Conflict Management Styles and Occupational Stress

Running head: CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES AND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 1

Conflict Management Styles and Occupational Stress:

A Study of Managers in the Workplace

Kevin Cribbs

California State University, Channel Islands

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES AND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to discover a correlation between Thomas and Kilmann’s five

conflict management styles and the occupational stress levels of managers in the workplace.

Thomas and Kilmann’s five conflict management styles are competing, collaborating,

accommodating, avoiding, and compromising. A total of 30 managers from random businesses

and organizations were surveyed. Conflict management styles were measured using the

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument. Occupational stress levels were measured using a

work-stress questionnaire. Although not completely conclusive, the main results suggested that

managers who had a primary conflict management style of compromising also had lower levels

of stress in the workplace. Additional relationships were found in this study leading to many

inclinations about conflict management styles and occupational stress levels of managers in the

work place. These correlations, as well as the implications and limitations for this study are

further discussed.

Keywords: Thomas and Kilmann, conflict management, occupational stress


Introduction

Whether they are small, large, public, or private; businesses and organizations of all types

are prone to the magnitudes of occupational stress. Occupational stress is quickly becoming the

single greatest cause of occupational disease and can have far-reaching consequences for both

the worker and the workplace (Noblet & Lamontagne, 2006). Cooper and Dewe (2008) report

that over the last 5 years [2003-2008], work-related stress, depression or anxiety remains for

each year, the single most reported complaint (p.522). In addition, the International Labor

Organization report[ed] that inefficiencies arising from occupational stress may cost up to 10

percent of a country’s GNP (Ongori & Agolla, 2008). The United States alone has an immense

Gross National Product of approximately $14 trillion. In connection, Gibson suggests that health

care utilization resulting from stress costs U.S industries $68 billion annually and reduces their

profits by 10 percent (as cited in Manning, Jackson & Fusilier, 1996, p. 740). Even if these

numbers are approximated they reveal relevant evidence that the costs of occupational stress on

businesses and organizations are astronomical. These massive costs can be intimately tied to the

numerous organizational sources of job stress. For the purpose of this paper, the focus will target

interpersonal conflicts within the workplace; one of the most frequent and continuing causes of

occupational stress.

Haraway and Haraway (2005) write “Conflict can be unpleasant and stressful…[i]t

distracts people from pursuing more productive endeavors and is personally and professionally

expensive” (p.11) Congruently, Slabbert (2004) writes that the traditional triad of individual,

group and organizational goals and objectives remains constant and in an inviolate relationship—

this essentially purports that dysfunctional conflict between individuals will impact negatively on

organizational performance (p.84). While businesses and organizations inevitably deal with the


distractions, expenses, and negative impacts of stress due to conflict in the workplace, how are

management teams dealing with interpersonal work conflicts in order to lower their stress levels

and retain productivity and performance among all employees? Tjosvold and Chia write,

“Researchers claim that conflict between managers and workers is particularly important,

because, if managed poorly, it can undermine an organization’s labor relations and productivity”

(as cited in Chan, Huang & Ng, 2008, p.278). An intricate way to assess how managers handle

conflict in businesses and organizations is by examining Thomas and Kilmann’s conflict mode

instrument. [This] instrument uses two parameters, i.e., assertiveness and cooperation, resulting

in five distinct styles: avoiding, competing, collaborating, accommodating and compromising

(Slabbert, 2004, p.83). By utilizing this instrument we can identify which conflict management

styles particular managers’ use when dealing with conflicts in the workplace. Furthermore, a

simple work-stress questionnaire can yield data regarding a manager’s level of stress in relation

to certain conflict situations in the workplace. Combining these two assessments for analysis

will produce up-to-date data information regarding the relationship between a manager’s conflict

management style and their stress level in the workplace.

The scope of this paper will narrowly focus on an in-depth literature review of:

occupational stress, interpersonal conflict in the workplace, conflict management, and Thomas

and Kilmann’s conflict management styles. A methodical data analysis of the two previously

discussed assessments and a discussion of the results, implications, and limitations will also be

accomplished. The purpose of this research is to discover a correlation, if any, between these five

conflict management styles and the occupational stress of managers in the workplace. The

objective of this research is to establish a definitive primary style of conflict management that

could be used in training in order to lower the levels of stress in managers and/or management


teams and generate higher effectiveness and efficiency within businesses and organizations. The

introduction of information on occupational stress and conflict management styles has deemed

the question: What is the correlation between Thomas and Kilmann’s five conflict management

styles and the occupational stress levels of managers in the workplace?

Review of Literature

Defining Occupational Stress

To begin, Rees and Redfern (2000) emphasize that there is no universally

accepted definition of the term stress (p.121). It is essential to know that the definition of stress

can be indistinct and often times confusing. Given this, the issue of occupational stress is more

relevant now more than ever and should not be dismissed. For the purpose of this analysis, stress

will be defined from various viewpoints and research among previously published literature in

order to support the general background. The first theory on stress belongs to Freud (1978), who

considered stress as the result of reduced discharge of libidinal energy, either due to external

obstacles or due to internal ones (as cited in Halkos & Bousinakis, 2010, p.417). In connection

with these external obstacles, Greenberg and Baron state, “We define stress as a complex pattern

of emotional states, physiological reactions, and related thoughts in response to external

demands” (as cited in Rees & Redfern, 2000, p.121). Two simple examples of external demands

on a person would be interpersonal relationships and work. More clearly stated, Halkos and

Bousinakis write that stress can be considered as an unpleasant emotional situation that we

experience when requirements (work-related or not) cannot be counter-balanced with our ability

to resolve them (p.415). In association, occupational stress would refer to those “work-related”

emotional situations that people experience in relation to requirements and their ability to resolve


them. In other words, Carr, Kelley, Keaton, and Albrecht (2011) describe occupational stress as

the perceived difference between professional demands and a person’s ability to carry out those

demands (p.32). Linking these considerations would display occupational stress as a result of

having an inability and/or trouble dealing with an external demand in the workplace. In

connection with these definitions of occupational stress there are the perceived causes or sources

of stress in the workplace.

