﬂict management styles. In spite of these
merits. the study has several limitations.

First. the study could not determine whether the disparity between the real
similarity and the perceived similarity might have led to the result. Measuring the
perceived similarity may address the other possibility. When asked to report their
coworkers‘ conﬂict management styles. the results would provide participants’

perceptions on their coworkers’ conﬂict management styles. If participants are asked to

evaluate their coworkers’ conﬂict management styles. it also would not violate the
assumption ofobservation independence. Thus. the similarities in conﬂict management
styles should be assessed by this method as well.

Second. other X 5 should be examined. The current study only focused on
similarities in examining a balanced state. Other factors may lead to significant effects on
the triadic relationships. For example. balanced styles could be different based on the
relative status of the two parties. That is. each employee’s referent role as superior.
subordinate. or peer will affect his or her cognitive balance. Korean employees are
usually dominating with subordinates. compromising with peers. and obliging with
superiors (Lee. 2002). Considering that the participants of the study were Korean
employees in Korea. this issue suggests that various pairs of styles can be possible Xs in
the triads. subsequently inﬂuencingjob satisfaction. Therefore. various Xs should be
addressed in future research.

Conclusion

It is very likely that employees will have conﬂict with those with whom they
interact within organizations. How they manage conﬂict inﬂuences not only the
psychological well-being of employees but also their organizational behaviors. The
current findings show that similarity in integrating as a balanced conﬂict management
style with coworkers was positively associated with employeejob satisfaction. This
finding implies that cognitive balance leads to effects on organizational behaviors. Better
understanding of cognitive balance at the workplace is valuable for organizations. Further
research on the relationship between conﬂict management and job satisfaction may lead

to useful extensions of Balance Theory.

Appendix I.

Instruction: Here is a list of all the employees of your organization. Please indicate how often you speak

with each person at work on a regular basis about work-related activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department Name Never Hardly Sometimes Frequently _ Alway sh- l
,‘Position l
*—— '-_H 1
I 2 3 4 5 j
_. I 2 3 4 —“’""S ._ r- .-. 1
l 2 3 4 t- _- _-.§e__
l 2 3 4 — — -3..._---_
_ h__ __ l 2 3 __ 4 5
T“ — l 2 3 4 5 - _- _
T I 2 3 4 _ g “i
— I 2 3 4 ‘ ‘1?“ ‘“ f
in l-
i -—~—— - .
I 2 3 4 IS— — —. .4
l 2 3 4 " -§___.__
l 2 3 4 «— -§_-
T I 2 3 4 5 ‘ '1
l" —- —— —.
_l l 2 3 4 5 _ H 7
T - I 2 3 4 -‘ 5 — 1
T 1 3 3 4 “-52..- e-
L. - __ m 4
»—— I 2 3 ” 4 “5..- _ J:
r—l)—————..__.___.__
1 2 3 4 3n. _
_ L“ 1
i—T—TT-T__l l 2 3 4 .§_ _--

 

 

 

Appendix II

I'Vii'c ( 'mi/Iic'l .I-Iurmgement Styles

.‘II'UIL/ULQ
l .

'uJ IJ

Fr

(Jt

I attempt to avoid being “put on the spot" and try to keep my conﬂicts to myself.

I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with my partner.

I try to stay away from disagreements with my partner.

I avoid disagreeable encounters with my partner.

I try to keep the disagreements between my partner and myself to a minimum in order to ilVUId
hard feelings. *

I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my partner.*

Dominating

l.

«$4;th

I use my inﬂuence to get my ideas accepted.*

I use my authority to make decisions in my favor.

I use my expertise to make decisions in my favor.*

I am generally ﬁrm in pursuing my side of issues.

I sometimes use my power to win a competitive edge over my partner.

Integral(Hg/Compmmising

O'JI-E.L’JIJ

9.x.“

I try to ﬁnd a middle course to resolve impasses.*

I usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.

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

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

I try to investigate issues with my partner to ﬁnd a solution acceptable to both of us.

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

I try to work with my partner to ﬁnd solutions to problems which satisfy our expectations.
I exchange accurate information with my partner to solve problems together.

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

I I). I collaborate with my partner to come up with decisions acceptable to both of us.*
I l . I try to work with my partner to gain a proper understanding of a problem.*

()Higing

01-9—th—

?‘

I generally try to satisfy the needs of my partnerf"

I usually accommodate the wishes of my partner.

I give in to the wishes of my partner.

I usually make concessions to my partner.

I often go along with the suggestions of my partner.
I try to satisfy the expectations of my partner.*

./I #7 Sui (”s/2m (on

UILDJIJ—

“99°89

I am satisﬁed with being able to keep busy all the time.*

I am satisﬁed with the chance to be “somebody“ in the community.

