Personality and Conflict Resolution Styles

Transcription

1 Violence and Conflict Resolution Contemporary Perspectives Edited by Neelam Rathee Published by Global Vision Publishing House Personality and Conflict Resolution Styles Sarita Boora* and Shanti** Conflict is a reality in everyone s life and should be considered a natural process that occurs daily. For most, conflict has negative connotations, invokes negative feelings and often leads to destruction (Lindelow & Scott, 1989). Whether the effect of conflict is good or bad depends on the strategies used to deal with it (Rahim, 1983). Dealing with conflict between and among individuals can be one of the most frustrating and uncomfortable experiences for administrators. According to Schmidt & Tannenbaum (1960), when conflict occurs strong feelings are frequently aroused, objectivity flies out the window, egos are threatened, and personal relationships are placed in jeopardy. Robbins (1974) stated any attempt by an administrator to alter a specific conflict position requires that he be knowledgeable of its origin. An understanding of the source improves the probability that the proper resolution or stimulation technique will be selected. Jones & Melcher (1982) concluded that managers not only need to analyze the conflict situation to determine the appropriate conflict management style but should also be aware that the personality of each part in the conflict must be taken into consideration. Each individual involved in a conflict may react to it differently as a result of the situational variables perceived as well as the personality of the individual. There is evidence from research that an individual s preference mode of resolving conflict is instanced by the personality characteristic of the individual (Chanin & Schneer, 1987; Jones & Melcher, 1982; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977; Stagner, 1962; Sternberg & Soriano, 1984; Terhune, 1970). According to the contingency approach presented in the management literature on conflict-handling behaviour (Filley, 1975; Thomas, 1976), the appropriateness of a particular mode for handling conflict depends upon the conflict situation. Those who are higher on affiliation needs may be more * Research Scholar, Department of Psychology, M. D. University, Rohtak. saritaboora11@gmail.com ** Department of Psychology, M. D. University, Rohtak.

2 166 Violence and Conflict Resolution sensitive to others feelings and may prefer accommodation (Bass & Dunteman, 1963; Stagner, 1962). Individuals who engage in more collaboration or problem solving are likely to be more extroverted (Kilmann & Thomas, 1975) and task oriented (Bass & Dunteman, 1963). Supporting the view of Terhune (1970), Sternberg & Soriano (1984) concluded that an individual s mode of conflict resolution can be predicted rather well from a combination of intellectual and personality characteristics. Resolving conflict is one of the fundamental management tasks. The strategy one tends to employ to approach conflict situations represents one s characteristic mode of conflict handling or conflict style (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Moberg, 2001). Research in conflict management domain has generated different models of conflict styles individuals tend to use to resolve conflict (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976). Researchers who are interested in understanding and predicting conflict style have frequently examined the potential for stable, personality variables to explain the differences in conflict handling preferences, but the research on the relationship between personality and conflict styles has produced mixed results (Antonioni, 1998; Moberg, 2001). Some early studies supported a relationship between conflict styles and personality dimensions measured as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977), but others have reported weak relationships between personality and styles of handling conflict (Jones & Melcher, 1982). With the emergence of a widely accepted comprehensive personality measure - the Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1989), recent studies have linked Big Five personality factors to conflict styles and more promising results have been obtained (Antonioni, 1998; Moberg, 2001). To further advance the research in this area, the current study intends to use the Big Five to investigate whether strong relationships exist between personality traits and conflict styles in a business negotiation context, and further to examine whether different behavioral patterns act as indicators, and the conflict styles are outcomes of these traits in students. Researchers have been studying the best ways to manage conflict, resulting in an impressive literature on conflict management styles (Antonioni, 1998; Moberg, 2001; Van de Vilert & Euwema, 1994). The best known and the most accepted model is that of Thomas (1976) who identifies five different conflicthandling styles based on two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness measures the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy his/her own concerns, and cooperativeness assesses the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy the other person s concerns. These two dimensions yield five conflict styles: competing (high concern for self, low concern for others); collaborating (high concern for self and others); compromising (moderate concern for self and for others); accommodating (low concern for self and high concern for others); and avoiding (low concern for self and low concern for others). These five styles reflect an individual s behavioral intentions when