When discussing the sources of occupational stress, Tehrani argues that [occupational]

stress is caused by unsympathetic organizational culture, poor communication between managers

and employees, lack of involvement in decision-making, bullying and harassment, continual or

sudden change, insufficient resources, conflicting priorities, and lack of challenges (as cited in

Ongori & Agolla, 2008, p.123). Moreover, Kirkcaldy, Trimpop and Williams (2002) claim that

causes of stress include inadequate guidance and support from superiors, lack of consultation and

communication, lack of encouragement from superiors, feelings of isolation, discrimination and

favoritism, and inadequate or poor quality training/management development (p.501). These

sources of occupational stress are also known as job stressors. Job stressors can result from the

job itself (e.g. heavy workloads, low input into decision-making) or the social and organizational

contexts in which the job is performed (e.g. poor communication, interpersonal conflict) (Noblet

& Lamontagne, 2006, p.349).

In a study done by Arnetz, Lucus and Arntez (2011) on organizational climate and

occupational stress, the research suggests that stress and mental health effects are partially

mediated by the effect of organizational climate on perceived organizational efficiency (p.40).

Then again, most research on stress in organizations is concerned with circumstances and events

that threaten resources such as the amount of time one has available for task completion, the


budgets one can work with, the self-image, of the amount of control one experiences (Dijkstra,

Dierendonck & Evers, 2005). Thus, it is a fair assumption to suggest that organizational climate,

circumstances, and events in the workplace are all associated with co-workers; whether it may be

managers, supervisors, or any and all employees. Therefore, the concentration of this research

will be narrowed toward the interpersonal conflicts that take place in organizations. These

collected works have revealed a definition and the sources of occupational stress. The following

will describe interpersonal conflicts and conflict management in the workplace; which are both

relative elements of occupational stress and the motivation for this research.

Interpersonal Conflict in the Workplace

Conflict behavior is so omnipresent in organizational life that we too easily take it for

granted (Van de Vliert, Nauta, Giebels & Janssen, 1999). Barki and Hartwick (2001) define

interpersonal conflict as “a phenomenon that occurs between interdependent parties as they

experience negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and interference with the

attainment of their goals” (p.198). More clearly, Robbins describes conflict as, a process that

begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected or is about to

negatively affect, something that the first party cares about (as cited in Slabbert, 2003, p.83). In

connection, employees are very interdependent of one another in the workplace and

disagreements are inevitable. According to Spector and Jex (1998), interpersonal conflict in the

workplace may range from minor disagreements between coworkers to physical assaults on

others (p.357). Interpersonal conflicts are a part of organizational life and for the majority of

businesses they are unavoidable.


Continuing, in connection with businesses and organizations, Van de Vliert et al. (1999)

argue that conflict arises at work when an employee is obstructed or irritated by another person

or a group (p.475). This illustrates a very typical interpersonal conflict in the workplace that

many employees can relate with. Building on the definition by Van de Vliert et al., for the

purpose of this paper, interpersonal conflict in the workplace will be defined as a disagreement

between two or more employees in which one or more of these employees perceive a threat to

another’s needs, interests or concerns in relation to their workplace. These interpersonal

conflicts described here in regards to the workplace are inevitable. Therefore, the knowledge of

how to manage these conflicts would be ideal for any and all managers.

Conflict Management in the Workplace

In order for businesses and organizations to function effectively, these interpersonal

conflicts within the workplace must be managed. For most organizations it is the mid-level

managers dealing with and managing these conflicts among their employees. In traditional

hierarchical organizations, employees are expected to inform their managers and supervisors of

problems and conflicts and abide by their decisions (Alper, Tjosvold & Law, 2000). In addition,

Haraway indicates that conflict management and resolution knowledge, skills, and abilities have

become essential management tools for supervisors and managers because unmanaged conflict

causes negative, unintended consequences, and it creates physical, psychological, and behavioral

stress in the workplace (as cited in D.Haraway & W.Haraway, 2005, p. 11). When discussing

conflict management in workplace, Haraway and Haraway (2005) suggest that the challenge is

not to try to eliminate conflict but to productively manage disagreements in an effort to increase

effectiveness and efficiency (p.11).


Given the former, the importance of conflict management in the workplace is apparent.

A simple definition, according to Van de Vliert is, “conflict management is what people who

experience conflict intend to do as well as what they actually do” (as cited in De Dreu, Evers,

Beersma, Kluwer & Nauta, 2001, p.646). Moreover, Thomas (1992), proposes some basic

fundamentals of conflict management when he writes, “…the complementary role of process and

structural interventions and some diagnostic questions to help practitioners identify key

intervention targets” (p.268). This provides a very central definition of conflict management that

can be used in many contexts. For this study and context, the practitioners, identified by

Thomas (1992), will be acknowledged as managers in the workplace. Incongruent with

Thomas’s definition, this study will not reveal data on the process or structural interventions

managers in the workplace but rather the style of conflict management a manager uses to

approach conflict in the workplace.

