Wudpecker Journal of Public Administration Vol. 1(2), pp. 020 - 027, October 2013

2013 Wudpecker Journals

Conflict management strategies in organizations 1

2

Ada Julius Agba and Ada Mary Juliana 1

2

Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria. Department of Educational Foundation and Administration, Cross River College of Education, Awi, Akamkpa, Cross River State, Nigeria. *Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]. Accepted 14 September 2013 Throughout the centuries, conflict has been observed as everyday phenomenon in private and working spheres of human activity. In modern times conflict when managed properly and carefully can become the most important tool in the development of organization. This study examines conflict management strategies in organizations, with an aim to determine the reasons underlying it, its sources, its handling styles, as well as the individual characteristics affecting the choice of conflict resolution style. The study, based on the literature review of some published works, reveals that although all conflict management styles are used within organization; the most frequently used conflict handling style among world population is compromising, as people’s approval tend to compromise toward group mean. The work concludes that nobody can be characterized as showing a single inflexible style of dealing with conflict; that one’s choice of a conflict management style is a function of the specific situation and one’s basic orientation of behavioral disposition towards conflict. It therefore recommends that administrators must take it as a task to accept conflict evaluation as part of their role and develop creative abilities that are necessary to deal with it. Hence managers should ascertain the presence of conflict, its basic sources, the level of intensity and the ways of furthering the objectives of conflict resolution. Key words: Conflict, conflict resolution, organization, management strategies.

INTRODUCTION Conflict is natural everyday phenomenon in all private and working spheres. It is an unavoidable component of human activity that may be viewed as a situation in which the concern of two or more individuals appear to be incompatible (Darling and Fagliasso,1990) and which tends to occur when individuals or groups perceive that others are preventing them from attaining their goals. It is an interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities, that is, individual, group or organization (Ratim, 2000). In the 1930s, and 1940s, conflict was viewed as undesirable phenomenon. However, that traditional viewpoint of conflict gave way to the behavioral viewpoint of the 1960s in which conflict is seen as an inevitable fact of organizational life to be recognized and addressed (Jones and White, 1985), and the contemporary integrationist viewpoint, in which conflict is viewed as potentially useful to energize a company, point out problems and unify a group (Banner, 1985). Some managers and employees view conflict as negative and something to be avoided at all costs or immediately resolved (Darking and Fasliasso, 1999). Should this be

the situation? Conflict today is not considered to be a creative force for the business and the individual, because if we regard differences of opinion as valuable source of cross-fertilization, they begin to enrich our experiences. Managed in a positive fashion, because difficult situation and relationships are said to be ones that make people grow, conflict presents exciting possibilities about the future (Nina and Sanja, 2009). Today every successful management depends heavily on an ability to handle conflict effectively as observed by Mintsbers (1975). Moreover, it is important to note that managers are no longer the only ones who need to hone their conflict resolution skills. The popularity of teamwork, increased market competition, globalization, resource shortages, more rapid business peace, changes in technology, job insecurity, and frequent restructuring processes, made efficient conflict management skill essential at all organizational instances. In order for someone to function effectively at any level within organizations, conflict management skills become important prerequisites (Nina and Sanja, 2006). Organizations worldwide are plagued with conflict and industrial unrest. A good number of people or groups that

021

Wudpecker J. Pub. Admin.