I am satisﬁed with the way my boss handles his or her workers.*

I am not satisﬁed with the chance to do things for other people.*

I am satisﬁed with the chance to do something that makes use of my abilities.*
I am satisﬁed with the way company policies are put into practice.

I am satisﬁed with the freedom to use my own judgn1ent.*

I am satisﬁed with the chance to try my own methods of doing the job.

I am satisﬁed with the working conditions.

(I. I am not satisfied with the way my coworkers get along with each other.

I I. I am satisﬁed with the praise I get for doing a good job.
I2. I am not satisﬁed with the feeling of accomplishment | get from the job.
I3. I would recommend thisjob to a friend."‘
I4. I ﬁnd real enjoyment in my job.
.Nu/e. * w as excluded for acceptable reliabilities and/or acceptable C FA results in the ﬁnal analy ses'.

Appendix III
Demographic information
I. Your age?

2. Your gender? H Male i 3 Female
3. Your ethnic background (check one)
Caucasian ‘ Hispanic
African American , Paciﬁc Islander
Native American ' ' Other (Please specify) __ _q_ _

Asian American

4. Please mark the_highest level of education you have received.

! ‘= Some High School Associates Degree

High School Degree "7 Bachelor’s Degree

Some College Currently Attending a Graduate School
Fl Currently Attending a College 71 Graduate Degree

Other (Please Describe) ___

 

”in-king experience
I. List your most reeentjub and the number of years you have been employed there:

Most recent job:

Number of years at your most recent job:

 

2. In your currentjob, how many hours do you work per week? ~gg__~_______-__ Hours

3. How would you describe your currentjob (you may check more than one)?

Admin/Support Human Resources
Finance : Management
Healthcare Public Service
+ ‘ Hourly/Skilled Sales
Technology . Other(Specify) _ ___» 1_ _ 7g

Appendix IV
Table I. Relia/viltties. ("F4 Results and (.‘orrelations

 

B_e_l_iglwilities and Correlations

 

Avoiding Dominating Integrating ()hliging Job Satisfaction

 

Conﬂict
Management Styles

Avoiding (.77)

Dominating . l l (.8l )
Integrating -.l l -.06 (.82)
()h/iging .23M -.09 .32” (.78)
Job satisfaction -.02 -.0l .44” .26” (.86)

 

C,‘[iA...I:QSu|_t§

Contrast with baseline modeL___

 

 

 

3 ' 3 / 3 RMSI-ZA NFI
X ‘1] X df Xdiffercncc GP] AGF' CFI
_ _ Mfditferencc
Conflict
Management
Styles
Base/incttme- 637.4 l04 6.03'” - .64 .53 .39 .l8 .3!)
factor)
l‘tNlI‘j/tICIUI‘ l54.6 98 l.58** 78.80“ .90 .87 .93 .06 .84
Job 513 20 2.57** .93 .87 .93 .I0 756’”
satisfaction
Note. _ ___. *—

*p ' .05. **/7 .OI
Reliabilities are reported in parentheses on the diagonal.

V‘d
Ex;

lahle 2. Descriptive Statistics ofConﬂict Styles. Similarities in Conﬂict Styles and Job Satisfaction

 

(,‘on tli_c_t_StVles

 

Avoiding Dominating Integrating ()bliging Job Satisfaction
Mean 3.l6 2.62 3.58 3.45 3.27
Median 3.25 2.67 3.6 3.5 3.25
Mode 3 2 4 3.5 3
SI) 0.73 0.77 0.62 0.58 0.63
Range I -4.75 l-4 2.6-5 2.25-5 l.75—5

 

§itni|_ar_i_tigs_fts_n.n Conﬂict Styles

h1ean

l letlian
il lot/e
SD
Range

 

Similaritr in

Similarity in

Similarity in

Similaritt' in

 

_.4_\_'_oitling Dominating Integrating (.illliging___ ___
4.l6 4.l8 4.34 4.36
4.25 4.24 4.44 4.45
4.5 4.5 4.45 4.5
0.44 0.36 0.38 0.36
2.l7-4.97 2.33-4.83 l.84-4.9 l.94-4.88

 

Similarities from Items in Conflict SILIes

 

Similaritr in

Similaritv in

Sintilaritt' in

Similaritt' in

 

___ .-h'oicling Dominating Integrating ”HEY-Sm _
Mean 4.0l 4.07 4.26 4.26
.l [Ct/It”? 4.06 4.” 4.27 4.28
Mode 4. 4.75 4.33 4.60 4.25
SD 0.36 0.33 0.27 0.25
Range 2.35-4.86 _.33-4.6l 3.55-4.65 3.5-4.68

 

l‘ahle 3. The Effects ofCon/Iiet Stiles and Similaritiesfrom Conflict Styles on Satisfaction.