Thomas and Kilmann’s Conflict Management Styles

In order to understand how people address stress through the management of their

conflict we need to understand the different styles of how people approach conflict. Kenneth

Thomas and Ralph Kilmann are two of the founding fathers in this field. They have done

extensive research in the area of conflict management but more precisely, the two dimensions of

conflict behavior in conflict situations and the five conflict handling styles or modes that stem

from these dimensions. Worth noting, throughout this analysis, conflict styles will also be

known as conflict modes. These modes of handling conflict occur on two dimensions:

assertiveness and cooperativeness (Buller, Kohls, & Anderson, 1997, p.175). The five modes

include competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. Thomas and

Kilmann’s theory can be clearly comprehended by the two dimensional model of conflict


behavior seen in figure 1 below. [This] model was originated by Blake and Mouton in 1964 but

has been developed and extended by Thomas in 1976 and 1979 (Cosier & Ruble, 1981, p.816).

The remainder of this section will build upon and further explain Thomas and Kilmann’s five

conflict-handling modes of approaching conflict.

Figure 1.Two-dimensional model of conflict behavior. Adapted from “Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument”, by K.W Thomas & R.H Kilmann, 1974, 2007, Mountain View, CA: Xicom, a subsidiary of CPP, Inc.


In a reflection and update of his previous research, Thomas (1992) writes that “…five

conflict-handling modes (competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and

accommodating) are classified by the two underlying dimensions of assertiveness and

cooperativeness (p.266). When discussing these two dimensions Thomas and Kilmann (1975a)

denote that cooperation is attempting to satisfy the other person’s concerns and assertiveness is

attempting to satisfy one’s own concerns (p.971). In conflict situations, depending on the

context, the parties involved will typically approach the conflict through one of these dimensions

or a combination of both. Clearly specified, these two dimensions combine to define five

conflict-handling modes: competing (assertive, uncooperative), collaborating (assertive,

cooperative), avoiding (unassertive, uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive, cooperative),

and compromising or sharing (intermediate in both cooperativeness and assertiveness) (Thomas

& Kilmann, 1975b, p.743).

Competing

The first of the 5 modes for handling interpersonal conflict that will be discussed is

competing. When competing, an individual pursues his or her own concerns at the other

person’s expense, using whatever power seems appropriate to win his or her position (Thomas &

Kilmann, 1974, 2007). This style of approaching interpersonal conflict is also viewed as forcing,

compelling, or dominating. “Dominating” is a high concern for self and low concern for others

with a win-lose outcome (Chan et al., 2007, p. 280). The competing style can be considered as

using one’s personal or positional power. This style is typically used in authority situations, for

example, conflicts between supervisors and/or managers and their subordinates. This method for

handling conflict may be effective but only for some short term situations. In dissimilarity,

Friedman, Tidd, Currall and Tsai (2000) state that in organizational settings, there is some


evidence that a dominating style creates behaviors in others that make problem resolution less

likely (pgs. 38-39).

Collaborating

When collaborating, an individual attempts to work with the other person to find a

solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974, 2007). This

approach involves supportive communication between both parties in order to reach a joint

agreement. Further defined, the collaborating approach involves openness, exchange of

information, and examination of differences to reach an effective solution acceptable to both

sides (Tsai & Chi, 2011, Linking Culture to Conflict section, para. 4). This style of approaching

interpersonal conflict is also known as joint problem solving with the outcome of win-win. In

support, Cai and Fink (2002) report that the conflict literature suggests that this mode of handling

is preferred over others because it is most likely to yield win-win solutions (p.68-69).

Avoiding

Friedman at el. (2000) suggest that those who tend to use an avoiding style of conflict

resolution are ill-equipped to deal with disputes that need some attention (p.40). This style of

conflict management is also known as fleeing or ignoring. Thomas and Kilmann (1974, 2007)

write, “Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an

issue until a better time or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation”. This style is

typically seen as unproductive in most conflict situations. Antonioni (1998) conveys that the

avoiding style results in a lose-lose outcome because both parties refrain from communicating

their needs, so neither has any needs met (p.339). In contrast, Kolb and Bartunek add that

qualitative as well as quantitative analyses of organizational conflict suggest that avoiding is a


frequently employed response to conflict situations (as cited in De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001,

p.312).

Accommodating

Thomas and Kilmann (1974, 2007) indicate that when accommodating, an individual

neglects his or her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element

of self-sacrifice in this mode. This style, also known as obliging, involves one party going along

with or giving into the other party in order not to jeopardize the relationship. Being more

concerned with relationships for this style equals having a low concern for personal goals.

Furthermore, Tsai and Chi (2011) specify that this approach is associated with attempting to play

down the differences and emphasizing commonalities with yielding attitude to satisfy the

concern of the other side (Linking Culture to Conflict section, para. 4). In context, Friedman et

al. (2000) write, “Obliging may resolve the dispute for the moment but collective resources

have not been expanded through creative problem-solving, and one side’s problems may still

remain” (p.39). Overall, if the relationships involved in the conflict are more important than the

conflict itself, the accommodating style may be used to approach the conflict.

Compromising

The fifth and final mode for handling interpersonal conflict determined by Thomas and

Kilmann is compromising. When compromising, the objective is to find an expedient, mutually

acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974, 2007). Song,

Dyer and Thieme (2006) indicate that “…conflict participants using a compromising strategy

demonstrate moderate concern both for self and for others” (p.344). This style of handling

interpersonal conflicts is also known as negotiating, bargaining, or integrating. Friedman et al.


(2000) point out that for complex problems with the potential for joint gain, an integrative

approach should produce greater understanding of each party’s true interests, make it more likely

that an acceptable solution is found, and ensure higher level of joint value (p.37). Additionally,

the parties involved in the conflict seek a solution to where each party gets as much as they can

while assuming they won’t get everything they want but, at least they will get some of what they

want. Lastly, Antonioni (1998) writes that “…the compromising style produces a no-win/no-

lose outcome” (p.339).

