Shaysh
Nazzal Alshammri
University
of Hail- Saudi Arabia, Saudi
Arabia
E-mail: shaysh2004@yahoo.com
Submission: 5/9/2020
Revision: 6/3/2020
Accept: 7/27/2020
ABSTRACT
This research aims to identify the role played by informal groups in organizational conflict. The existing literature mainly focuses on the effects of informal groups on the behaviors of employees, such as resisting management and disobeying instructions. However, studies that specifically measure how informal groups affect the behaviors of their members in handling conflicts with supervisors are lacking. This research uses quantitative methodology. Data were collected using the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory II survey. The participants were 316 workers in various American organizations. The results were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and the two-samples z-test. The results show that employees who belong to informal groups use the dominating style more frequently than do employees who do not belong to informal groups. However, they do not always use dominating styles; occasionally, they tend to use compromising and integrating styles as well. Age has a significant impact on the relationship between informal groups and integrating and dominating styles. There is also a relationship between gender and avoiding style among employees who belong to informal groups. However, there is no preference for a certain conflict style among the three types of informal groups. The results have implications for management science, including human resources and organizational behavior. However, the research applications may be limited for employees in collectivist societies that are different from American (an individualistic society). The relationship between informal groups and conflict style with supervisors has not been studied before. Thus, this research focuses on not only the five conflict styles but also the influence of demographic variables to comprehensively understand this relationship.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Conflict
between employees and management occurs frequently in organizations ranging
from minor disagreements to sabotage and strikes, as experienced in many places
throughout the world. Conflicts are unavoidable in organizations where there is
interaction among people. Thus, it is important to identify factors which may
affect the way employees handle conflict with their supervisors. This study
explores the influence that belonging to informal groups (IGs) has on conflict
management styles with supervisors, through comparison with employees who do
not belong to informal groups (NIGs).
An
organization is a group of people who work together towards certain goals
(Hatch, 2011). They are managed through regulations and laws that identify
goals, duties, plans, and work strategies. According to Lune (2010), the
importance of organizations is to help develop societies, provide people with
opportunities for upward mobility, and contribute to the economy. Organizations
work as a system comprising many parts, including organizational structure,
work environment, and human and financial resources.
IGs
in organizations are formed based on social and professional interests. Lee and
Lawrence (2013) confirm that members of IGs seek satisfaction in social
interests and needs, including belonging and workplace support. Individuals, by
nature, seek to build relationships and wish for experiences of belonging,
along with safety, self-esteem, and love, as emphasized in Maslow’s (1943)
needs theory.
Professional
interests relate to the benefits of work itself. According to Robbins and Judge
(2017), IGs are formed to develop and achieve work-related goals. This type of
group may even include members from other organizations in the same profession
(e.g., engineers, teachers). Such professionals often form associations to
discuss the latest developments in the field and possible ways to improve their
work. There are different types of IGs, including interest groups (based on
common interests among members), friendship groups (based on the relationships
among members), and reference groups (based on using the group as a reference)
(Khanka, 2006).
This
study was conducted using an online questionnaire randomly distributed across
the United States (US) to 316 employees in various organizations. Demographic
variables including gender, age, type of IG, and strength of relationships
among group members were tested to determine whether they influence conflict
styles of IGs members. The purpose of the study was to increase understanding;
the more comprehensively organizations understand the behaviors of their
employees, the more effectively they can manage and guide them.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
IGs
differ from formal groups in respects such as the priorities of the group’s
members and the relationship among members. Zayed and
Kamel (2005) note that formal groups are formed officially in organizations
according to tasks and specialties (e.g., committees, team tasks, departments),
whereas IGs result from employee initiatives. Mukherjee and Basu
(2005) explain that IGs are formed voluntarily by members, in contrast to
formal groups, which are required by an organization.
This
voluntary aspect may result in stronger ties between members. Rao and Krishna
(2002) both claim that IGs focus on building relationships between members and
aim to increase member satisfaction, while formal groups focus on job
performance and aim to accomplish certain tasks and duties. These differences
clarify that group members are the priority of IGs, and accomplishments are the
priorities of formal ones.
Mukherjee
and Basu (2005) explain that IGs are “open-ended,”
meaning they will exist as long as members achieve their interests and desires.
By contrast, the permanency and cohesiveness of formal groups is contingent
upon the stability of the organizational structure itself. For example, when an
organization decides to restructure, it is obliged to merge, split, or even
omit some units and departments. This inevitably leads to hiring, firing, or
transferring employees, which makes changes in formal groups (e.g., team tasks
or team units). Additionally, changes in members of formal groups could occur
due retirement, resignation, or transfer of employees to another organizations.
Although
formal groups and IGs have obvious differences, they also have similarities.
Robbins and Judge (2017) note that both groups have goals that need to be
achieved and assign specific goals to members. Mosely, Megginson, and Pietri (2015) explain that formal groups can lead to
the creation of IGs with members of formal groups forming IGs. In such cases,
unity and harmony among those members is enhanced during formal group
interactions, resulting in greater performance.
IGs
have additional advantages. Agarwal (1982) notes increased productivity,
positive work environment, and improved work process. These are critical for
organizations to ensure survival and enforce competitive advantages. However,
some scholars and researchers argue that IGs are not always beneficial to the
organizations in which they exist, as will be discussed in the next paragraphs.