make up these organizations are oblivious of the proper knowledge of these conflicts and the choice of the proper strategy in handling the conflict situations. A good number of employers still feel that every conflict situation has only negative effects on their organization. Moreover, much attention is not given to the examination of the relationship between individual characteristics and conflict handling style as a valuable tool for improving workplace relations and productivity. These have great damages on organizations. Hence, the need for a way forward in conflict handling strategies. The general objective of this study is to identify conflict management strategies in organizations. The specific objectives of the study are to: find out the different sources of conflict in organizations; Identify the different conflict management styles and the style predominantly used to resolve conflict in organizations; and ascertain the best conflict management style for organization. Significance of the study The study shall be of immense benefit to managers of organizations in their daily course of carrying out their activities faced with conflict situations. The study will inform managers of their different conflict situations, their sources and the best styles of resolving them. The work shall also be of great benefit to the development of individual employees, groups and organizations, as the findings will provide meaningful information to broaden the existing literature. Review of related literature Literature in any field of work forms the foundation upon which all future works in this particular field are built. Thus we shall demonstrate the extension of knowledge which is the hallmark of modern scientific research by reviewing some literature on conflict management in organizations. Conflict, according to David (2004), is the pursuit of incompatible interests and goals by different groups. For Henz et al. (2011), conflict is a part of organizational life and may occur within individual, between individuals, between individual and group, and between groups. Conflict can be managed in different ways, some focusing on interpersonal relationship and others on structural changes (Henz et al., 2007). Conflict resolution scholars argue that conflict has ontological basis in human needs and it is the demand which causes violence, conflict or causes resolvable difference to degenerate into armed violence or armed conflict. The conception and resolution of conflict have brought about terms like conflict prevention, peace making, third party intervention, mediation and negotiation, preventive diplomacy, peace keeping, peace

building (David, 2004). The conflict situation as viewed by Mcshane and Glinow (2000) often escalates through a series of episodes and shift from task related to socio-emotional conflict. Therefore conflict tends to increase under conditions of goal incompatibility, differentiation, task interdependence, scarce resources, ambiguity, and communication problems. The cycle of conflict can start with just an inappropriate comment, misunderstanding, or an undiplomatic action. This behavior sends a signal to the other party that some sort of conflict exists. If the first party did not intend to demonstrate conflict, then the second party’s response may create that perception. If the conflict remains task related, both parties may resolve it through logical analysis. However, the communication process has enough ambiguity that a few words may trigger an emotional response and set the stage for socio-emotional conflict. Some structural conditions increase the likelihood of conflict escalation. Employees who are more confrontational and less diplomatic also tend to escalate conflict. Task related conflict helps people to recognize problems, identify a variety of solutions and understand the issues involved. Mcshane and Glinow (2000), view conflict as a catalyst for change and improved decision making. It occurs when people offer new perspectives and these views are debated. The consequence between groups and organization potentially improves team dynamics within those units. Teams increase their cohesiveness and task orientation when they face an external threat. The team work efficiently towards self goals –thereby increasing team’s productivity. On the darker side of conflict in organizations, when intergroup conflict become emotionally charged, fears become so cohesive that they are no longer motivated to seek outside information. In other words a high level of socio-emotional conflict may lead to group think, the tendency of highly cohesive groups to value consensus at the price of decision quality. In individual level, socio-emotional conflict increases the level of frustration, job dissatisfaction, and stress. In the longer term, this leads to higher turn-over or absenteeism (McShane and Glineo, 2000). Types of conflicts There are many types of conflicts as viewed by Nina and Sanja (2009). Firstly, conflicts can be constructive (functional, beneficial) or destructive (dysfunctional). Constructional conflicts are beneficial to the organization (they boost organizational effectiveness) and are therefore welcomed, while destructive conflicts diminish organizational effectiveness and are therefore not desirable. However, attempts to stimulate constructive often inadvertently trigger destructive conflict.