Thomas and Kilmann’s Conflict MODE Instrument

Along with the five modes for handling interpersonal conflicts, Thomas and Kilmann

have created the Conflict Management-of-Differences instrument, otherwise known as the

MODE instrument. This instrument is used to operationalize their theory of the five conflict

management styles. Womack (1988a) states that the instrument that is most widely used in both

research and training is the Thomas and Kilmann Conflict Management-of-Differences (MODE)

scale (p.321). After an interview with Ralph Kilmann, Shell (2001) writes, “Kilmann reported

that several million copies of the instrument had been used in classrooms and training over the

twenty-plus years since he and Professor Thomas conceived it in the 1970s (p.161). A review of

the literature on Thomas and Kilmann’s Conflict Mode Instrument supports the value and

validity of their instrument. Furthermore, in their study on the MODE instrument and its

validity, Thomas and Kilmann (1977) report that:

Reasonable support was found for substantive validity for the new MODE instrument,

especially its ability to control for overall population tendencies in social desirability.

By and large, the MODE instrument also compared well on the criteria of internal


consistency and test-retest reliabilities. In addition, the forced-choice format appears to

contribute to the instrument’s structural validity (p.322).

When discussing the functionality of the MODE instrument, Slabbert (2003) writes, “The

Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is widely used to assess conflict management styles”

(p. 83). When Thomas and Kilmann were developing the MODE instrument they were

interested in finding a measurement device for probing the validity and independence of the five

conflict modes (Shell, 2001, p.161). Womack (1988a) adds that the MODE instrument measures

behavioral intentions; it does not directly indicate how one would communicate those intentions

(p.323). Basically, the MODE instrument is a personal assessment that can be conducted to help

one understand how they approach difficult conflicting situations. Lastly, according to Womack

(1988b), the MODE has received the highest praise from trainers in a wide range of

organizations and it is considered the quickest, clearest and easiest to administer (p.441).

In sum, the review of literature has assisted in defining: occupational stress, interpersonal

conflicts in the workplace, conflict management in the workplace, Thomas and Kilmann’s five

conflict management styles, and the Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument. To reiterate,

the purpose of this study is to find, if any, a correlation between Thomas and Kilmann’s five

conflict management styles and the occupational stress levels of managers in the workplace.

Based on the previously discussed literature, the following hypothesis is predicted:

H1: When approaching conflict, managers with a primary conflict management style of

“compromising” will have lower stress levels in the workplace.


Methodology

Participants

In order to attain experimental variation, participants were chosen by purposive selection.

This type of sampling involves targeting a specific group and surveying whoever is available.

For this exploration, the target group or population, consisted of n=30 participants who were

managers of random businesses and organizations within Ventura County, CA. This included

assistant managers, mid-level managers, and general managers. To clarify, for the remainder of

this paper, the sample participants will be acknowledged as managers. Of the n=30 managers,

54% were female and 36% were male ranging from 20-59 years of age. The average age of the

n=30 managers surveyed was 37 and the average number of employees that they manage was 23.

Measures

The Thomas and Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument was used to operationalize the

conflict management styles of the n=30 participants (See Appendix A). This questionnaire

consists of 30 duel choice statements in which participants are asked to choose from A or B. The

managers were instructed to choose the statement that was most characteristic of their own

conflict behavior. In order to create a common frame of reference, it was stressed that the

managers focus on conflict situations within their workplace when choosing the best response.

Subsequently, the responses from the questionnaire were taken and scored on the conflict

management scoring guide (See Appendix B). This guide is labeled with the five conflict

management styles: avoiding, competing, collaborating, compromising, and accommodating.

Each response from the questionnaire, A or B, is labeled under a certain style which correlates to


the statements from the questionnaire. For example, if the participant chose “A” for statement

number one on the assessment, then number one on the scoring guide would be “A”. That “A” is

placed in a column under one of the five conflict management styles on the scoring guide. This

helped to determine which style a person uses when responding to each statement. Once the

scoring is finished the total number of responses for each column of conflict management style is

totaled and a final conflict management style score is produced for column.

Furthermore, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument yields five numerical

scores for each of the n=30 managers; one score for each conflict management style. The

possible scores for each style range from 0 (for very low use) to 12 (for very high use). For the

purpose of this study, the primary conflict management style of each of the n=30 managers was

determined through the assessment. The primary conflict management style is determined by the

highest score out of the five conflict modes on the scoring guide. For example, if a managers’

scores were as follows: compromising (3), accommodating (5), collaborating (7), competing (6),

and avoiding (9); their primary conflict style would be determined as avoiding. This data was

used in a correlational analysis with data from the work-stress questionnaire.

Occupational stress was operationalized by surveying the n=30 managers with a work-

stress questionnaire created by Gerard Hargreaves (1998) (See Appendix C). This questionnaire

consists of 15 questions regarding how often certain feelings occurred in different work-related

situations. An emphasis was made for the participants to answer the questions quickly and as

honestly as possible. The managers were asked to answer each question with a score that best

matched their behavior. The scoring method was set as follows: 1=never, 2=seldom,

3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=nearly all the time.


Once each question was scored, all scores were totaled together to produce a total work-

stress score. Each totaled score correlated to a range of numbers, which then put each score into

a category. The three categories consisted of low, medium and high levels of stress. The scores

that ranged between 25 and 33 designate that the participant had a low level of stress at work.

The scores between 34 and 41 specify that the participants had a medium level of stress at work.

The scores between 42 and 50 indicate that the participant had a high level of stress at work.

These totaled scores were used in a cross analysis with the data gathered from the conflict

management style assessment.

