Search results

This study aims to reveal the association between task conflict and job satisfaction with the mediating role of incivility and the moderating role of self-esteem. In addition, the data collected from the UK and Turkey were analyzed separately, and the aim was to contribute to the literature in this field by analyzing the research model in a cultural context.

This research focuses on the relationship between managers and subordinates in organizations. In this study, a survey method was applied to 708 subordinates, both UK and Turkish citizens, working in nine different industries. The obtained data were first analyzed in combination; then, the data of both countries were analyzed separately, and the effect of cultural differences on the research model was investigated.>

According to the results obtained, the relationship between task conflict and job satisfaction is negative, and subordinates’ perceptions of incivility play a mediating role in this relationship. In addition, subordinates’ self-esteem level has a moderating role in the effect of task conflict on job satisfaction through incivility. However, there is no evidence of an effect of culture on this model.

This study contributes to the literature by presenting new evidence on the antecedents of job satisfaction. In addition, it is one of the pioneering studies that provides evidence of the impact of the perceptions and personal characteristics of disputants in a task conflict on task conflict outcomes. Furthermore, this study contributes to the limited cross-cultural studies in the conflict and job satisfaction literature.

This study aims to reveal the role of performance on the likelihood of conflict occurrence and the conditions that affect this relationship. This study measures managers’ perceptions about the cause of the subordinate’s low-level performance, stability of the performance, propensity to trust of managers and investigate the effects of them on conflict types.

This study draws on the attribution theory for investigating the effect of the negative performance of subordinates on a conflict between manager and subordinate by using the quantitative research method. A random sample was drawn from 150 Turkish mid-level managers from midsized small and medium - sized enterprises companies. The hypotheses are tested by hierarchical linear modeling.

According to results, negative performance of subordinates may predict the types of conflict depending on the attributions of managers about negative performance. In addition, the manager’s attributions to the locus of control or/and to the stability affect the likelihood of conflict types occurrence, between managers and subordinates. Depending on the managers’ attributions, the propensity to trust of managers has a significant moderation effect on the relationship between performance of subordinates and the likelihood of conflict types occurrence.

This study advances knowledge on conditions that affect the likelihood of conflict occurrence. It contributes to the literature by suggesting performance as a predictor of conflict instead of an outcome of the conflict. The research is one of the rare studies investigating the relationship between attributions and conflict. In addition, it expands the understanding of personal traits and conflict interaction by testing the moderation effect of propensity to trust.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how superior-subordinate conflicts stimulate managers to promote fairness. The theory proposes that managers’ efforts to apply social controls (i.e. training and socialization activities that promote emotional connection and value congruence) moderate the influence of superior-subordinate conflicts on managers’ efforts to promote fairness. When conflicts are experienced by managers who apply social controls, those managers increase their efforts to promote fairness. Because managers who apply social controls need subordinates to endorse their directives, they promote fairness in the face of conflict to demonstrate that they manage subordinates in ways that are appropriate and deserving of their cooperation.

These ideas are tested in two studies: a survey of managers and their subordinates and a scenario-based experiment.

The results obtained from these studies demonstrate that when managers who apply social controls encounter superior-subordinate conflicts, they more actively work to fairly distribute rewards and responsibilities (i.e. promote distributive fairness) and accurately and consistently implement organizational procedures (i.e. promote procedural fairness).

This paper demonstrates how managers who are engaged in important sets of behaviors use fairness to address conflicts with their subordinates.

By identifying when superior-subordinate conflicts stimulate managers to promote fairness, this paper contributes to research on how individuals use fairness and controls together to maintain their positions of authority within social contexts (e.g. groups, units, organizations).

This study aims to develop an influence perspective for managerial intervention in subordinates conflicts, which helps to represent various strategies identified in the literature in a single model. Managers' power base was then related to their intervention strategies. Drawing upon Social Judgment Theory, anchoring of subordinates positions is studied as a moderating variable.