3 Personality and Conflict Resolution Styles 167 facing conflict situations (Womack, 1988). Subsequent studies suggest that the interrelationships among the constructs are consistent with those depicted in the model (Van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994). Big Five Personality Factors There have been arguments that broader personality predispositions rather than isolated traits affect people s strategies in approaching conflict situation and therefore more comprehensive measurement of personality should be used to investigate individual s characteristic mode of conflict handling styles (Moberg, 2001). Over the past decades, theory and research in the trait view of personality have slowly converged and a consensus has been reached that the Five-Factor Model of personality, often termed as Big Five (Goldberg, 1990), can be used to describe the most salient aspects of personality. According to Barrick & Mount (1991), these five factors include Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The Big Five thus captures individual characteristics that are affective, experiential and motivational (McCrae & Costa, 1989) and are more likely to predict individuals behavioral intentions in conflict situations. METHOD Sample The study was conducted on 70 students irrespective of the gender, taken by random sampling technique from Maharishi Dayanand University in Rohtak, Haryana. The socio-demographic variables, i.e., age, socio-economic status, etc. were matched across the sample. The age of subjects ranges between years. Tools Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument - In 1974, Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann introduced their Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode instrument uses two axes (influenced by the Mouton and Blake axes), called assertiveness and cooperativeness, and identifies five different styles of conflict: Forcing, (assertive, uncooperative) Avoiding (unassertive, uncooperative), Accommodating (unassertive, cooperative), Collaborating (assertive, cooperative), and Compromising (intermediate assertiveness and cooperativeness). It takes approximately15 min to complete & consists of 30 items. NEO 5-Factor inventory by McCrae &Costa - The NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1989) is an abbreviated 60- item version of the 240-item NEO-PI-R. As described by Costa and McCrae, the NEO-FFI was constructed by first selecting the 12 items

4 168 Violence and Conflict Resolution with the largest structure coefficients for each of the five factors. Subsequently, 10 substitutions were made to permit reverse keying of some items in each scale, diversify item content, and eliminate items with joint coefficients. In a sample of 1,539 employees of a large national corporation, Costa and McCrae found coefficients of internal consistency ranging from.68 (A) to.89 (N). RESULTS & DISCUSSION The results were analyzed by using Pearson s Product Moment Method. Table I below indicates that neuroticism was negatively correlated to collaborating conflict styles and positively correlated to avoiding styles, while extraversion is negatively related to accommodation styles. Further, agreeableness is found to positively influence compromising style and openness is negatively correlated to competing style of conflict resolution. While conscientiousness is not necessarily related to any of the conflict styles studied here. TABLE I Correlations (N=70) VARIABLES Neuroticism * * ** Extraversion * 3.Openness * Agreeableness ** Conscientiousness Competition Collaboration ** -.518** Compromising * 9.Avoiding Accommodation.1 * p< 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** p< 0.01 level (2-tailed) Neuroticism: McCrae & Costa (1989) describe neuroticism as emotional instability and maladjustment characterized by negative emotions such as fear, anger, sadness, and negative self-concept and low self-esteem. Individuals high in neuroticism are less able to control their impulse or effectively cope with stress. In this way, neuroticism can be logically related to conflict handling preferences (Moberg, 2001). As coping with conflict is a cognitively effortful task and often arouse negative affect, it is expected, individuals high in existing level of anxiety and depression, may find conflict threatening and thus have a strong need to either avoid the conflict or act very aggressively to protect their own interests. As a result, they are more likely to avoid the conflict or to compete with the others and less likely to accommodate, compromise, or collaborate in conflict situations. Extraversion: As an indicator of one s interpersonal assertiveness, gregariousness, and confidence (Costa & McCrae, 1989), extraversion has