Procedures

For the purposive selection sample, the researcher approached random organizations and

business and asked to speak with a manager. The researcher explained the purpose of the study

and the instructions for each survey. This explanation was done for all of the n=30 managers. If

available, multiple managers from each organization completed surveys for this study. All

surveys were completed on-site with an approximate completion time between 10-15 minutes per

manager. As well as in the instructions, the researcher reminded the managers to focus on their

workplace situations and experiences when responding to the survey. Furthermore, the survey

conducted, only included the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument and the work-stress

questionnaire. In the process of conducting the survey, the scoring guides were not included; the

scoring was completed at a later time by the researcher. After collecting the surveys the data was

compiled and analyzed.


Results

Structure for Analysis

To reiterate, H1 predicted that managers who had a primary conflict management style

of compromising would have lower levels of stress in the workplace. Moreover, the purpose of

this study was to determine if there is a correlation between Thomas and Kilmann’s conflict

management styles and the occupational stress levels of managers in the workplace. Therefore, a

correlational analysis of the n=30 managers was conducted to determine a connection between

(a) their primary conflict management styles; and (b) the category (low, medium, and high) of

their occupational stress. Correspondingly, after determining the primary conflict management

style of each participant, each of the n=30 managers were grouped into their designated primary

style. Conjointly, data from the work-stress questionnaires was also complied for each of the

managers within each primary conflict management style group. The percentages of each stress

level category (low, medium, and high) were computed and compared to each primary conflict

management style group. For illustrative purposes, Table 1 below (constructed in Microsoft

Excel), portrays the number of managers in each group of primary conflict management style

and the percentage of each stress level category within each group.


Table 1

Groups of primary conflict management styles among managers and percentages of stress level categories within each group

The results of the data gathered demonstrate an array of information regarding the

correlation between Thomas and Kilmann’s conflict management styles and the occupational

stress levels of managers in the workplace. Noteworthy, it must be acknowledged that there are

five conflict management styles but the data shows six primary conflict management style

groups. The explanation for this is that one of the n=30 managers scored equally on two of the

conflict management styles; giving them a primary conflict management style of

compromising/avoiding (indicated in Table 1). Supplementary, the number of managers in each


group of primary conflict management style and the percentages of stress level categories for

each group vary throughout.

Data Analysis

First, nine of the n=30 managers had a primary style of avoiding. Of those nine, 33.3%

scored in the low stress level, 33.3% scored in the medium level, and 33.3% scored in the high

level of stress. For compromising, nine of the n=30 managers scored into this primary group.

Of the nine, 55.5% scored in the low stress level, 44.5% scored in the medium level, and no

managers scored into the high level of stress. Next, five of the n=30 managers had the primary

style of collaborating. Of the five, 20% scored in the low stress level, 60% in the medium level,

and 20% in the high level. For competing, three of the n=30 managers scored into this primary

group. Of the three, 33.5% scored into the low stress level, 66.5% scored into the medium level,

and no managers scored into the high level of stress. The primary group of accommodating

contained 3 of the n=30 mangers. Of those three, 33.5% scored in the low stress level, none of

them scored in the medium, and 66.5% scored in the high level of stress. Lastly, as previously

stated, one of the n=30 managers scored into the primary style of compromising/avoiding. This

manager scored in the medium level of stress.

The results indicate that the primary style of accommodating had the greatest percentage

of managers who scored in the high level of stress. Worth mentioning, in connection,

compromising, competing, and compromising/avoiding did not have a single manager score in

the high level of stress. Competing had the uppermost percentage of managers who scored in the

medium level of stress. Similarly, over half of the managers in the primary group of

collaborating also scored in the medium level of stress. Notable, almost half of the managers in


the compromising group also scored in the medium level of stress as well. For each primary

style group, there was at least one manager who scored in the medium level of stress. The

percentages range from 33.3% to 100% overall for the medium level of stress. Lastly,

compromising had the highest percentage of managers who scored in the low level of stress.

May it also be noted that no managers scored in the low level of stress for the primary groups of

accommodating or compromising/avoiding.

The hypothesis formerly stated, predicted that managers with a primary conflict

management style of compromising would have lower levels of stress in the workplace. As

predicted, the data gathered supports that the managers who had a primary conflict management

style of compromising correspondingly had lower stress levels. The prediction is supported by

the 55.5% of managers with a primary style of compromising scoring in the low stress level.

This percentage was the highest among all of the primary conflict style groups for the low level

of stress. Of the data gathered in this study, it could be concluded that managers in the

workplace who primarily approach conflict through the style of compromising have lower levels

of stress; when compared to the other four of Thomas and Kilmann’s conflict management

styles.

Discussion

Summary

As displayed in the literature review, conflict is an inevitable aspect of all businesses and

organizations. Typically this type of conflict is studied in the context of effectiveness and

efficiency of the workplace depending on how appropriately it is managed. Along with conflict,

the review covered the consequences of occupational stress on business and organizations. This


subject is typically studied in the context of the sources and damages of occupational stress. In

addition, the review of literature also depicts the connection of the effect that conflict has on

occupational stress. Then again, the direct correlation between conflict management in the

workplace and occupational stress was not obtained through the review of previous studies. The

results of this study indicated that generally, managers who find a mutually acceptable solution

for both parties involved in conflict will have lower levels of stress than those who approach

conflicts with differing styles. Although the direct correlation between these concepts were not

found in the review literature, these findings seem to be consistent with the research found that

suggest that conflict management is a skill and great tool that can help managers deal with

conflict; in a way that can lower stress and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of their

organization. Further, there are many explanations for these findings and are connected with

implications for this study. The remainder of this discussion will focus on the implications and

explanations of the research results as well as the limitations for this study.