 

9.0!) His). 53125
Avoiding
Dominating
Integrating
Obliging

Sjmilarities from__Conﬂict

Soles

Avoiding
Dominating
Integrating
Obliging

 

SE. 1! t
- 0.0! 0.07 -.0l -0. to
0.06 0.06 .07 I .00
0.50 0.09 .49 574*“
0.16 0.l0 .IS 1.62
0.05 0. l 3 .04 0.43
-0.03 0.l3 -.02 -0.26
0.37 0.15 .23 147*
-0.26 0.t6 -.l5 -l.70

 

[7(8. I24) : 8.79.p < .001. adjusted R: = .32

 

\_ote “5.)? "1 .00l. “‘ p <:: .0l. "‘ p s .05

Table 4. The Eﬂet'ts o/‘Con/Iict Styles and Similarities/rum Items ofCon/lict Styles on Jul? .S‘atis/aetion.

 

(_"__tmllict Styles
Avoiding
Dominating
Integrating
Obliging

Similarities from Items

 

Avoiding
Dominating
Integrating

Obliging

 

B 5.13.. [3’ i
-0.01 0.07 -.01 ~0.07
0.05 0.06 .00 0.73
0.48 0.09 .47 5.47m
0.20 0. i 0 . I8 1.90
0.09 0.14 .05 0.00
-004 0.15 -02 -020
0.21 0.18 .09 1.15
-0.26 0.19 -.10 -l.36

 

F(8. 124) = 7.93. p < .001. adjusted R3 = .30

 

Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .OI. * p < .05

REFERENCES

Aronson. E.. & Cope. V. (I968). My enemy’s enemy is my friend. Journal o/‘l’ersmzaliti'
& Social Psychology. 8. 8-12.

Blake. R. R.. & Mouton, .I. 8. (I964). Managerial grid. Houston. TX: Gulf.

Brass. D. J . (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. I 3. 39-79.

Brewer. N.. Mitchell. R, & Weber. N. (2002). Gender role. organizational status. and
conﬂict management styles. The International Journal of Conﬂict
Management, 13. 78-94.

Brief. A. P.. & Roberson. L. (I989). .Iob attitude organization: An exploratory study.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1 9, 717-727.

Chcloha. R.. & Farr. .I. (1980). Absenteeism. job involvement. and job satisfaction in an
organizational setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65. 467-473.

(Then. Y.. Tjosvold, D.. & Fang. S. S. (2005). Working with foreign managers: C on Ilict
management for effective leader relationships in China. The International
Journal of Conﬂict Management, 16. 265-286.

Chang. H-K.. & Cho. Y-J. (2006). The difference of teachers‘job satisfaction according
to their conﬂict management styles. Journal of Fishery Marine Science
Education, I 8. 379-389.

Corbett. J. M.. Marti, R.. Wall, T. D..& Clegg. C. W. (I989). Technological coupling as a
predictor of intrinsic job satisfaction: A replication study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior; 10. 91-95.

Cranny. C. 1.. Smith. P. C.. & Stone. E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people/eel ahoat

theirjobs and how it aﬂects their performance. New York. NY: Lexington
Book.

Curry. T. .I.. & Emerson, R. M. (I970). Balance theory: A theory of interpersonal
attraction? Sociometry. 33. 216-238.

De Dreu. C. K. W. (I 997). Productive conﬂict: The importance of conﬂict management
and conﬂict issue. In C. K. W. D. Dreu & E. V. d. Vliert (Eds). living conﬂict
in organizations (pp. 9-22). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

De. Dreu. C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear
relationship between task conﬂict and innovation in teams. Journal of
Management, 32. 83—107.

De Dreu. C. K. W.. & Van de Vliert. E. (I997). Using conﬂict in organizations. I.ontlo1'.:
Sage.

[)e Dreu. C. K. W.. & Weingart. L. (2003). Task versus relationship conﬂict. team
performance. and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of"
Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.

DcChurch. L. A.. & Marks. M. A. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conﬂict: The
role of conﬂict management. The International Journal ofconﬂict
Management, 12. 4-22.

Downcy. K.. Hellriegel. D.. Phelps. M.. & Slocum. .I. (1975). Organizational climate and
job satisfaction: A comparative analysis. Journal ofBusiness Research, 2. 233-
248.