Agba and Juliana

Secondly, conflict depending on whether participants in a conflict situation are individuals, groups, organizations or nations could be classified into intrapersonal, interpersonal, intra-groups, inter-organizational, intercultural conflict. Intrapersonal conflict result from goal incompatibility between two parties, intra-group conflict occurs when there are disagreements between two groups members, inter-group conflict arise when two or more groups in an organization setting have incompatible goals, inter-organizational conflict occurs when there are disagreement between cultures or countries. Thirdly conflicts can be cognitive (task, substance, structure) or affective (relationship, interpersonal, social, emotional). Cognitive occurs when parties argue over alternations related to a task, in other words when there are differences in opinion relating to work or business decisions. Affective conflict results over interpersonal disagreement not directly related to the task, meaning that it pertains to personality differences and interpersonal tensions. As Jehn (1995) appealingly defined when talked about task and relationship conflict within groups, relationship conflict exists when there are interpersonal incompatibilities among group members, which typically include tension, animosity, and annoyance among group members within a group, whereas task conflict exist when there are disagreements among group members about the content of the task being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions. Cognitive conflict and affective conflict tend to follow each other. For instance, cognitive conflict may be taken personally by group members and generate affective conflict, and affective conflict may prompt group members to criticize each other’s ideas thereby fostering cognitive conflict. However, cognitive conflict should be encouraged, while at the same time affective conflict should be discouraged. Sources of conflicts in organizations It is often said personality difference influence conflict – the phase marks the underlining causes of conflict behavior and perceptions. It is on this basis that Mcshane and Glinow (2000) identified six conditions under which conflict tends to germinate and flourish as: goal incompatibility, differentiation, task interdependence, scarce resources, ambiguity, and communication problem. Goal incompatibility occurs when people or work units have goals that interfere with each other. Differentiation occurs when people hold divergent beliefs and attitudes due to their unique backgrounds, experiences or training. Task interdependence is the degree to which team members must share common inputs, interact in the process of executing their work, or receive outcome determined partly by their mutual performance. The three levels of interdependence are: pool interdependence,

022

sequential interdependence, and reciprocal interdependence. Scarce resources generate conflict because security motivates people to compete with others who also need those resources to achieve their objectives. Ambiguity breeds conflicts because the uncertainty increases the risk that one party intends to interfere with the other party’s goals. Communication problems often occur due to the lack of opportunity, ability, or motivation to communicate effectively. There are structural approaches to conflict management according to Mcshane and Glinow (2000). This involves altering the underlying structural causes of potential conflicts. Hence they identified the main structural approaches to conflict management as: emphasizing super-ordinate goals, reducing differentiation, improving communication, and clarifying rules and procedures. Theoretical framework of analysis The mostly acknowledged and utilized framework of styles of resolving inter-personal conflict is the managerial grid developed by Thomas and Kilman (1974) and Rahim and Bonoma (1979), following the work of Blake and Mounton from 1964. That framework accounts for five styles of handling conflict: avoiding, competing (dominating), accommodating (obliging), collaborating (integrating), and compromising, determining by two dimensions in Figure 1. Rahim and Bonama (1983) labeled the two dimension “concern for self” and “concern for others”, whereas Thomas and Kilman (1974) in Brahman et al (2005), labeled them assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness is behavior intended to satisfy one’s own concerns, while cooperativeness is behavior intended to satisfy other’s concerns (Nina and Sanja, 2009). Collaboration is the only style that represents a purely win-win orientation. The other style represent variations of the win-lose approach. Avoiding- avoidance is trying to smooth over or avoid conflict situations all together. Some employees rearrange their work area of tasks to minimize interaction with certain co-workers. Competingcompetition is trying to win at the other’s expense. This style has the strongest win-lose orientation because it has the highest level of assertiveness. Accommodatinginvolves giving in completely to other side’s wishes or at least cooperating with little or no attention to your own interest. Compromising- is trying to reach a middle ground with the other party. You look for a position in which your los are offset by equally valued gains. The skill of conflict management is to apply the highest strategy for the right situation. On this basis, Mcshane and Glinow (2000) recognized the contingency approach to the conflict management on five styles of collaboration, avoiding, competing, accommodating and compromising. Collaborating style is usually the preferred approach to

023

Wudpecker J. Pub. Admin.