Implications and Explanations

The aim of this study was to discovery a correlation, if any, between (a) conflict

management styles of managers and (b) their occupational stress levels. The results presented,

display an array of associations between manager’s primary conflict management styles and their

occupational stress. The numbers and percentages from the results can bring insight to what this

connection might be. All of the results gathered are not completely conclusive but do offer

implications and possible interpretations for the relationship between conflict management styles

and occupational stress. A surface interpretation of this correlation is, depending on which

primary style of conflict management one uses when approaching conflict in the workplace, is

that that style has some degree of effect on one’s level of stress in the workplace. This is


revealed by the assortment of differing primary style groups and the contrasting percentages of

stress level categories within each group. More clearly, each primary style group had different

percentages of high, medium, and low stress level categories for each group. Therefore, one

could adopt that, a manager’s stress level can be highly affected by which primary conflict

management style they use in conflict situations. An explanation and implication of the direct

results of the six primary style groups will also be discussed.

Beginning with (1) avoiding, it is inferred that this mode for handling conflict can

produce all three levels of stress. This could be explained by implying that managers who avoid

conflict may have lower levels of stress because they do not deal with conflict at all. In relation,

the results could also suggest that managers have higher levels of stress who avoid conflict

because the conflict is never dealt with; therefore, the conflict develops into an even bigger

problem that the manager has to encounter later.

The results of (2) compromising can also be depicted and explained. It is shown that

managers who tend to have the primary conflict style of compromising seem to have lower levels

of stress. This can be explained by suggesting that managers who search for a mutually

acceptable solution for both parties may be experiencing lower levels of stress due to the

outcome of both parties being satisfied. It is possible that, when the outcome of conflict is

divided equally, the moral and productivity of the workplace are high; therefore, a manager’s

stress level may be reduced.

For the (3) collaborating style, the results indicated that the majority of managers in this

primary group had medium levels of stress in the workplace. Since collaborating involves both

assertiveness and cooperativeness, it could be inferred from the results that collaborating may


work well but may not be easy. Managers in this primary group tend to work with the other

person in order to find a solution that satisfies both parties. Although the conflict is being dealt

with, the managers in this group are working directly with the person who they are in conflict

with. The possible explanation for these results would be that working directly with the other

person could be difficult and therefore be a cause of some stress. It may be high stress at first

while dealing with the person, followed then by low stress of having satisfied both parties. This

could possibly put the manager’s stress in-between the high and low levels.

The primary style of (4) competing yielded a majority of managers in the medium level

of stress. Moreover, no managers scored in the high level of stress and the remaining scored in

the low. This may indicate that managers who are more powerful and hold their ground during

conflict are less likely to be highly stressed because they typically always win. It is possible that

managers, who know going into a conflict that the odds of winning are in their favor, may not be

as stressed as other employees who are continuously losing to them in conflict situations. In

recollection, competing involves an individual pursing his or her own concerns at the other

person’s expense (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974, 2007).

The majority of the group of managers in the primary style of (5) accommodating scored

in the high level of stress. The results also indicated that no managers scored in the low level of

stress for this group. The justification for the outcome of this primary group could be the

element of self-sacrifice within this style that could lead to a possible rise in stress. Managers

who accommodate tend to obey the other person’s orders when they would prefer not to. This

type of selflessness may be effective when trying to preserve personal relationships but one

could argue that in the workplace, maintaining relationships isn’t always the number one


priority. Therefore, the assumption could be made that accommodating in the workplace could

be a source of high stress due to the neglect one’s own concerns, especially managers.

The last group of primary management styles was a combination of (6) compromising

and avoiding. This group only consisted of one manager who scored in the medium level of

stress. With only one manager in this group the explanation is not very comprehensive. From

the description of each style, this manager may approach conflicts by trying to find a mutually

acceptable solution for each party or just sidestep the issue altogether. Likewise, it is possible

that managers, who have a split primary style group similar to this, may pre-analyze conflicts to

the point that they know whether or not there will be an equally suitable solution. If they know

that it is likely that there will not be one, through passed experiences, they might avoid the

conflict altogether. Therefore, avoiding the conflicts could cause later stress for these types

managers; however, compromising would lead to a lower level of stress. The medium level of

stress for this manager could then be justified.

Overall, the explanation and implications of the resulting data previously discussed do

not offer completely conclusive evidence regarding the correlation between conflict management

styles and occupational stress. Although there are acceptable possibilities of what these results

imply and why the researcher got these particular outcomes, it is imperative to note that from

these results one can only draw inclinations of the relationship between conflict management

styles and occupational stress. While the results do offer an insight to this correlation, the

meaning of these results could easily be debated. This reasoning rests within the limitations of

this study.


Limitations and areas for future study

Several limitations of this study that need further attention should be noted. First, this

study is limited by the total number of participants that were used. With having such a limited

sample size, it is difficult to draw any completely conclusive results. This is what led the

researcher to so many implications for this study. Second, the types of organizations and

businesses involved in this study were completely random. This could have had an immense

effect on the outcome of the results. For example, managers of a restaurant may already have

higher levels of stress due to constant fast-paced communication with employees. In contrast, a

manager of a retail shop may not be as stressed due a calm slow-paced atmosphere. Third, the

researcher did not specify different levels of management. This factor could have greatly

triggered different results given whether the managers that were surveyed were general

managers, assistant managers, or even junior managers. Lastly, the primary groups of conflict

styles identified were suggestive, thus not definitive descriptions of actually conflict behaviors.

How managers actually deal with conflict in the workplace and how they “think” they deal with

conflict is an enormous limitation for this research.