Deb
(2001) explains that conflicts between management and IGs occur frequently,
involving all or some members and their managers and attributes these conflicts
to differences in parties’ interests. He recommends that management communicate
effectively with IGs to understand their interests and concerns to avoid
causing such disputes with IGs. When interactions and communication between
parties increase, levels of convergence and understanding also increase.
Conflicting
parties should share and exchange viewpoints to ensure that both positions are
clear. Several researchers, (Fallon, Begun & Riley, 2013; Folger, Poole
& Stutman, 2005; Wilmot & Hocker,
2007) agree that conflicts between parties occur due to differences in goals.
When IGs perceive an organization’s goals as incompatible with their own, they
tend to confront management, leading to conflict.
Lashley and Lee-Ross (2003) explain that IGs may have their own values and norms
that could potentially cause conflicts between members and management. By and
large, differences of values among individuals, whether within or out of work,
lead to the adoption of different, even conflicting, positions and attitudes.
For
example, some employees believe in personal accomplishments while others
believe in teamwork. This may lead to a dispute between these employees
regarding ways of performing and managing tasks and duties. Differences of
values and beliefs among people are attributed to the existence of a wide
variety of beliefs and values, as Maiese (2003)
confirms.
Moreover,
an IG, as a whole, has an impact on its members because of their desire to
enjoy support from, and affiliation with, their groups. Gamage
(2006) stresses that IGs influence members’ interactions with other employees,
groups, and management. If an IG’s approach is competition within the
organization, then this will be reflected in the behaviors of members.
For
example, members may not put enough efforts into work, which affects the
performance of the organization eventually. What enforces members’ behaviors is
the support they obtain from each other. Social identity theory stipulates that
individuals belonging to the same group (ingroup)
obtain support from their groups against others who belong to other groups
(outgroup) (Robbins & Judge, 2017).
Kroon
(1995) states that members of IGs compete with supervisors about different
work-related issues. He explains that IGs use their own informal communication
channels at work, and they
may not adhere to the allocated time for completing tasks and duties assigned
by supervisors. De Beer et al. (1998) confirm that the behavior
of members of IGs can differ from that of members of formal groups.
Members
of IGs tend to compete with managers when they realize that their managers’
opinions disagree with opinions of their groups. Furthermore, IG members may
not comply with organizational structure regarding the order of authority,
which creates rivalry between such members and management (French et al.,
2011). For example, IG members sometimes give priority to directions from their
group’s leader even if that conflicts with the supervisors’ directions. Singh
(2008) confirms that such distributive conflicts are caused by differences in
the distribution of authority and allocation of resources.
The
conflicts between IGs and management could occur when organizations decide to
make adjustments brought about by changes in the external and internal
environments. Organizational changes could include restructuring, merging with
another organization, and so on. Rao (2010) explains that IGs often resist the
implementation of changes made by their organizations, especially if
organizational changes conflict with the IG’s interests. As mentioned earlier,
IGs tend to prioritize their goals and interests rather than that of the
organization (Hiriyappa, 2008).
Furthermore,
IGs can compete with management regarding decision making. Agarwal (1982)
explains that IG members may resist management’s decisions and even reject new
members. Hussein (1990) argues that IGs provide an umbrella under which members
can rebel against management’s decisions and implementations. When parties
cling to their positions, competition tends to increase (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007).
Hussein
(1989) observes that IGs may work against management in various ways, including
by reducing productivity. Appannaiah, Reddy, and Kavitha, (2009) explain that the existence of IGs can
influence organizations’ performance—another form of competition with
management.
One
of the primary reasons why IG members adopt competitive behaviors is to project
their perceived power. According to Aswathappa
(2009), when IGs adopt competitive behaviors in organizations, they rely on the
power they have due to support from group members and leaders. This is a common
human behavior in organizations: when individuals are given power, they tend to
confront others. Borkowski (2016) states that IGs
grant power to members, and managers need to realize that. French et al. (2011)
explain that such groups fulfill the security needs of their members.
Weller
and Weller (2002) argue that members are supported by their groups and leaders
even in conflicts with management. Plunkett, Allen, and Attner
(2013) stress that the power vested in members of IGs is not individual but
stems from group membership. Additionally, Mullins (2007) explains that leaders
of IGs can enjoy power paralleling that of managers and supervisors; this can
positively or negatively influence the behaviors of members.
Scholars
who have studied conflict resolution explain that parties who perceive they
have power tend to compete and engage in conflicts. For example, Wilmot and Hocker (2007) and Folger, Poole, and Stutman
(2005) explain that power influences the course of conflicts in terms of the
strategies and tactics used to handle them. Jeong
(2010), another scholar, argues that parties rely on their power while
negotiating solutions. A powerful party locates solutions that meet its
interests rather than all parties’ interests.
The
studies above provide a general perspective of IG behaviors. They show that IGs
compete with management in the workplace, relying on their power for leverage.
These studies do not explain the direct relationship between IGs and styles of
conflict, especially IG members, collectively or individually, and their
supervisors. It is essential to address this issue because of the importance of
supervisor-employee relationships, which directly impact productivity,
organizational loyalty, and organizational commitment. In addition, supervisors
who directly supervise work are considered the first line of management. Based
on the literature, the following hypotheses regarding IGs and their conflict
styles were formulated and tested in this study:
·
H1: IG members use
a dominating style to manage conflicts with supervisors more frequently than
NIG employees.