High (Cooperative) Obliging

Integrating (Accommodating) (Collaborating)

Concern for others (Cooperativeness)

Com promising

Avoiding

Dominating (Competing)

Low (Unassertive)

High (Assertive) Concern for self (Assertiveness)

Figure 1. A two dimensional model of conflict handling styles. Source: Nina and Sanja (2009)

conflict resolution, but it is the most appropriate approach only under certain conditions. It is specifically best when the parties do not have perfectly opposing interest and when they have enough trust and openness to share information. Collaboration is often desirable because organizational conflicts are rarely won-lose situations. There is usually some opportunity for mutual gain of the parties. Avoidance may be the best approach when the issue is trivial or as temporary tactics to cool down heated disputes. However, conflict avoidance should not be longterm solution because it increases the other party’s frustration. The competing style to conflict is usually inappropriate because organizational relationships rarely involve complete opposition. However, it may be necessary when you know you are correct and the dispute requires a quick solution, and where the other party would take advantage of more cooperative strategies. The accommodating style may be appropriate when the other party has substantially more power or the issue is not as important to you as to the other party. On the other hand, accommodating behaviors may give the other side unrealistically high expectations, thereby motivating them to seek more from you in future. In the long run it may produce more conflict rather than resolve it. However, although it may seem that collaboration is a most appropriate in all circumstances, there may be situation in which it is not in the best interest of either party to use that style. To be precise, no single style of conflict handling is always appropriate. In any given situation a particular mode of handling conflict may be suitable than others. In other words, context seems to play an integral part in conflict management, which indicates that, the choice of conflict style or strategy is

situational. Therefore many scholars suggest a situational/contingency approach to handling conflicts, which argues that the appropriateness of using a particular style depends on conflict situation (Nina and Sanja, 2009). Empirical and theoretical review of published works It is very pertinent to look into some well published works on this study. Below is a careful review of some: Nina and Sanja (2009), in their work “Conflict Management Styles in Croatian Enterprises- the Relationship between Individual Characteristics and Conflict Handling Styles” tackled Conflict management with the research questions and hypotheses: RQ1. Which conflict handling style is used predominantly by Croatian employees to resolve disputes that occur in organizational setting? And, RQ2. Are the conflict handling styles used by Croatian employees resolve disputes in organizational setting related to their demographic and work characteristics, precisely their gender, age, educational level, field work, hierarchical level, marital status or parenthood? To answer these questions, seven hypotheses based on the prevailing research findings in each area were posed. In their methodology, they employed the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict measured with 20 items (statements). Participants were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with those statements by circling a number on a five point Likert-type numerical scale ranging from 1 (practically never) to 5 (very often). The preferred conflict handling style was the predominant isolated style, the one that received the highest score out of five conflict handling styles. However there were respondents which had the same highest score for two

Agba and Juliana

conflict handling styles (which was labeled “mixed” conflict handling style preference), and those which had the same highest scores for three or more conflict handling styles (which was labeled “situational” conflict style preference), Due to displaying more than one isolated styles as the main ones, those respondents (21.6% of them) were eliminated from few analyses (those where their scores could bring incoherence and/or misinterpretation). The research results were presented according to the two research questions addressed in their work. As expected, the prevailing conflict managing style among Croatian employees is compromising. Collected data revealed that compromising is the most frequently used approach to conflict handling style. Additionally, the second most used conflict handling style among Croatian employees is accommodating except for older employees and those with graduate degree, which secondarily used collaboration as a way of conflict resolution, and for four subgroups which after compromising, showed the greatest inclination towards the mixed conflict handling style. Shiyong Peng (2000), worked on “Conflict Management among Employees of Sino-American, Sino-French, and State owned Enterprises in China”. The study focused on building on Rahim and Bonema’s conflict management model. Through a probability survey of 374 subjects from Sino-American and Sino –French Enterprises, and 150 employees from state owned enterprises in Guangdong province, China, this study found out that Chinese in foreign-invested enterprises and state owned enterprises do not differ from each other in conflict management styles such as avoiding, compromising, obliging, integrating, and dominating; the same is true for American and French employees. However, Chinese and Westerners did differ from each other in most conflict styles. The study confirms that Chinese tend to be more avoiding than western employees in conflict management regardless of organizational environment, and that both westerners and Chinese have the same tendency of adopting compromising style. Waitchalla and Radman (2006), of the graduate school of management, University of Putra, Malaysia, worked on “A Competence-based View to Conflict Management” in American Journal of Applied Sciences 3(7); 19051909, 2006. The study presents a review of conflict management from the competence-based perspective. It highlights the conflict management typologies as well as previous studies conducted using the competence model of conflict. Previous studies using this model had used students as their respondents and have a western bias. The model has been under-utilized. It focused on social settings. As such, there should be more studies using working subjects as respondents. Ogretim Munevver and Ozge (2004), in their work on “Academic Conflict Management Styles” observed that conflict has been observed as a major problem in

