Search results

The study examined the effects of two context variables, such as work experience and opponent's power on the styles of handling interpersonal conflict. 480 subjects were asked to consider a short critical incident describing an interpersonal conflict in an organization and to indicate their response to the situation in terms of the five conflict management styles: integrating, obliging, avoiding, dominating, and compromising. The results suggest that under the low‐power opponent condition there was a higher preference for dominating and a lower preference for avoiding, obliging, and integrating. Inexperienced subjects did not change their choice of using the different conflict management styles in view of their opponent's power. The results also showed significant interaction effects of the two independent variables. The implications for the study are discussed.

Examined the effects of two context variables -- work experience & opponent's power -- on styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Data were from 480 university students in Israel who considered a short critical incident describing an interpersonal conflict in an organization & responded to the situation in terms of five conflict management styles: integrating, obliging, avoiding, dominating, & compromising. Results suggest that under the low-power opponent condition there was a higher preference for dominating & a lower preference for avoiding, obliging, & integrating. However, inexperienced subjects did not vary their conflict management style according to view of their opponents power. Results also showed significant interaction effects of the two independent variables. Implications for future research & organizational culture are discussed. 1 Table, 28 References. Adapted from the source document.

The effect of ambiguity is investigated with regard to the success of a venture on the initial choice of interpersonal conflict management strategy of the venture's initiator. In the experiments reported here, subjects were asked to imagine a hypothetical situation in which the decision‐maker, in a capacity as an organization member, seeks the use of an organizational resource in order to initiate the venture. The conflict arises as another member of the organization also lays claim to the same resource. Subjects, taking on the role of the decision‐maker, show more collaboration in managing the conflict when experts disagree about the probability of successful outcome of the venture. Similar inclinations are revealed when the possible long‐term adverse consequences of the conflict are made explicit. These findings support the interpretation of ambiguity effect in terms of increased loss aversion due to personal responsibility.