Duchon. D.. Green. S. G. & Taber. T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal
assessment of antecedents. measures. and consequences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 56-60.

liagl y. A. H.. & Chaiken. S. (I993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando. FL: Harcourt
Brace.

Iridwards. .I. R. (200] ). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods. 4.
265-287.

Iiisenhardt. K.. & Schoonhoven, C. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding

team. strategy. environment. and growth among US. semiconductor ventures.
1978-] 988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35. 504-529.

[ipitropaki. 0.. & Martin. R. (1999). The impact of relational demography on the quality
of leader-member exchanges and employees’ work attitudes and well-bein g.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72. 23 7-240.

Fang. C. F.. '& Kenrick. D. T. (2002). Interpersonal relations and group processes-
repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitudes similarity.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 83. Ill-125.

(ilisson. C .. & Durick. M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment in human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarter/1 z
33. 61-81.

UV
\1

(iraen. G. Novak. M.. & Sommerkamp. P. (1982). The effects of leader-member
exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: testing a dual

attachment model. Organizational behavior and human per/ornumce. 3t), 10‘}-
131.

(iuilford. .I. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ilamilton. R. Ii. & Wright. J. D. (I986). The state of the masses. New York: Aldine.
Ileider. F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.

IIolt. J. L. & DeVore. C. J. (2005). Culture. gender. organizational role. and styles of
conﬂict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal ofIntercultural
Relations. 29. 165-196.

Insko. C. A. (1981). Balance theory and phenomenology. In R. E. Petty. T. M. Ostrom &
T. C. Brock (Eds). Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp.309-338). Ilillsdale.
NJ: Erlbaum.

.lehn. K. A. ( I995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conﬂict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40. 256-282.

Jehn. K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conﬂict types and dimensions in
organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly. 42. 530-557.

Jehn. K. A.. & Bendersky. C. (2003). Intragroup conﬂict in organizations: A contingency
perspective on the conﬂict-outcome relationship. Research in ()rganizatiomt/
Behavior: 25, 187-242.

.Iordan. N. ( l 953). Behavioral forces that are a function of attitudes and ofcognitive
organization. Human Relations, 6, 47-56.

Kim. T-Y.. Wang. C.. Kondo. M.. & Kim. T-H. (2007). Conﬂict management styles: The
differences among the Chinese. Japanese and Koreans. International Journal of
Conﬂict Management, I 8. 23-41.

Krackhardt. D.. & Porter. L. W. (1985). When friends leave: A structural analysis of the

relationship between turnover and stayers’ attitudes. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 30. 242-261.

Ice. J. (1998). Effective maintenance communication in superior-subordinate
relationships. Western Journal of Communication. 62. 181-208.

Lee. J. (1999). Leader-member exchange. gender. and members‘ communication
expectations with leaders. Communication Quarterly. 4 7. 415-429.

Lee. C-W. (2002). Referent role and styles of handling interpersonal conﬂict: Evidence
from a national sample of Korean local government employees. The
International Journal of Conﬂict Management. I 3. 127—141.

Lee. J.. & Jablin, F. ( I 995). Maintenance communication in superior-subordinate wort.
relationships. Human Communication Research. 22. 220-257.

Lee. II. 0.. & Rogan. R. (1 (1991). A cross-cultural comparison of organizational conﬂict

management behaviors. International Journal ofCon/Iict Management. .-.’. I81-
I99.

Leung. K.. & Tjosvold. D. (1998). Conﬂict for doing business in the Pacific Rim. In K.
Leung & D. W. Tjosvold (Eds). Conﬂict management in the Asia Pacific.
Singapore: Wiley.

Locke. E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed).
Handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1 350).
Chicago: Rand Mcnally.

Lovelace. K.. Shapiro. D. L.. & Weingart, L. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new
product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict
communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal. 4 4. 779-793.

Markiewicz. D.. Devine, 1.. & Kausilas, D. (2000). Friendships of women and men at

work: Job satisfaction and resource implications. Journal o/‘Managerial
Psychology, I 5. 161-201.

Money. R. B.. & Graham. J. 1.. (I999). Salesperson Performance. pay. and job
satisfaction: Tests of a model using data collected in the United States and
Japan. Journal of International Business Studies. 30, 149-172.

Mon ge. P. R.. & Contractor. N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New
York: Oxford university press.

Mueller. 8.. & Lee. J. (2002). Leader-member exchange and organizational
communication satisfaction in multiple contexts. Journal of Business

Communication, 39. 220-244.

Muraskin. J .. & Iverson. M. A. (1958). Social expectancy as a function ofjudged social
distance. The Journal of Social Psychology. 48. 11-14.