·
H2: NIG employees
use an integrating style to manage conflicts with supervisors more frequently
than IG employees.
·
H3: NIG Employees
use a compromising style to manage conflicts with supervisors more frequently
than IG employees.
·
H4: NIG Employees
use an obliging style to manage conflicts with supervisors more frequently than
IG employees.
·
H5: IG Employees
use an avoiding style to manage conflicts with supervisors more frequently than
NIG employees.
In
order to obtain a deeper understanding of the topic from various perspectives
that could lead to new discoveries and open doors for new research, this study
attempted to determine whether variables including age, gender, types of IGs,
and strength of group members’ relationship influence the relationship between
IGs and conflict styles. IGs comprise males and females of different ages and
differ by type and in terms of the strength of ties among members. Males and
females tend to use different conflict management styles.
Holt
and DeVore (2005) found that the compromising style
is used more by women than men in both collectivistic and individualistic
cultures. Shockley-Zalabak and Morley (1984)
conducted a study on gender preferences of conflict styles and found that
female students were less competitive than male students. Jain (2010) found
that males were more competitive than females with regard to conflicts among
managers in India.
Further,
Al-Hamdan, Norrie, and Anthony (2014) discovered that
female nurses used a collaborating style more often than male nurses and
avoided conflict less than their male counterparts. This study examines the
relationship between the age of IG members and conflict styles, which is
important to explore because behaviors of individuals can change from one life
stage to another (Anderton, Barrett & Bogue,
2010).
Moreover,
this study looks at how the various types of IGs (interest, friendship, and
reference groups) influence conflict management styles of members. Finally,
this study determines whether the degree of relationship strength between IG
members affects member conflict styles.
2.1.
Conflict Styles
The
five conflict styles measured in this study are integrating, dominating,
obliging, compromising, and avoiding. integrating, obliging, and compromising
styles are cooperation strategies that consider the other party’s interests.
Integrating style is used when a party is highly concerned about both its own
and the other party’s interests (Rahim & Bonoma,
1979).
It
is likely to leads to mutually satisfactory solutions while maintaining the
relationship between the parties. Compromising style is used when parties are
just concerned enough about each other’s interests to consider concessions
(Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). This style usually helps
resolve conflicts, especially complicated ones that require flexibility and
understanding between parties. Obliging style is used when a party is more
concerned about the other party’s interests than its own (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). This type of style may quickly lead to
resolutions, as one party is willing to accept a solution that meets the other
party’s desires.
Dominating
style is used when a party is only concerned about its interests and ignores
those of the other party (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979).
This style causes competitiveness among the parties. According to game theory,
when one party tries to pursue its interests at the expense of the other
party’s interests, the conflict becomes zero sum (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Accordingly, a conflict may extend for a long
time, affecting the relationship between parties.
Avoiding
style is used when a party has a low level of concern about both its own and
the other party’s interests (Rahim & Bonoma,
1979). This type of style might not lead to conflict resolution. Although
avoiding conflict is considered a withdrawal, it is still more competition than
cooperation.
2.2.
Study Significance
This
study is indispensable due to the importance of identifying conflict in
organizations; as noted, IGs can provide a source of such conflicts (Rahim,
2001). Nair (2009) explains that conflicts have negative effects on
organizations in terms of performance. In addition, they affect an
organization’s ability to maintain one of its most important resources—human
resources.
Organizations
suffering from active conflicts might not be attractive to prospective
employees seeking peaceful work environments. Furthermore, the willingness of
employees to remain in such organizations may decrease. Rahim (2011) explains
that conflicts impact organizations in many respects, including performance,
the acceptance of change, and human relationships.
According
to Mukhtar (2013), it is impossible to find organizations without conflict,
which can occur frequently, in different forms, and between individuals,
groups, departments, and management teams. Organizations must learn to deal
effectively with conflicts. Rahim (2002) argues that inter-organizations
conflicts can be managed effectively by adopting strategies to transform them
from destructive to constructive. This study compares the conflict styles of IG
employees with NIG employees, providing a better understanding of the effects
of IGs on conflict styles, and thereby making it easier to deal with these
groups and manage conflicts with them effectively.
3.
METHODOLOGY
3.1.
Survey Instrument
The
survey used in this study is the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory II
(form A) [used with permission from the Center for Advanced Studies in Management. Further use or
reproduction of the instrument without written permission is prohibited]. The survey measures how employees
address conflicts with their supervisors through 28 questions. It covers the
previously discussed five strategies or styles of conflict management:
integrating, dominating, obliging, compromising, and avoiding.
The
test-retest and Cronbach’s alpha values for these strategies demonstrate the
reliability of the survey: integrating (test-retest: 0.83; Cronbach’s alpha:
0.83), dominating (test-retest: 0.76; Cronbach’s alpha: 0.72), obliging
(test-retest: 0.81; Cronbach’s alpha: 0.74), compromising (test-retest: 0.6;
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.65), and avoiding (test-retest: 0.79; Cronbach’s alpha:
0.77).