Future research in the area may be designed for a more specific sample. This includes

the size of the sample being much greater and well as further defined characteristics of the

participants. With a more specific sample the results may be more conclusive to this correlation.

It is advised that the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument still be used when assessing

participants’ conflict management styles. Although, a more efficient and precise instrument to

measure workplace stress should be used in order to determine more accurate results. To

conclude, enhanced results for study could also be accomplished through an observation of

conflict behaviors in accompany with assessments and questionnaires.


Conclusion

The present study was designed to determine a correlation, if any, between Thomas and

Kilmann’s five conflict management styles and the occupational stress levels of managers in the

workplace. The investigations of these concepts were led by the alarming effects of occupational

stress and the importance of managing conflict in businesses and organizations.

Correspondingly, this paper covered in detail, all of Thomas and Kilmann’s five conflict

management styles as well as their Conflict MODE Instrument. One of more significant findings

to emerge from this study is that Thomas and Kilmann’s five conflict management styles all have

different effects on occupational stress levels of managers in the workplace. Although not

completely conclusive, the results of this study also support the idea that managers who have a

primary conflict management style of compromising also have lower levels of stress in the

workplace; when compared to the other four styles of conflict management. In addition all

implications of the results gathered were discussed with the conclusion that the data obtained

only provided inclinations of the correlation between these two concepts. Further research in

this field needs to be completed in order to establish a definitive primary style of conflict

management that could be used in training in order to lower levels of stress in management

teams and generate higher effectiveness and efficiency within businesses and organizations. The

primary contribution of this study is the introduction to a correlation between conflict

management and occupational stress. Along with this analysis, additional research could be a

contributing factor to a better understanding of the relationship between conflict management

and occupational stress with the intentions of being useful in enhancing businesses and

organizations all over the world.

References

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in

organizational teams. Personal Psychology, 53, 625-642.

Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict

management styles. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 336-355.

Arnetz, B., Lucas, T., & Arnetz, J. (2011). Organizational climate, occupational stress, and

employee mental health: mediating effects of organizational efficiency. American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53, 34-42.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in information

system development. MIS Quarterly, 25, 195-228.

Buller, P., Kohls, J., & Anderson, K. (1997). A model for addressing costs- cultural ethical

conflicts. Business and Society, 36, 169-193.

Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists.

Communication Monographs, 69, 67-87.

Carr, J., Kelley, B., Keaton, R., & Albrecht, C. (2011). Getting to grips with stress in the

workplace. Human Resource Management International Digest, 19, 32-38.

Chan, K., Huang, X., & Ng, P. (2008). Manager’s conflict management styles and employee

attitudinal outcomes: the mediating role of trust. Asia Pacific J Manage, 25, 277-295.

Cooper, C. & Dewe, P. (2008). Well-being—absenteeism, presenteeism, costs and challenges.

Occupational Medicine, 58, 522-524.

Cosier, R., & Ruble, T. (1981). Research on conflict handling behavior: an experimental

approach. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 816-831.

De Dreu, C., & Van Vianen, A. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of

organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309-328.

De Dreu, C., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict

strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 645-668.

Dijkstra, M., Dierendonck, D., & Evers, A. (2005). Responding to conflict at work and

individual well-being: the mediating role of flight behaviour and feelings of helplessness.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 119-135.

Friedman, R., Tidd, S., Currall, S., & Tsai, J. (2000). What goes around comes around: the

impact personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. The International Journal of Conflict

Management, 11, 32-55.

Halkos, G., & Bousinakis, D. (2010). The effect of stress and satisfaction on productivity.

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 415-431.

Haraway, D., & Haraway, W. (2005). Analysis of the effect of conflict-management and

resolution training on employee stress at a healthcare organization. Hospital Topics, 83, 11-17.

Hargreaves, G. (1998). Stress Management: The essential guide to thinking and working

smarter. New York: AMACOM

Kirkcaldy, B., Trimpop, B., & Williams, S. (2002). Occupational stress and health outcome

among british and german managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 491-505.

Noblet, A., & LaMontagne, A. (2006). The role of workplace health promotion in addressing

job stress. Health Promotion International, 21, 346-353.

Manning, M., Jackson, C., & Fusilier, M. (1996). Occupational stress, social support, and the

costs of health care. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 738-750.

Ongori, H. & Agolla, J. (2008). Occupational stress in organizations and its effects on

organizational performance. Journal of Management Research, 8, 123-135.

Rees, C., & Redfern, D. (2000). Recognising the perceived causes of stress—a training and

development perspective. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32, 120-127.

Shell, R. (2001). Bargaining styles and negotiation: the thomas-kilmann mode instrument in

negotiation training. Negotiation Journal, 17, 155-174.

Slabbert, A. D. (2004). Conflict management styles in traditional organisations. The Social

Science Journal, 41, 83-92.

Song, M., Dyer, B., & Thieme, J.R. (2006). Conflict management and innovation performance:

an integrated contingency perspective. Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 34, 341-356.

Spector, P., & Jex, S. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and

strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative

workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 3, 356-367.

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: reflections and update. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 13, 265-274.

Thomas, K.W., & Kilmann, R.H. (1974, 2007). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.

Mountain View, CA: Xicom, a subsidiary of CPP, Inc.

Thomas, K.W., & Kilmann, R.H. (1975a). Interpersonal conflict-handling behavior as

reflections of jungian personality dimensions. Psychological Reports, 37, 971-980.

Thomas, K.W.,& Kilmann, R.H. (1975b). The social desirability variable in organizational

research: an alternative explanation for reported findings. Academy of Management Journal, 18,

741-752.