Neumann. E. (1993). Organizational predictors of expatriate job satisfaction. Journal of
International Business Studies, 2] , 61-81 .

()shikawa. S. (1970). Consumer pre-decision conﬂict and post-decision dissonance.
Behavioral Science. 15. 132-140.

3S)

Petty. R. E., & C acioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: (.‘lassic and
contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa; Wm. C. Brown.

Pollock. T. G.. Whitbred. R. C.. & Contractor. N. S. (2000). Social information processing
and job characteristics: A simultaneous test of two theories with implications
forjab satisfaction. Human Communication Research. 26. 292-330.

Pondy. L. (1992). Reflections on organizational conﬂict. Journal of Organizational
Behavior: 25. 261-284.

I’oner. I.. Lawler, E.. & Hackman. R. (1975). Behavior in organization. New York: Mc
Graw Hill.

Putnam. L. L.. & Poole. M. S. (1987). Conﬂict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin. L. I..
Putnam. K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds). Handbook of organizational
communication (pp. 549-599). Newbury Park. CA: Sage.

Putnam. L. L.. & Wilson. C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational
conﬂicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (lid).
Communication Yearbook (Vol. 6, pp. 629-652). Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.

Rahim. M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conﬂict. Academy of
Management Journal. 26. 368-376.

Rahim. M. A.. & Magner. N. R. (1995). Conﬁnnatory factor analysis of the styles of
handling interpersonal conﬂict: First-order factor model and its invariance
across groups. Journal oprplied Psychology, 8!), 122-132.

Salancik. G. R.. & Pfeffer. J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly. 23. 224-253.

Schwenk. C. R. ( I 990). Effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision
making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 47. 161-176.

Simons. T.. & Peterson. R. (2000). Task conﬂict and relationship conﬂict in top
management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal oprp/ied
Psychology, 85. 102-1 1 1.

Stone. R. A. (1995). Workplace homicide: A time for action. Business Horizons, 38. 3-10.

Thomas. K. W. (1976). Conﬂict and conﬂict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed).

Handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago:
Rand McNaIIy.

40

Thomas. K. W.. & Schmidt. W. H. (1976). A survey of managerial interests with respect
to conﬂict. The Academy of Management Journal. I 9. 315-318.

Tjosvold. D. (1998). The cooperative and competitive goal approach to conﬂict:
Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: A nlinternatioiutl
Review. 47. 285-313.

'l‘josvold. D.. & Chia. L. C. (1989). Conﬂict between managers and workers: The role of
co-operation and competition. Journal of Social Psychology 129. 235-247.

Tjosvold. D.. Hui. C.. & Sun. H. (2004). Can Chinese discuss conﬂict openly? Field and
experimental studies of face dynamics in China. Group Decision and
Negotiation. 13. 351-373.

'l‘josvold. D., & Sun, H. (2002). Understanding conﬂict avoidance: Relationship.
motivations. actions and consequences. The International Journal of Conﬂict
Management, I 3. 142-164.

Wall. 1.. & C allister. R. (1995). Conﬂict and its management. Journal oflflanagement.
2], 515-558.

Watson. D., Hubbard. B.. & Wiese. D. (2000). General traits of personality and aﬂ’ectivity
as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and
partner-ratings. Journal of Personality & Sales Management. 68. 413-449.

Watson. D.. & Slack. A. K. (1993). General factors of affective temperament and their

relation to job satisfaction over time. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 54, 181-202.

Wayne. S.J.. Shore. L.. & Liden. R. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader—
member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy oflllanagement
Journal, 40. 82-1 1 I.

Weider-Hatfield. D. (1988). Assessing the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II
(‘ROCI-II). Management Communication Quarterly. I. 350-366.

Weiss. D. J .. Dawis. R. V.. England. (1 W.. & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota studies in vocational
rehabilitation, 45.

chley. K. N.. Alexander. R. A.. Greenawalt. J. P.. & Couch, M. A. ( I980). Attitudinal

congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal evaluations in manager-
subordinate dyads. Academy of Management .Iournal. 23. 320-330.

41

Winstead. B.A.. Derlega. V. J.. Montgomery. M. J ., & Pilkingston. C. (I995). The quality
of friendships at work and job satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, I 2. 199-21 5.

Woodside. A. G. & Chcbat. J. (2001). Updating Heider‘s balance theory in consumer
behavior: A Jewish couple buys a German car and additional buying-consuming
transformation stories. Psychology and Marketing. 18, 475-495.

Zajonc. R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal o/‘Permnaliti' and
Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9. 1-27.

   

111111111111111111