Participants
were asked to answer some demographic questions regarding gender, age, and
region of residence. Further, they were asked other questions to identify IG
membership, the type of IGs to which they belonged, and the strength of
relationships within groups
3.2.
Sample
The
survey was distributed randomly to 469 participants in a SurveyMonkey
panel (https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/audience/our-survey-respondents)
(database). In total, 316 surveys were completed. The Survey Monkey database
has been used in numerous academic studies, including doctoral dissertations
and published papers (Bode, 2014; Ukpe, 2018; Harper,
2016; Dainton, 2015). Participants were employees of
various organizations in the US across regions, as follows: west (19%), midwest (25%), northeast (19%), southeast (23%), and
southwest (14%). The percentages of male and female participants were 49% and
51%, respectively. The number of IG participants was 123, while that of NIG
participants was 193. Participants claimed membership in three IG categories:
interest groups (41%), friendship groups (51%), and reference groups (7%).
4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Multivariate
analysis of variance was used to determine differences in the use of the five
conflict styles between IG and NIG participants. Belonging or not belonging to
IGs was considered an independent variable, and the five conflict styles were
dependent variables. The results (Table 1) reveal significant evidence
indicating that IGs use a dominating style more frequently than NIGs (IG mean =
3.21 NIG mean = 3.04); thus, the first hypothesis is accepted.
The
analysis shows that IG employees integrating style significantly more
frequently than NIG employees (IG mean = 4.00, NIG mean = 3.79). Thus, the
second hypothesis is rejected.
Regarding
compromising style, the analysis shows that IG employees use compromising style
significantly more frequently than NIG employees (IG mean = 3.79, NIG mean =
3.55). Accordingly, the third hypothesis is rejected.
The
results reveal no significant difference in the means for the obliging style
between IG employees and NIG employees (IG mean = 3.65 NIG mean = 3.50).
Accordingly, the fourth hypothesis is rejected.
Finally,
there is no significant difference in the means for the avoiding style between
the two groups (IG mean = 3. 20, NIG mean = 3.26). Thus, the fifth hypothesis
is also rejected.
Table 1: MANOVA
Analysis with Informal and No Informal Group Membership as Independent
Variables; Conflict-Handling Styles as Dependent Variables (Hypothesis Tests)
Conflict Style |
Group |
Mean |
SD |
N |
F |
IN |
1 |
4.0058 |
.61985 |
123 |
7.33** |
2 |
3.7927 |
.71916 |
193 |
|
|
Total |
3.8757 |
.68911 |
316 |
|
|
OB |
1 |
3.6572 |
.66197 |
123 |
3.71 |
2 |
3.5052 |
.69803 |
193 |
|
|
Total |
3.5643 |
.68718 |
316 |
|
|
DO |
1 |
3.2114 |
.69909 |
123 |
4.32* |
2 |
3.0477 |
.67191 |
193 |
|
|
Total |
3.1114 |
.68619 |
316 |
|
|
AV |
1 |
3.2033 |
.77428 |
123 |
.49 |
2 |
3.2642 |
.73861 |
193 |
|
|
Total |
3.2405 |
.75207 |
316 |
|
|
CO |
1 |
3.7967 |
.56208 |
123 |
10.98*** |
2 |
3.5518 |
.68601 |
193 |
|
|
Total |
3.6472 |
.65078 |
316 |
|
Note:
Wilks’ Lambda = .95, F = 3.18, p < .01. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p
< .001
MANOVA = Multivariate analysis of
variance, IN = Integrating, OB = Obliging, DO = Dominating, AV = Avoiding, CO =
Compromising; 1 = Informal group membership, 2 = No Informal group membership,
SD = Standard deviation, N = Sample size, Gen = Gender
Scholars
in the literature above have argued that IGs tend to confront management more
often regarding decisions, rules, and the like. They attribute the
competitiveness of IG members to their perceived power. The results of this
study show that IG employees use a dominating style in conflicts with
supervisors more than NIG employees. In the dominating style of conflict,
parties try to protect their interests and obtain their objectives by ignoring
those of other parties. However, IG employees do not always use a dominating
style. They use integrating and compromising styles occasionally (in fact more
often than NIGs) indicating high or moderate concern for the other party’s
interests.
4.1.
Age and Conflict Styles
The relationships between age and
conflict styles for IG employees were measured using Pearson’s correlation
coefficient (Table 2). The results show significant
relationships between age and integrating style (r = 0.234, correlation is
significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)) and age and dominating style (r =
0.204, correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)). Older
employees tend to use both styles, and the preference between them is subject
to individual differences. For obliging and avoiding styles, the correlation
coefficients are low (r = 0.053 and r = 0.068, respectively). For compromising
style, the correlation coefficient is higher (r = 0.137) than for obliging and
avoiding styles, although it is also not significant.