024

educational organizations and that with the coming of the 21st century, “Conflict became one of the most important tools in the development of organizations when carefully managed. To determine the reasons underlying conflict and how they are handled by academic and administrative staff, the sample group was random from the Universities of Istanbul. Analysis of data was done by using SPSS programmed. T- Test and one way ANOVA tests were used to determine the significant differences. DISCUSSION McShene and Glineo (2000) explained the resolution of conflict through negotiation. For them, negotiation occurs whenever two or more conflicting parties attempt to resolve their divergent goals by redefining the terms of their interdependence. People negotiate when they think that discussion can produce a more satisfactory arrangement (at least for them) in their exchange of goods and services. They observed that some writers suggest that negotiations are more successful when the parties adopt the collaboration style, whereas others caution that this conflict management style is sometime costly. It is certain any win-lose style (that is competing, accommodating) is unlikely to produce the optimal solution because the parties have not shared information necessary to discover a mutually satisfactory solution. Information is power. Sharing inflammation gives the other parties more power to leverage a better deal if the opportunity occurs. Skills may be said to often adopt a cautiously collaboratory style at the outset by sharing information slowly and determining whether the other side reciprocate. By this, they try to establish trust with the other party. It is when the win-win solution is not possible that they switch to one of the win-lose style. They enumerated four of the most important situational factors that influence negotiation as location, physical setting, and time and audience characteristics. They further classified four of the most important behaviours of negotiator to include planning and setting goals. Gathering information communicating effectively and making concession McShene and Glineo (2000) also examined third party conflict resolution as any attempt by a relatively neutral person to help the parties resolve their differences. This may range from normal labour arbitration to formal managerial intervention too resolve disagreement among employees. They enumerate four main objectives in third party conflict resolution as: i) efficiency, ii) effectiveness, iii) outcome fairness and iv) procedural fairness. They opined three types of third party dispute resolution

025

Wudpecker J. Pub. Admin.

HIGH

LEVELOF PROCESS CONTROL

LOW

Inquisition

Mediation

arbitration

Level of control

HIGH

Figure 2. Third party dispute resolution activities. Source: Mcshane and Glinow, (2000)

activities: mediation, arbitration and inquisition and classified these activities by their level of control over the process and control over the decision in Figure 2. Mediators have high control over intervention process but have little or no control over the conflict resolution decision. Arbitration has high control over the final decision and has low process control because the process is largely determined by existing due process rules. Inquisition, like arbitration have high decision control because they choose the form of conflict irresolution, and they also have high process control because they choose which information to examine and generally decide how the conflict resolution process shall be handled. The two research questions in the work of Nina and Sanja (2009) at the beginning of the survey, embodied in the objectives of the study are answered. In the first place, the dominant conflict handling styles among employees were detected, and then the relationship between demographic and work characteristics of an individual and his/her conflict handling style was explored. As clearly pointed in the work of Nina and Sanja (2009), the most frequently used conflict handling style among employees is without doubt compromising. This finding corresponds with most reviewed works in this study about compromising being the most frequently used conflict resolution style among world population. Reasons for such findings both in Nigeria and worldwide are evident from the psychological perspective; generally, people seek other people approval; tend to have good or at least tolerable interpersonal relations with their coworkers and disfavor having enemies in their working environment. Therefore compromising as a strategy that looks for mutually acceptable solution, is clearly the answer, since it brings medium benefits to both sides; it does not harm anyone particularly. More to it, conflict does not remain unsolved as when avoiding, there are no apparent winners at the expense of others as with dominating, and

