Cognitive‐experiential self theory and conflict‐handling styles

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine how the rational and experiential systems according to the cognitive-experiential self theory (CEST) are related to conflict-handling styles. Design/methodology/approach -Using a correlational design, data were collected using an on-line survey system examining CEST information-processing systems and five conflict-handling styles. A total of 426 undergraduate students, with paid jobs, complete the on-line survey.Findings -Results showed that the rational system, experiential system and constructive thinking had significant positive relationships with both the integrating and compromising conflict-handling styles. Additionally, the rational system had a positive relationship with the dominating conflict-handling style and the experiential system and constructive thinking had a positive relationship with the obliging conflict-handling style. The rational system and constructive thinking had a negative relationship with the avoiding conflict-handling style.Research limitations/implications -The study established a positive connection between CEST information-processing systems and conflict-handling styles among undergraduate students, however the results of the study may not be as directly comparable with real and established leaders. Originality/value -Being the first study to examine the connection between the CEST information-processing systems and the five conflict-handling styles, the paper offers interesting insights about how the choice of information-processing systems can influence the choice of conflict-handling styles across a wide range of situations.

Follower‐rated leadership styles, leader behaviours, and leaders' thinking styles: A test of the cognitive experiential leadership model

“…The results of Studies 1 and 2 are broadly consistent with those of previous studies that have found positive correlations between self-reported preference for rational thinking and transformational leadership (Cerni et al,2008;Curtis et al, 2017), the integrating style of conflict handling (Cerni et al, 2012), and the core tactics of influence (Curtis & Lee, 2013). In addition, the results provide mixed support for the CELM's proposed relationships between imaginative thinking, emotionality, and effective leadership styles and behaviours.…”

“…The second-level predictions of the CELM are that thinking style will also predict important leadership behaviours of influencing and conflict handling. However, as noted earlier, previous research has only demonstrated these relationships with self-rated thinking styles, influencing tactics, and conflict handling styles, with workers rather than leaders as the targets rated (Cerni et al, 2012;Curtis & Lee, 2013). Thus, Study 2 examined whether perceptions of leaders' thinking styles, as rated by followers, were related to followers' evaluations of leaders' use of influence tactics and conflict management styles.…”

“…As is the case for connections between rational thinking and leadership styles, support for the CELM's predictions regarding influence and conflict handling come solely from cross-sectional self-report studies. These studies found that preference for rational thinking was positively correlated with use of the core tactics of influence (Curtis & Lee, 2013) and a preference for an integrating style of conflict handling (Cerni et al, 2012). However, unlike the studies connecting rational thinking and transformational leadership, the studies examining rational thinking, influence tactics, and conflict-handling styles relied on self-reports from a worker sample rather than leader samples.…”

“…Cognitive-Experiential Theory (CET; Epstein, 2014, previously Cognitive Experiential Self Theory, CEST;Epstein, 1994) suggests that it is possible to assess individual differences in thinking styles at the level of semi-malleable traits. Recent research suggests that thinking styles as conceptualised in CET are related to leadership levels (Akinci & Sadler-Smith, 2013), leadership styles (e.g., Cerni, Curtis, & Colmar, 2008), workplace influence behaviours (Curtis & Lee, 2013), conflict handling styles (Cerni, Curtis, & Colmar, 2012), and organisational outcomes (Cerni, Curtis, & Colmar, 2014a).…”

Cognitive‐Experiential Leadership Model: How Leaders’ Information‐Processing Systems Can Influence Leadership Styles, Influencing Tactics, Conflict Management, and Organizational Outcomes

“…In a number of recent studies, connections have been found between individual differences in information‐processing styles, as conceptualized in CET, and leadership styles, leadership behaviors, and related outcomes (e.g., Atwater & Yammarino, ; Cerni et al, ; Cerni, Curtis, & Colmar, , , , , ; Curtis & Lee, ; Dubinsky, Yammarino, & Jolson, ; Humphreys & Zettel, ). These findings were a source of inspiration to develop the Cognitive‐Experiential Leadership Model.…”