Table
2: Pearson’s
Correlations Between Age and Conflict-Handling Styles for Informal Group
Members
|
Age |
IN |
OB |
DO |
AV |
CO |
|
Age |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.234** |
.053 |
.204* |
.068 |
.137 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.009 |
.562 |
.024 |
.458 |
.132 |
|
N |
|
123 |
123 |
123 |
123 |
123 |
|
IN |
Pearson Correlation |
|
1 |
.340** |
.370** |
-.020 |
.672** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
.000 |
.000 |
.823 |
.000 |
|
N |
|
|
123 |
123 |
123 |
123 |
|
OB |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
1 |
.115 |
.521** |
.254** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
.206 |
.000 |
.005 |
|
N |
|
|
|
123 |
123 |
123 |
|
DO |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
1 |
-.169 |
.266** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
.062 |
.003 |
|
N |
|
|
|
|
123 |
123 |
|
AV |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
1 |
.054 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
.552 |
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
|
CO |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
|
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Conflict
styles: IN = Integrating, OB = Obliging, DO = Dominating, AV = Avoiding, CO =
Compromising
For NIG employees, Pearson's correlation coefficients
demonstrate that age is not correlated with conflict styles (Table 3); NIG
individuals have no preference for one style over another, regardless of age.
The correlation coefficients for the integrating, obliging, avoiding,
dominating, and compromising styles are r = 0.084, -0.127, 0.012, 0.117, and
0.131, respectively.
Table
3: Pearson’s Correlations Between Age and Conflict-Handling Styles for
Individuals who are not Members of an Informal Group
|
Age |
IN |
OB |
DO |
AV |
CO |
|
Age |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.084 |
-.127 |
.117 |
.012 |
.131 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.244 |
.079 |
.106 |
.866 |
.069 |
|
N |
|
193 |
193 |
193 |
193 |
193 |
|
IN |
Pearson Correlation |
|
1 |
.656** |
.270** |
.338** |
.716** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
|
N |
|
|
193 |
193 |
193 |
193 |
|
OB |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
1 |
.178* |
.601** |
.514** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
.014 |
.000 |
.000 |
|
N |
|
|
|
193 |
193 |
193 |
|
DO |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
1 |
.070 |
.277** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
.336 |
.000 |
|
N |
|
|
|
|
193 |
193 |
|
AV |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
1 |
.257** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
.000 |
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
193 |
|
CO |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
193 |
** Correlation is significant at
the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Conflict
styles: IN = Integrating, OB = Obliging, DO = Dominating, AV = Avoiding, CO =
Compromising
4.2.
Gender and Conflict Styles
The relationships between gender and
conflict styles among IG members were measured using the two-samples z-test
(Table 4), revealing that the differences between males and females are not
statistically significant with regard to the integrating, compromising,
dominating, and obliging styles. However, the values indicate that females in
IGs tend to cooperate more than males, and females tend to avoid conflicts with
supervisors more than males; the difference is statistically significant
(p-value (0.03) < α (0.05)).
Table
4: Two-Samples z-test Comparison of Gender Means for Conflict Styles for
Informal Group Members
Conflict Style |
Gender |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
N |
Z-test (p-value) |
IN |
1 |
3.9457 |
0.55433 |
50 |
0.36 > 0.05 |
2 |
4.047 |
0.66157 |
73 |
||
Total |
4.0058 |
0.61985 |
123 |
||
OB |
1 |
3.5467 |
0.63891 |
50 |
0.12 > 0.05 |
2 |
3.7329 |
0.67113 |
73 |
||
Total |
3.6572 |
0.66197 |
123 |
||
DO |
1 |
3.324 |
0.59507 |
50 |
0.12> 0.05 |
2 |
3.1342 |
0.75649 |
73 |
||
Total |
3.2114 |
0.69909 |
123 |
||
AV |
1 |
3.0267 |
0.69282 |
50 |
0.03< 0.05* |
2 |
3.3242 |
0.80789 |
73 |
||
Total |
3.2033 |
0.77428 |
123 |
||
CO |
1 |
3.735 |
0.5426 |
50 |
0.31> 0.05 |
2 |
3.839 |
0.57489 |
73 |
||
Total |
3.7967 |
0.56208 |
123 |
* Sig. at 0.05 (α) & 95% Confidence Level
Conflict
styles: IN = Integrating, OB = Obliging, DO = Dominating, AV = Avoiding, CO =
Compromising, Gender: Male = 1, Female = 2
Regarding
the relationship between gender and conflict styles among NIG individuals, the
results (the two samples z-test) reveal no significant differences between the
means of males and females in the five conflict styles (Table 5). However, the mean values indicate that
females tend to use compromising, cooperating, avoiding, and obliging styles
more than males. As with IG employees, female NIGs avoid conflicts with
supervisors more than males, and males use dominating style more than females.
Table
5: Two-Samples z-test Comparison of Gender Means for Conflict Styles for
Individuals who are not Informal Group Members
Conflict Style |
Gender |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
N |
z-test (p-value) |
IN |
1 |
3.7596 |
0.77285 |
104 |
0.48 > 0.05 |
2 |
3.8315 |
0.65308 |
89 |
||
Total |
3.7927 |
0.71916 |
193 |
||
OB |
1 |
3.4663 |
0.73529 |
104 |
0.40 > 0.05 |
2 |
3.5506 |
0.65299 |
89 |
||
Total |
3.5052 |
0.69803 |
193 |
||
DO |
1 |
3.1077 |
0.62188 |
104 |
0.180 > 0.05 |
2 |
2.9775 |
0.72327 |
89 |
||
Total |
3.0477 |
0.67191 |
193 |
||
AV |
1 |
3.2324 |
0.72905 |
104 |
0.52 > 0.05 |
2 |
3.3015 |
0.75205 |
89 |
||
Total |
3.2642 |
0.73861 |
193 |
||
CO |
1 |
3.5048 |
0.72321 |
104 |
0.3 > 0.05 |
2 |
3.6067 |
0.63948 |
89 |
||
Total |
3.5518 |
0.68601 |
193 |
Conflict styles: IN = Integrating,
OB = Obliging, DO = Dominating, AV = Avoiding, CO = Compromising, Gender: Male
= 1, Female = 2
4.3.
