In one of our research projects dealing with conflict resolution by managers, we have attempted to identify the differences in the ways of resolving conflicts in different situations. The research file consisted of 52 managers (29 top managers and 23
line managers), of which 28 were men and 24 were women. The average age of these managers was 32 years, and the average length of managerial experience was 9 years. Data collection was carried out in 2013 by means of the snowball sampling method.
In
the research, we used the questionnaire method. The questionnaire contained two model situations:
Situation 1: Imagine that someone is backbiting and you learn about it. What do you do?
Situation 2: You have a feeling of injustice because
of being falsely accused of something. What do you do?
The model situations took place in three different environments (at work, at home, and among friends) and in each environment the respondent had to choose from five options to resolve the
conflict situation (avoiding, accommodating, collaborating, compromising, and competing) that corresponded to the concept. The individual ways to resolve the conflict were judged by managers on a 6-point scale from 1 (definitely yes) to 6 (definitely
no).
The difference in the preference of avoiding solutions in the backbiting situations and false accusations at work was statistically significant at the significance level of 0.001. Managers in both cases rejected this way of solving the conflict.
The identified statistically significant difference depending on the situation can only be interpreted in terms of the degree of the expressed disagreement (Table 1).
|
Work: backbiting |
Work: false accusations |
t |
p |
| Avoiding |
4.12 |
5.04 |
3.628 |
0.001 |
Table 1. Situations: backbiting at work and false accusations at work - resolution method: avoiding.
The difference in the preference of accommodation in the backbiting situations and false accusations at work was statistically significant at the significance level of 0.000. In this case, the difference was also identified in the degree of the refusal
of this conflict resolution method by managers (Table 2).
|
Work: backbiting |
Work: false accusations |
t |
p |
| Accommodating |
4.08 |
4.94 |
3.766 |
0.000 |
Table 2. Situations: backbiting at work and false accusations at work - resolution method: accommodating.
The difference in the preference of collaboration in solving these conflicts in the context of the work was statistically significant at the significance level of 0.002. This way of resolving the conflict was in the situation of backbiting rather refused
by managers. On the contrary, in the situation of false accusations, they rather agreed. It should be stressed that in this case the differences are substantial, as the preference of this procedure is in a backbiting situation in the refusal direction,
but in the accusation situation in the direction of acceptance (Table 3).
|
Work: backbiting |
Work: false accusations |
t |
p |
| Collaborating |
3.79 |
3.25 |
3.204 |
0.002 |
Table 3. Situations: backbiting at work and false accusations at work - resolution method: collaborating.
The difference in the preference of the compromise as one of the options for solving the examined conflicts in the context of work was not statistically significant (0.234). The differences in this strategy in both situations did not differ. Managers
in both situations agreed to this conflict resolution process (Table 4).
|
Work: backbiting |
Work: false accusations |
t |
p |
| Compromising |
2.23 |
2.00 |
1.205 |
0.234 |
Table 4. Situations: backbiting at work and false accusations at work - resolution method: compromising.
The difference in preference of competition as a way of solving these types of conflicts in the context of work was statistically significant at the level of 0.000. In this case, the managers expressed their disagreement with this approach to resolving
the given conflicts. The identified statistically significant difference is in the degree to which this method of conflict resolution by managers is refused (Table 5).
|
Work: backbiting |
Work: false accusations |
t |
p |
| Competing |
4.71 |
4.10 |
4.015 |
0.000 |
Table 5. Situations: backbiting at work and false accusations at work - resolution method: competing.
The second environment in which we analyzed the preference of individual ways of resolving the conflicts examined was the family. Differences in the preference of avoiding, accommodating, collaborating, and compromising in terms of backbiting, and
false accusations in the family context are not statistically significant.
The third environment in which we analyzed the preference of the different ways of resolving the conflicts examined was the social situation among friends. Differences in
the conflict resolution methods of avoiding, accommodating, and collaborating between the types of conflicts examined are not statistically significant.
Statistically significant differences were found in the preference of the conflict resolution methods of compromising and competing (Tables 6 and 7).
|
Friends: backbiting |
Friends: false accusations |
t |
p |
| Compromising |
2.21 |
1.90 |
2.217 |
0.031 |
Table 6. Situations: backbiting among friends and false accusations among friends - resolution method: compromising.
|
Friends: backbiting |
Friends: false accusations |
t |
p |
| Competing |
3.98 |
3.58 |
2.095 |
0.041 |
Table 7. Situations: backbiting among friends and false accusations among friends - resolution method: competing.
The difference in the preference of compromising as a method of dealing with backbiting and false accusations
was statistically significant at the significance level of 0.031. Managers preferred this solution in both types of conflict. The statistically significant difference found can be interpreted in terms of a different degree of acceptance of this conflict
resolution procedure. Moreover, this way of conflict resolution in the context of friends is preferred by managers in the case of false accusations rather than backbiting (Table 6).
The difference in preference of competing as a way of solving
the given types of conflicts was statistically significant at the significance level of 0.041. In addressing both types of conflict, managers have been slightly opposed to this solution. The detected statistically significant difference can be interpreted
in terms of a different degree of refusal of this conflict resolution process. This way of conflict resolution by managers in the context of friends is denied to a greater extent in the case of backbiting rather than false accusations (Table 7).
The
presented findings relating to the differences in the preference of the individual ways of resolving conflicts between the situations of backbiting and false accusations markedly indicate the situational approach in defining the theoretical-methodological
concepts of conflicts and ways of their resolution. Acceptance of the situational approach is confirmed by the differences in the preference of the individual ways of solving the conflicts examined in terms of the three settings (work, family,
and friends), within which the analyses were carried out. In addressing these conflicts, managers clearly preferred a compromise solution and, to a certain extent, took into consideration also the context of collaboration. The situational context was
most pronounced in terms of preference for the conflict resolution method of competing. At the same time, it is important to point out that the necessity to think about the situational approach in terms of conflict resolution methods was most evident
in the work context. Interestingly, in dealing with these conflicts, the difference in the preference of compromising was reflected in the context of friends, but did not appear in the contexts of work and family.