one side does not have to sacrifice its benefits as collaborating conflict resolution strategy does. I agree with the position of Nina and Sanja, (2009) that the appropriateness or inappropriateness of conflict handling styles depends majorly on the situation. However, in line with Antonioni (1998), the situational approach fails to acknowledge that some individuals may not be flexible enough to use which every style is best for particular situation. Moreover, some individuals use some modes better than others depending on their temperaments or practice. Nobody can be characterized showing a single inflexible style of dealing with conflict. Conclusion

Organizations are social entities segmented into hierarchies of departments and individuals. The basic realities of organizational life stimulate comparisons, competitions and conflicts between departments and individuals. Conflict is an omnipresent feature of each of these organizational as well as dysfunctional consequences. In this paper, I have sought to address the two most important issues in this field: the determinants of conflict and the effectiveness of the different styles of conflict management. Administrators must take it as a task to accept conflict evaluation as part of their role and develop the creative abilities that are necessary to deal with it. Managers should be able to ascertain the presence of conflict, its basic sources, the level of which it manifests itself, its degree of intensity and the ways of furthering the objectives of conflict resolution. Managers should direct their attention to four issues: Is there conflict? Where is the conflict? Does it require to be managed? How best to implement effective conflict management strategy. It is essential that administrators explore various methods and techniques of conflict management. Excerpts from literature review determining the dominant

Agba and Juliana

conflict handling style tilted towards compromising. However, the overall conflict behaviors of individuals are contributions of their personal characteristics and the requirements of the circumstances within which they find themselves. I therefore agree with Kazan (2002) that one’s choice may be a function of the specific situation and one’s basic orientation or behavioral disposition towards conflict. The limitations of this work, which should be dealt with in future studies, could be identified here. Firstly, in the reviewed literature the researchers used self report data to examine preferences of conflict strategy, meaning that actual behavior was not directly observed. However, differences between an individual’s preferences for a particular type of conflict handling mode used could exist. Therefore, behavioral measures (such as direct observations, peer assessment and related methods should be added in future studies in order to assess the actual conflict handling style and hinder the drawbacks of self-reporting assessment. Secondly, the studies were cross-sectional in nature and do not examine whether individual’s conflict handling styles adapt over time, neither of the conflict strategies used addressed different situations. Hence a longitudinal survey with the intention of determining whether a conflict handling style used is a consequence of time flow, aging, experience or other situational variables, should be conducted. Thirdly, when instruments are designed to assess “general tendencies” in managing interpersonal conflicts, then items invite responses rooted in social norms may be appropriate. Recommendations Conflict and conflict management in organizations has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves. The examination of relationship between individual characteristics and conflict handling styles could be valuable for improving workplace relations and productivity. Namely, there are practical implications for understanding how individuals, depending on their demographic and work characteristics, handle conflicts. A better understanding of the contributions of individual differences to conflict management has implications for managing human resources in organizational contexts, especially for their recruitment and selection, training and development as well as motivating and rewarding. Finally, this research induces that both academics and practitioners should give more attention to identify potentially positive effects on organizational behavior and effectiveness deriving from behavioral differences associated with diverse workforce. For future studies, additional contextual variables that may relate to conflict handling styles should be explored. As such, more comprehensive and demographic and