Strength
of Relationship Among Informal Groups Members and Conflict Styles
The
strength of the relationship among IG members was classified as low, moderate,
or high. Pearson’s correlation coefficients show that the strength of the
relationship is not correlated with conflict styles: integrating (r = 0.14),
obliging (r = -0.072), dominating (0.135), avoiding (-0.176), and compromising
(0.141) (Table 6). These results demonstrate that belonging to IGs is an
influential factor in the relationship with conflict styles, regardless of the
nature of the relationships among the members. Employees perceive their
membership in IGs as a source of power, security, and protection (Slocum & Hellriegel, 2007).
Table
6: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients Between the Strength of the Relationship
and
Conflict-Handling
Styles for Informal Group Members
|
REL |
IN |
OB |
DO |
AV |
CO |
|
REL |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.140 |
-.072 |
.135 |
-.176 |
.141 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.121 |
.430 |
.136 |
.052 |
.121 |
|
N |
|
123 |
123 |
123 |
123 |
123 |
|
IN |
Pearson Correlation |
|
1 |
.340** |
.370** |
-.020 |
.672** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
.000 |
.000 |
.823 |
.000 |
|
N |
|
|
123 |
123 |
123 |
123 |
|
OB |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
1 |
.115 |
.521** |
.254** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
.206 |
.000 |
.005 |
|
N |
|
|
|
123 |
123 |
123 |
|
DO |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
1 |
-.169 |
.266** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
.062 |
.003 |
|
N |
|
|
|
|
123 |
123 |
|
AV |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
1 |
.054 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
.552 |
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
|
CO |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.4.
Types of Informal Groups and Conflict Styles
One-way analysis of variance is used
to identify the differences between types of IGs regarding the use of the five
conflict management styles. These IGs differ with regard to purpose of
formation. Friendship group members are looking for friendship in contrast to
interest group members who prioritize common member interests. Members of
reference groups view the group as a standard by which they evaluate their own
performances, capabilities, and skills. However, the results reveal no
preference for one style over another among these three types of IGs.
Table
7: ANOVA test for the differences between friendship informal group, interest
informal group, and reference informal group in using integrating style
ANOVA |
|||||
Integrating style |
|||||
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
Between Groups |
30.947 |
2 |
15.474 |
.819 |
.443 |
Within Groups |
2265.849 |
120 |
18.882 |
|
|
Total |
2296.797 |
122 |
|
|
|
** Sig. is 0.433 > 0.05, there is not significant
difference between the groups
Table
8: ANOVA test for the differences between friendship informal group, interest
informal group, and reference informal group in using dominating style
ANOVA |
|||||
Dominating style |
|||||
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
Between Groups |
33.078 |
2 |
16.539 |
1.362 |
.260 |
Within Groups |
1457.524 |
120 |
12.146 |
|
|
Total |
1490.602 |
122 |
|
|
|
** Sig. is 0.260 > 0.05, there is not significant
difference between the groups
Table
9: ANOVA test for the differences between friendship informal group, interest
informal group, and reference informal group in using compromising style
ANOVA |
|||||
Compromising style |
|||||
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
Between Groups |
3.756 |
2 |
1.878 |
.368 |
.693 |
Within Groups |
612.943 |
120 |
5.108 |
|
|
Total |
616.699 |
122 |
|
|
|
** Sig. is 0.693 > 0.05, there is not significant
difference between the groups
Table
10: ANOVA test for the differences between friendship informal group, interest
informal group, and reference informal group in using avoiding style
ANOVA |
|||||
Avoiding style |
|||||
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
Between Groups |
57.453 |
2 |
28.727 |
1.338 |
.266 |
Within Groups |
2575.620 |
120 |
21.464 |
|
|
Total |
2633.073 |
122 |
|
|
|
** Sig. is 0.266 > 0.05, there is not significant
difference between the groups
Table
11: ANOVA test for the differences between friendship informal group, interest
informal group, and reference informal group in using obliging style
ANOVA |
|||||
Obliging style |
|||||
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
Between Groups |
19.872 |
2 |
9.936 |
.626 |
.536 |
Within Groups |
1904.729 |
120 |
15.873 |
|
|
Total |
1924.602 |
122 |
|
|
|
** Sig. is 0.536 > 0.05, there
is not significant difference between the groups
Table
12: Hypotheses Summary
Hypothesis |
Support |
Finding |
H1 |
Yes |
IGs tend to use dominating
style more than NIGs. |
H2 |
No |
No significant
evidence that NIG employees use an integrating style more than IG employees. |
H3 |
No |
No significant evidence that
NIG Employees use a compromising style more than IG employees. |
H4 |
No |
No significant evidence that
NIG Employees use an obliging style more than IG employees. |
H5 |
No |
No significant evidence that IG
Employees use an avoiding style more than NIG employees. |
5.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The results may not be generally
applicable to organizations in other cultures. US society is individualistic,
with values and norms that differ from those in collectivistic societies.