Thomas, K.W., & Kilmann, R.H. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-

handling behavior: the “mode” instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37,

309-325.

Tsai, J. & Chi, C. (2011). Linking societal cultures, organizational cultures and conflict

management styles. Engineering Project Organizations Conference, 1-14.

Van De Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (1999). Constructive conflict at work.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 475-491.

Womack, D. (1988a). Assessing the thomas-kilmann conflict mode survey. Management

Communication Quarterly, 1, 321-349.

Womack, D. (1988b). A review of conflict instruments in organizational settings. Management

Communication Quarterly, 1, 437-445.

Appendix A

Conflict Management Style Assessment Instrument

Male or Female Age: Approx. # of employees managed:

Instructions: Consider situations in which you find your wishes differing form those of another person.

How do you usually respond in such situations? The following pages contain 30 pairs of statements

describing possible behavioral responses. For each pair, please circle the letter (“A” or “B”) of the

statement that best characterizes your behavior. In many cases, neither the “A” nor the “B” statement

may be very typical of your behavior; but please select the response you would be more likely to use.

Please focus your responses strictly based on your workplace situations and experiences.

1. A. There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving the problem.

B. Rather than negotiate the things on which we disagree, I try to stress those things on which

we both agree.

2. A. I try to find a compromise solution.

B. I attempt to deal with all of his/her and my concerns.

3. A. I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.

B. I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship.

4. A. I try to find a compromise solution.

B. I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.

5. A. I consistently seek the other’s help in working out a solution.

B. I try to do what is necessary to avoid useless tensions.

6. A. I try to avoid creating unpleasantness for myself.

B. I try to win my position.

7. A. I try to postpone the issue until I have had some time to think it over.

B. I give up some points in exchange for others.


B. I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.

9. A. I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.

B. I make some effort to get my way.

10. A. I am firm in pursuing my goals.

B. I try to find a compromise solution.

11. A. I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.

B. I might try to soothe the other’s feeling and preserve our relationship.

12. A. I sometimes avoid taking positions that would create controversy.

B. I will let the other person have some of his/her positions if he/she lets me have some of mine.

13. A. I propose a middle ground.

B. I press to get my points made.

14. A. I tell the other person my ideas and ask for his/hers.

B. I try to show the other person the logic and benefits of my position.

15. A. I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship.

B. I try to do what is necessary to avoid tensions.

16. A. I try not to hurt the other’s feelings

B. I try to convince the other person of the merits of my position.


B. I try to do what is necessary to avoid useless tensions.

18. A. If it makes other people happy, I might let them maintain their views.

B. I will let other people have some of their positions if they let me have some of mine.

19. A. I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.

B. I try to postpone the issue until I have had some time to think it over.

20. A. I attempt to immediately work through our differences.

B. I try to find a fair combination of gains and losses for both of us.

21. A. In approaching negotiations, I try to be considerate of the other person’s wishes.

B. I always lean toward a direct discussion of the problem.

22. A. I try to find a position that is intermediate between his/hers and mine.

B. I assert my wishes.

23. A. I am very often concerned with satisfying all our wishes.

B. There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving the problem.

24. A. If the other’s position seems very important to him/her, I would try to meet his/her wishes.

B. I try to get the other person to settle for a compromise.

25. A. I try to show the other person the logic and benefits of my position.

B. In approaching negotiations, I try to be considerate of the other person’s wishes.


B. I am nearly always concerned with satisfying all our wishes.

27. A. I sometimes avoid taking positions that would create controversy.

B. If it makes other people happy, I might let them maintain their views.


B. I usually seek the other’s help in working out a solution.


B. I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.

30. A. I try not to hurt the other’s feelings.

B. I always share the problem with the other person so that we can work it out.

Appendix B

Conflict Management Styles Scoring Guide

Circle the letters below that correspond to your answers on the questionnaire.

Competing Collaborating Compromising Avoiding Accommodating

1. A B . 2. B A . 3. A B . 4. A B . 5. A B . 6. B A . 7. B A . 8. A B . 9. B A . 10. A B . 11. A B . 12. B A . 13. B A . 14. B A . 15. B A . 16. B A . 17. A B . 18. B A . 19. A B . 20. A B . 21. B A . 22. B A . 23. A B . 24. B A . 25. A B . 26. B A . 27. A B . 28. A B . 29. A B . 30. B A .

Total number of items circled in each column:

. Competing Collaborating Compromising Avoiding Accommodating

Appendix C

Work Stress Questionnaire

Instructions: Answer the questions as honestly as you can. Answering quickly without agonizing over answers will help you. Keep in mind your workplace situations.

Write in the score which best matches you:

1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = nearly all the time

1. How often do you feel you have too little authority to carry out your responsibilities?

2. How often do you feel you are unclear about the scope and responsibilities of your job?

3. How often are you unaware that opportunities for advancement and promotion exist for you?

4. How often do you feel that your workload is too heavy and that you could not possibly finish during the ordinary work day?

5. How often do you feel that you will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of various people around you?

6. How often do you feel that you are not fully qualified to handle your job?

7. How often do you not know what your superior thinks of you or how he/she evaluates your performance?

8. How often do you find yourself unable to get the information you need to perform your job?

9. How often do you worry about making decisions that affect the lives of people you know?

10. How often do you feel that you may not be liked and accepted by people at work?

11. How often do you feel unable to influence your immediate supervisor’s decisions and actions that affect you?

12. How often do you not know just what the people you work for expect of you?

13. How often do you think the amount of work you have to do may interfere with how well it is done?

14. How often do you feel that you have to do things on the job that are against your better judgment?

15. How often do you feel your job interferes with your family life?

Documents

Conflict Management Styles and Occupational Stress