026

work measures, such as individual goals, personality, work experience, profession, organizational commitment or cultural background, should be collected. Furthermore, future studies should examine other situational determinants of conflict handling styles such as organizational structure, communication channels, corporate culture, opponents’ demographic characteristics and power, heterogeneity of work force, importance of topic, desirable organizational outcomes, time pressure to resolve dispute, expectations of future relations between disputants, etc. REFERENCES Amason AC (1996). Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams, Academy of Manage. J. 39(1): 123 – 148. Antonioni D (1998). Relationship between the Big Five Personality Factors and Conflict Management Styles, Int. J. Conflict Manage., 9(4): 336-355. Bagshaw M (1998). Conflict Management and Mediation: Key Leadership Skills for the Millennium, Industrial and Commercial Training, 30(6): 206-208. Banner DK (1995). Conflict Resolution: A Recontextualization, Leadership & Organizational Development J. 16(1): 31-34 Brahnam SD, Margavio TM, Hignite MA, Barrier TB, Shin JM (2005). A Bender-Based Categorization for Conflict Resolution, J. Manage. Dev., 24(3): 78-94. Chen G, Tjosvold D (2002). Conflict Management and Team Effectiveness in China: The Mediating Role of Justice, Asia Pacific J. Manage., 19(4): 557-572. Darling JR, Fogliasso CE (1999). Conflict Management across Cultural Boundaries: A Case Analysis from a Multinational Bank, Eur. Bus. Rev. 99(6): 383-392. Darling JR, Walker WE (2001). Effective Conflict Management: Use of the Behavioural Style Model, Leadership & Org. Development J. 22(5): 230 – 242. David JF (2004) Peace and conflict studies: An African overview of basic concepts. Shedrck GB (ed) Earnest GW, McCaslin NL (1994). Extension Administrators Approach to Conflict Management: A Study of Relationships between Conflict Management Styles and Personality Types, J. Agri. Edu., 35(30): 1832. Friedman RA, Tidd ST, Curral SC, Tsai JC (2000). What Goes Around Comes Around: The Impact of Personal Conflict Style on Work Conflict and Stress, Int. J. Conflict Manage., 11(1): 32 – 55. Fritchie R, Leary M (1998) Resolving Conflicts in Organizations, Lemos & Crane, London. Goodwin J (2002). Auditors Conflict Management Styles: An Exploratory Study, Abacus, 38(3): 378-405. Heinz W, Mark VC, Harold K (2011) Mnagement: A

027

Wudpecker J. Pub. Admin.

Global and Entrepreneurial perspective 13th ed.Tata McGrow Hill, New Delhi Hignite MA, Margavio TM, Chin JM (200). Assessing the Conflict Resolution Profiles of Emerging Information Systems Professionals, J. Info. Syst. Edu., 13(4): 315 – 324. Hirschman C (2001). Order in the Hear, HR Magazine 46(7): 58 – 64. Jehn KA (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict, Administrative Sci. Quart. 40(2): 256 – 282. Jones TE, White CS (1985). Relationships Among Personality, Conflict Resolution Styles, and Task Effectiveness, Group & Org. Stud. 10(2): 152 – 167. Kozan MK (2002). Subcultures and Conflict Management Styles, Manag. Int. Rev. 42(1): 89-104. Lewiki RJ, Sheppard BH (1985). Choosing how to Intervene: Factors Affecting the use of Process and Outcome in Third Party Dispute Resolution, J. Occ. Behaviour, 6(1): 49-64. Mcshane SL, VonGlinow MA (2000) Organizational Behaviour McGraw Hill Companies Inc. U.S.A, 278P. Mcshulshis E (1996). Managing Employee Conflicts, HR Magazine 41(9):16.

Mintzberg H (1975). The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact, Harvard Bus. Rev., 53(4): 49-61. Nina PV, Sanja S (2009). Conflict Management Styles in Croatian Enterprises – The Relationship between Individual Characteristics and Conflict Handling Styles. Working Paper Series 9(5): 1-22. http://www.Etzg.Hr/[email protected] 09-05. Ogretimmand O (2004) Academic caph of management studies Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM, Xin KR (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance, Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1): 1 – 27. Philips E, Cheston R (1979). Conflict Resolution: What Works? California Man. Rev., 21(4): 76 – 83. Rahim MA (1983). A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict, Acad. of Man. J. 26(2): 368 – 376. Shiyong P (2000) Conflict management among employees Thomas KW (1977). Towards Multi-Dimensional Value in Teaching: The Example of Conflict Behaviours, Acad. Man. J., 2(3): 484 – 490.