5 Personality and Conflict Resolution Styles 169 been found to predict the levels of individual impact on group interaction. Because extraverts by their nature are assertive they may stand up for their needs without respecting the needs of others. Forcing or influencing others to resolve a conflict in one s favour also requires an outspoken and overbearing personality (Antonioni, 1998), which suggests extraversion is more likely to be related to the use of competing style and less likely to accommodating or avoiding. Individuals high in extraversion also show a strong inclination to develop interpersonal relationships and have the social skills and the desire to work with others, which is a necessity for resolving conflicts in a collaborative way. A previous study using MBTI measures supports the notion that extraverts preferred a collaborative style of managing conflict (Mills, Robey, & Smith, 1985). Agreeableness: Costa and McCrae (1989) characterized high agreeable persons as sympathetic, helpful, and cooperative, and low agreeable persons as antagonistic, skeptical, and competitive. Because agreeableness tends to be an interpersonal factor that is expressed when cooperation and consideration are important, its absence would be reflected in a lack of concern for the outcomes of another. Therefore, low agreeable individuals would be expected to adopt a conflict style in which one attempts to contend and achieve one s own goals, or win at another s expense. Conversely, high agreeableness would be expressed through concern for another s outcome and reflected in preference for a compromising position (Moberg, 2001). Openness: Openness has often been defined as having an active imagination, being intellectually curious, having a preference for variety, and willingness to entertain new ideas (Costa & McCrae, 1989). Openness reflects the extent to which people are willing to make adjustments in notions and activities in accordance with new ideas and situations. Therefore, closed individuals will be less flexible and have difficulty understanding others views, which may lead to competing or avoiding styles. In contrast, though open individuals may find conflict to be of concern, they will be more likely to prefer an adaptive, flexible approach to its solution, leading to more compromising or collaborating styles in conflict situations. Conscientiousness: Sometimes termed as Will, conscientiousness reflects being dutiful, thorough, responsible, and self-disciplined (McCrae & Costa, 1989). Within the context of conflict resolution, these personality features are suitable for preparation work and pre-conflict planning, but not necessarily related to any of the conflict styles studied here. The Big Five personality measures of agreeableness (A) and extraversion (E) have been found significant predictors of all four conflict resolution style scores (Wood & Bell, 2008). These findings show that contemporary personality measures are significant predictors of conflict resolution styles. This study also confirms the disposition that personality traits play a significant role in the

6 170 Violence and Conflict Resolution practice of different conflict styles by different individuals. Knowing the personality type offers a gateway to lifelong personal and professional development. The findings suggest that personality measures may be helpful predictors of conflict resolution style preference in mediation and negotiation situations, which can further help resolve conflicts in more constructive manner. REFERENCES Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the Big Five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, Bass, B.M., & Dunteman, G. (1963). Behaviour in groups as a function of self, interaction, and task orientation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: TX Gulf Publishing. Chanin, M.N., & Schneer, J.A. (1984). A study of the relationship between Jungian personality dimensions and conflict-handling behaviour. Human Relations, 37, Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Filley, A.C. (1975). Interpersonal conflict resolution. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman Co. Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, Jones, R.E., & Melcher, B.H. (1982). Personality and the preference for modes of conflict resolution. Human Relation, 35(8), Kilmann, R.H., & Thomas, K.W. (1975). Interpersonal conflict-handling behaviour as reflections of Jungian personality dimensions. Psychological Reports, 37, (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behaviour: the MODE instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, Lidelow, J., & Scott, J.J. (1989). Managing conflict. In School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence (pp ). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED ). McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins s circumflex and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, Mills, J., Robey, D., & Smith, L. (1985). Conflict-handling and personality dimensions of project-management personnel. Psychological Reports, 57, Moberg, P.J. (2001). Linking conflict strategy to the five-factor model: Theoretical and empirical foundations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1),

7 Personality and Conflict Resolution Styles 171 Rahim, M.A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), Robbins, S.P. (1974). Managing organizational conflict: A nontraditional approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Schmidt, W.H., & Tannenbaum, R. (1960). Management of differences. Harvard Business Review, 5(6), 107-l 15. Stagner, R. (1962). Personality variables in union management relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, Sternberg, R.J., & Soriano, L.J. (1984). Style of conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), Terhune, K.W. (1970). The effects of personality in cooperation and conflict. The Structure of Conflict. 48, Thomas, K.W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand- McNally. Thomas, K.W., & Kilmann, R.H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom. Van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviours. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, Womack, D.F. (1988). Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode survey. Management Communication Quarterly, 1 (3), Wood, V.F., & Bell, P.A. (2008). Predicting interpersonal conflict resolution styles from personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(2),