Thirty nine supervisors and their 165 subordinates from several organizations in Turkey filled out a questionnaire reporting power base of supervisor and their intervention strategy utilizing the critical incident technique.

Referent power of superior led to mediation in subordinates' conflicts. However, mediation decreased while restructuring, arbitration, and educative strategies increased with increased anchoring of subordinates' positions. These latter strategies mostly relied on reward power of manager. Subordinate satisfaction was highest with mediation and lowest when supervisors distanced themselves from the conflict.

The present study could only test the moderating effect of escalation as an anchoring variable. Future studies may look at the anchoring effect of whether the dispute is handled in public or in private, and whether the parties have a competing versus collaborative or compromising styles.

Training of managers in mediation may be essential in cultures where they play a focal role in handling subordinates conflicts. Such training may have to take into account their broader influence strategies and use of power.

An influence perspective is useful in integrating the vast array of managerial intervention strategies in the literature. Furthermore, the anchoring effect provides a theoretical explanation for managers' use of more forceful intervention with less cooperative subordinates.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate strategies used by managers when intervening in subordinates' conflicts and the factors affecting choice of strategy in Turkish organizations, where heavy emphasis is placed on intermediaries in managing conflicts.

Data were collected by means of a questionnaire from 392 employees of a convenience sample of 59 organizations, most of which were located in Ankara.

Factor analysis results showed that managers utilize as many as five strategies: mediation, inquisitorial (similar to arbitration), motivational tactics, conflict reduction through restructuring, and educating the parties. The conditions under which these strategies are used were analyzed by regression. Harmony emphasis in the organization led to increased use of mediation. However, harmony emphasis, when coupled with a low degree of delegation of authority to subordinates, resulted in increased use of the inquisitorial strategy. Harmony emphasis, when combined with substantive (as opposed to personal) conflicts and with high impact conflicts led to educating the subordinates. Motivational tactics were used more when the conflict had high impact at the workplace and had escalated or threatened to get out of control.

Readers are cautioned on possible common factor bias; relations between variables may have emerged as a result of the data being reported by the same respondent.

The findings have research implications for future studies and for training of managers for conflict intervention in collectivistic cultures.

This study aims to examine supervisors’ power preference (harsh/soft) for gaining compliance from subordinates in conflict situations using the updated Power Interaction Model (Koslowsky and Schwarzwald, 2009. The model assumes that the relationship between antecedents and power preference is mediated by cost/benefit considerations.

Four considerations were examined as mediators: acquiescence, relations, worker growth and conformity. A sample of 120 bank managers was given one of several conflict scenarios differing on severity (low/high) and subordinate worker’s performance ability (low/average/high). In addition, mangers’ leadership style and organizational commitment were assessed.

For the two manipulated variables, conflict (high significance, low significance) and worker performance (high, average, low), an interaction effect was tested with follow-up univariate analysis yielding significance only for harsh tactics. Structural equations modeling, used for comparing the fit generated for different mediators, indicated that acquiescence was the most salient mediator and provided adequate fit for the model predicting power tactics preference.

Although it is difficult to exclude cultural effects when applying the Interpersonal Power Interaction Model (IPIM) in a specific country, it should be noted that, as far as factor structure is concerned, a similar pattern was obtained for Israeli and American participants in previous research (Raven et al., 1998). Additionally, in the present study, the outcome measure was not observed but rather elicited through scenarios. The participant responses were derived from self-report questionnaires and are prone to percept–percept bias and common method variance.

For the first time, in a study where antecedent variables were manipulated, findings supported the revised IPIM. Power choice was demonstrated as a result of a sequential process with mediators serving as links between various organizational, situational and personal antecedents and outcomes.

The aim of this study is to determine Turkish managers' conflict styles in different sectors, namely durable consumer goods, aviation, automotive and banking.