According to Gudykunst (2003), individualistic
societies tend to engage in more conflicts than collectivistic societies.
Individuals in individualistic societies focus on self-interest rather than
group interests in contrast to their counterparts in collectivistic societies (Forsyth,
2010).
Furthermore, this study focuses on
current employees in US organizations without distinguishing between public or
private organizations, whose features may vary. Rainey and Bozeman (2000) mention
that public and private sectors usually differ in terms of organizational
change, motivation, styles of management, and organizational culture.
Therefore, in future research, it would be beneficial to include samples from
different cultures focusing on different types of organizations. This would
reveal more about the influence of joining IGs in terms of the group members’
conflict styles with supervisors
6.
CONCLUSION
This
study aimed to identify the role that IGs play in organizational conflict by comparing
the behaviors of IG employees and NIG employees regarding how they handle
conflicts with their supervisors. Focusing on conflicts with supervisors is
essential due to the sensitivity and significance of the employee-supervisor
relationship. This study makes a significant contribution to the literature on
management science, especially in the human resources and organizational
behavior fields.
The
results revealed that IG members are not in fact competitive in their conflicts
with supervisors and tend to use integrating and compromising conflict styles
even more than their NIG counterparts demonstrating care for their own and
other parties’ well-being. These findings contribute to a more accurate and
comprehensive understanding of the behaviors of IG members which can aid
management in understanding IG membership and conflict management styles in the
workplace.
It
may also provide guidance to organizational planners regarding whether or not
to encourage IG formation in the workplace. Hopefully, this study paves the way
for future research, including perspectives and experience of management.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, R.
D. (1982). Organization
and Management. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.
Al-Hamdan, Z., Norrie, P., & Anthony, D.
(2014). Conflict management styles used by nurses in Jordan. Journal
of Research in Nursing,
19(1), 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987112466085.
Anderton, D. L., Barrett, R.
E., & Bogue, D. J. (2010). The Population of the United States, 3 ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Appannaiah, H., Reddy, P., &
Kavitha, B. R. (2009). Organisational Behaviour.
Global Media. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nbuniv-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3011144.
Aswathappa, K. (2009). Organisational Behaviour. Global Media. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nbuniv-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3011153.
Bode, T.
(2014).
The relationship
between action identification and style of processing for managers and
non-managers in the U.S. manufacturing industry. Dissertation (Doctorate in
Business), Available:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1525999375?accountid=35493. Access:
1/1/2020
Borkowski, N. (2016). Organizational
behavior, theory, and design in health care, 2 ed. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Dainton, M.
(2015).
An
interdependence approach to relationship maintenance in interracial marriage. Journal of
Social, 71(4), 772-787. doi:10.1111/josi.12148
De Beer, A., Rossouw, D., Moolman, B., Le Roux, E., & Labuschagne, M. (1998).
Focus on
supervision in general management. South Africa: Kenwyn.
Deb, S. (2001). Contemporary issues on management. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and
Distributors.
Fallon, L. F., Begun, J. W., & Riley, W. J. (2013). Managing
health organizations for quality and performance. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett
Learning.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981).
Getting to
yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in.
Massachusetts:
Houghton Mifflin.
Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2005).
Working
through conflict: strategies for
relationships, groups, and organizations, 5 ed., Massachusetts: Pearson
Education.
Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group dynamics, 5 ed. California: Wadsworth Cengage
Learning.
French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G., Rumbles, S., Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J.,
& Osborn, R.. (2011). Organizational behaviour,
2 ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Gamage, D. T. (2006). Professional
development for leaders and managers of self-governing schools. New York: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4929-3
Gudykunst, W. B. (2003). Cross-cultural
and intercultural communication. California: Sage Publications.
Harper, A.
A. (2016). The impact of consumer security awareness on adopting the
internet of things: A correlational study. Dissertation (Doctorate in Business). Available: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1853097232?accountid=35493. Access: 1/2/2020
Hatch, M.
J. (2011). Organizations: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199584536.001.0001
Hiriyappa, B. (2008). Organizational
behavior. New Age
International. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nbuniv-ebooks/detail.action?docID=414236.
Holt, J. L., & Devore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational
role, and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations,
29(2), 165-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.002.
Hussein, R. T. (1989).
Informal
groups, leadership and productivity. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 10(1),
9-16.
Available: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EUM0000000001130/full/html. Access: 15/12/2019 https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001130
Hussein, R. T. (1990).
Understanding
and managing informal groups. Management Decision,
28(8),
36-41.
Available:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00251749010000038/full/html. Access: 10/12/2019 https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749010000038
Jain, S. (2010). Gender perspective on conflict resolution styles of
aspiring Indian managers. Asia Pacific Business Review, 6(4), 88-95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/097324701000600410
Jeong, H. W. (2010). Conflict
management and resolution.
New York: Routledge.
Khanka, S.
S. (2006). Organisational behaviour: Text and cases. India: S. Chand.
Kroon, J.
(1995).
General
management, 2 ed.
South Africa: Pretoria.
Lashley, C., & Lee-Ross,
D. (2003). Organization behaviour for leisure services, 1 ed. Massachusetts: Routledge.
Lee, R., & Lawrence, P.
