Conflict‐handling style measurement: a best‐worst scaling application

Abstract

Purpose -This study aims to develop and validate a best-worst scaling (BWS) measure of preferred conflict-handling styles, named the Conflict-handling BWS (CHBWS). Design/methodology/approach -The authors conducted three studies. Study 1 consisted of a sample of psychology students (n ¼ 136) from a Canadian university and was designed to assess the convergent validity of the CHBWS by comparing it with the ROCI-II and DUTCH instruments. Study 2 consisted of a sample of psychology students (n ¼ 154) from a US university and was designed to assess the predictive validity of the CHBWS by relating conflict-handling styles to consumer complaint behavior. Study 3 consisted of a random sample of adults registered with an online survey company in Australia (n ¼ 204) and Germany (n ¼ 214). This study was designed to assess the antecedent relationship of Schwartz's personal values to conflict-handling styles. Findings -The study shows that best-worst scaling is a valid and advantageous way of measuring conflict-handling styles. The CHBWS demonstrated both convergent and predictive validity, and was able to reproduce the structure of the dual-concerns model. The study also showed that preferred conflict-handling style influences the choice of complaint behavior in a retail service failure situation. Furthermore, the study demonstrated that Schwartz's personal values can influence the preferred conflict-handling style in two individualistic cultures. Originality/value -This is the first study to measure conflict-handling style preferences using a BWS approach. Furthermore, it is the first study to relate consumer complaint behavior to preferred conflict-handling style.

Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance and conflict

“…The two dimensions draw a number of CMSs leading to win-win or win-lose or even lose-lose situations. These are commonly studied as accommodating, collaborating, avoiding, dominating and integrating as the five CMSs given by Rahim (1983;Daly et al, 2010). Accommodating (also yielding or obliging) is a high concern for others with low concern for self, whereas competing (dominating, contending or confronting) is a high concern for self with low concern for others; avoidance (or withdrawal) is a low concern for both self and others, whereas collaboration or integration is a high concern for both self and others.…”

Are Business Students Prepared for the World of Business? Self‐interest, Conformity and Conflict Styles

“…Certain values are associated with particular fields of study (as per the discussion above), and values have been found to be closely associated with some conflict management styles (for instance, Daly et al, 2010;Kozan & Ergin, 1999). Certain values are associated with particular fields of study (as per the discussion above), and values have been found to be closely associated with some conflict management styles (for instance, Daly et al, 2010;Kozan & Ergin, 1999).…”

Managing interpersonal conflicts at work by line managers

“…In contrast to the view that the conflict management mode is adjusted to the conflict situation, some scholars argue that the mode of managing conflict is relatively stable depending on personal aspects (Daly et al, 2010). Tyler (1986) found that task-focused managers are more likely to be concerned with productivity, whereas relationshipfocused managers are more likely to focus on social harmony.…”

“…a behaviour response to a situation) (Thomas, 1992;Rahim, 2002) or personality-based (i.e. relatively stable disposition depending on the type of personality and personal values) (Daly et al, 2010). Additionally, other scholars emphasise the importance of organisational aspects, such as the policies and procedures for conflict management, and line managers' training in handling interpersonal conflict (Teague and Roche, 2012).…”

“…An important shortcoming of the two-dimensional frameworks is the implicit assumption that the two parties themselves handle the conflict, while, in practice, sometimes a third party may be involved in managing an interpersonal conflict. Similar to Daly's et al (2010) study, our paper uses the common elements Thomas et al (2008) and Rahim's (2002) frameworks. Nevertheless, this study gives priority to Thomas et al's (2008) conflict handling modes, as cooperative and assertive dimensions are more likely to be compatible with a third party intervention (i.e.…”