A total of 130 managers' conflict management styles were assessed by applying the Rahim's 1983 Organizational Conflict Inventory‐II.

First, integrating and, second, compromising are found to be the most preferred conflict styles of Turkish managers. The other important finding is that preferring obliging styles of conflict management changes according to the status of managers. Obliging is mostly used when the conflict partner has an upper level status.

Additional data from cross‐cultural studies are needed to form a comprehensive understanding of conflict management styles. Also, the number of respondents in the study is not enough to generalize the findings; additional data from different sectors could make the findings more valid.

There seems to be a need for seminars or practice‐oriented workshops on evaluating and understanding the nature of conflict and learning to manage conflict as a beneficial and creative process for the betterment of both individuals in organizations and organizations themselves.

The study provides a revised base for cross‐cultural conflict management studies and also highlights the national dynamics of Turkish managers' relationships, especially for international investors.

This paper proposes a broad perspective for studying the influence of culture on the process of conflict management. Three models of conflict management are described, based on the culture framework of Glen (1981). In the confrontational model, conflicts are conceptualized as consisting of subissues, and a sense of reasonable compromise aids resolution despite a confrontational style. In the harmony model, conflict management starts with the minimization of conflict in organizations through norms stressing observance of mutual obligations and status orderings. Conflicts are defined in their totality, and resolution is aided by avoidance and an accommodative style. Less emphasis is placed on procedural justice, as on maintenance of face of self and others. Third parties are used extensively, and their role is more intrusive. In the regulative model, bureaucratic means are used extensively to minimize conflicts or to aid avoidance. Conflicts get defined in terms of general principles, and third party roles are formalized. The implications of the differences among the three models for conflict resolution across cultures and for future research are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss cultural causes of conflict in the workplace and call for research to address what happens when cultures collide generating workplace conflict. The author assumes that because cultures differ in terms of functional solutions to problems of social interaction that there will be conflict when people from different cultures are interdependent in the workplace. The author discusses types of culture and their conflict management profiles with respect to three characteristics of conflict management: direct vs indirect confrontation; emotional expression, and third party conflict management. The author proposes what happens when cultures collide and calls for research on those collisions.

Application of the cultural literature on self-worth to three elements of workplace conflict: direct vs indirect confrontation of conflict, feelings and expressions of negative emotions associated with conflict and timing and type of third party intervention.

When people from dignity, face, and honor cultures are working together the fundamental differences in the logic of self-worth in these three types of culture may cause conflict. People from dignity and honor cultures are likely to confront conflict directly, while those from face cultures are more likely to confront conflict indirectly. Workplace conflict generates negative emotions, but culture seems to affect whether that emotion is anger, shame or both. The timing of third party intervention into workplace conflict, that is, how managers intervene in workplace conflict has some parallels with how community mediators act in that culture.

There is limited research comparing management of workplace conflict in dignity, face, and honor cultures. The author generates propositions and suggests a research strategy for collecting data to test propositions.

Understanding what is culturally normative in terms of self-worth, confrontation, emotional expression, and managerial intervention can help people involved in workplace conflict understand what they are experiencing. It can also help managers intervene effectively.

How people react to workplace conflict varies with culture as does how managers intervene. Knowing this provides people with the first element of cultural intelligence that may help them manage conflict to facilitate a more creative and effective multicultural work environment.

This paper integrates theory and research from cross-cultural psychology, the psychology of emotion and the literature on third party intervention into community conflict to explain the patterns of cultural conflict and conflict management in the workplace. It also suggests what it may take to manage cultural conflict in the workplace successfully.

Should managers share their decision‐making power? Do managers who alow their subordinates to participate in organisational decision making increase the satisfaction, self‐esteem, loyalty and productivity of their employees and create positive manager‐subordinate relations, or do they merely contribute to high‐cost inefficiency and incompetence? The literature on what has come to be known as PDM — participatory decision making — is examined in an attempt to answer these questions.