(2013).
Organizational
behaviour: politics
at work. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Lune, H.
(2010).
Understanding
Organizations. United
Kingdom: Polity
Press.
Maiese, M. (2003). Moral or value conflicts.
Available: https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/intolerable-moral-differences. Access: 7/15/2020
Maslow, A.
H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review, 50,(4), 370-396. doi:10.1037/h0054346
Mosely, D.
C., Megginson, L. C., & Pietri, P.
H. (2015). Supervisory
management: The art of inspiring,
empowering, and developing people, 9 ed. Connecticut: Cengage
Learning.
Mukherjee, S., & Basu, S.
K. (2005). Organisation & management and business
communication, 1 ed. India: New Age International.
Mukhtar, S. A. (2013). Organizational conflict management strategies on
employee job satisfaction: A conceptual relationship. IJMRR, 3(5), 2855-2862.
Mullins, L. J. (2007). Management and organisational
behaviour, 8 ed. United
Kingdom: Pearson Education. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nbuniv-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5139571.
Access: 15/11/2019
Nair, S. R. (2009). Organisational behaviour.
Global Media. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nbuniv-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3011339.
Plunkett, W. R., Allen, G., & Attner, R.
F. (2013). Management: Meeting
and exceeding customer expectations. Ohio: South-Western, Cengage
Learning.
Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T.
V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis
and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44(3_suppl),
1323-1344.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.44.3c.1323
Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing conflict in organizations.
3rd ed. Westport, Conn.: Quorum
Books.
Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational
conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-235.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022874
Rahim, M.
A. (2011). Managing
conflict in organizations, 4 ed. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private
organizations: Empirical research and the power of the A Priori. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447-469.
Rao, V., & Krishna, H.
V. (2002). Management: Text and cases, 1 ed. India: Excel Books.
Rao, P. S. (2010). Organisational behaviour,
1 ed. Himalaya Publishing House. ProQuest Ebook
Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nbuniv-ebooks/detail.action?docID=618259. Access: 1/1/2020
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Organizational behavior. Essex, UK: Pearson Education
Limited.
Singh, B. D. (2008). Managing conflict and negotiation. New Delhi: Excel Books.
Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., & Morley, D. D.
(1984). Sex differences in conflict style preferences. Communication Research Reports,
1,(1), 28-32.
Slocum, J. W., & Hellriegel, D. (2007).
Organizational
behavior, 11 ed.
Ohio: Western
Cengage Learning.
Ukpe, I.
(2018).
Psychological empowerment and employee involvement in
organizational change: The role of commitment to change. Dissertation (Doctorate in Business).. Available: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1853097232?accountid=35493. Access: 1/11/2019
Weller, L. D., &Weller, S. (2002). The assistant principal: Essentials for effective school
leadership. California: Corwin Press.
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2007). Interpersonal
conflict, 7 ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Zayed, A. M., & Kamel, M. M. (2005).
Teams and
group works. Egypt: CAPSCU.
Available at
http://www.pathways.cu.edu.eg/subpages/training_courses/C5-Teams-EN.pdf. Access: 20/11/2019
SURVEY (DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS +
RAHIM INSTRUMENT)
This study aims to understand how informal
groups affect the way their members handle conflicts with supervisors. Informal
groups refer to groups formed by employees as a result of a common interest or
friendships among them. Informal groups are not formed by the management of
organizations; thus, they differ from formal groups (e.g., task groups). Please
take into consideration accuracy and honesty while answering all the questions.
You are not required to include your name or any other identifying information.
Gender:
o
Male
o
Female
Age (in years)
Region
o Northeast
o Southeast
o Midwest
o Southwest
o West
Do you belong to informal groups in
your organization?
o
Yes
o
No
Specify the type of the informal
group to which you belong:
o
Interest
Group (formed based on common interests)
o
Friendship
Group (formed based on friendships and relationships)
o
Reference
Group (formed based on self-assessment for comparison with others)
How do you describe your
relationship with your informal group?
o
Low
o
Moderate
o
High
Rahim
Organizational Conflict Inventory–II, Form A
Please
check the appropriate box after each statement to indicate how you handle
disagreements or conflicts with your supervisor. Try to recall as many recent
conflict situations as possible when ranking these statements.
Note: ONLY
one item for each subscale in the instrument is mentioned below, per the
instructions of the author.
Integrating style:
I
try to investigate an issue with my supervisor to find a solution acceptable to
both of us.
A- Strongly Disagree
B- Disagree
C- Neutral
D- Agree
E- Strongly Agree
Obliging style
I generally try to satisfy the needs
of my supervisor.
A- Strongly Disagree
B- Disagree
C- Neutral
D- Agree
E- Strongly Agree
Dominating style
I use my influence to get my ideas
accepted.
A- Strongly Disagree
B- Disagree
C- Neutral
D- Agree
E- Strongly Agree
4- Avoiding style
I usually avoid open discussion of
differences with my supervisor.
A- Strongly Disagree
B- Disagree
C- Neutral
D- Agree
E- Strongly Agree
5-
Compromising style
I try to find a middle course to
resolve an impasse.
A- Strongly Disagree
B- Disagree
C- Neutral
D- Agree
E- Strongly Agree