DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 357 252 CE 063 666

AUTHOR Earnest, Garee W.; And OthersTITLE Conflict Management Styles as Reflections of Jungian

Personality Type Preferences of the CooperativeExtension's North Central Region Directors andDistrict Directors. Summary of Research SR 71.

INSTITUTION Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Dept. of AgriculturalEducation.

PUB DATE 93NOTE 14p.PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Administrator Attitudes; *Administrator

Characteristics; Administrator Role; *ConflictResolution; *Extension Education; *PersonalityTraits; Postsecondary rAucation; Problem Solving;*Rural Extension

IDENTIFIERS *Cooperative Extension Service; Myers Briggs TypeIndicator

ABSTRACT

A descriptive-correlational study was conducted toexplore and describe interpersonal conflict management styles,identify psychological type preferences, and examine therelationships between conflict management styles and psychologicaltype preferences as well as selected demographic characteristics ofthe Cooperative Extension Service's North Central Region Directorsand District Directors. Study participants were the 12 extensiondirectors and the 68 district directors within region; completedself-report survey forms were obtained from 78 of these 80administrators (98 percent). The questionnaires used were theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G and the Rahim OrganizationalConflict Inventories-II. The demographic variables of role status,gender, age, educational degree, major area of study, and tenure wereincluded in the study, with the majority of participants being male,about 51 years of age, holding advanced degrees in the socialsciences. Some of the findings were as follows: (1) directors anddistrict directors preferred to use the integrating conflictmanagement style in conflict situation; (2) the majority of theadministrators were of the thinking/judging personality style,indicating they make logical, objective, and tough-minded decisionsand prefer a decisive, structured, and organized environment; (3)administrators who favored the intuitive style were more apt to usethe integrating conflict management style when confronted with aconflict situation; (4) administrators who faored the judgingpreference were more apt to avoid conflict situations; (5) as tenurein extension increased, the more the administrators preferred to itsethe avoiding conflict management style; and (6) administrators tendedto use the integrating and obliging conflict management styles lessas their tenure in an administrative position increased.Recommendations were made to help administrators to understand thestrengths and weaknesses inherent within each of the five conflictmanagement styles and work toward being able to use each styleappropriately depending upon the situation. (Contains 14 references.)(KC)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice or Ectucanoom Rma Ichand imoroyementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)uoi' This document has been reorcoucect as

receives) from the person or orgarozationoriginating it0 Woof changes nese been made to improve

reproduction Quotas

Points of view or opinions Mateo .o this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOE RI posaton or pohoy

Summary ofesearch

SR 71

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESDepartment of Agricultural Education INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

Conflict Management Styles as Reflections of JungianPersonality Type Preferences of the Cooperative Extension's

North Central Region Directors and District Directors

Garee W. Earnest, N. L. McCaslin, and Jo M. Jones

Conflict is a reality in everyone's lifeand should be considered a natural processthat occurs daily. However, for most, con-flict has negative connotations, invokes nega-tive feelings and often leads to destruction(Lindelow and Scott, 1989). "Whether theeffect of conflict is good or bad depends onthe strategies used to deal with it" (Rahim,1986, p. vi).

Today, the . . . administrator is typi-cally faced with a vast array of con-flict situations, both within a giveninstitution and between that institu-tion and its various external publics.The manner in which . . . administra-tors have traditionally handled suchconflicts has been based on the beliefthat conflict should be thoroughlyanalyzed, suppressed, and eliminated.Conflict therefore was viewed as be-ing dysfunctional and time consum-ing. Over the years, however, suc-cessful administrators have begun torecognize that in m a n y instances con-flict can be a sign of a healthy . . .

organization (Darling & Brownlee,1984, p. 243).

Dealing with conflict between andamong individuals can be one of the mostfrustrating and uncomfortable experiencesfor administrators. According to Schmidtand Tannenbaum (1960), when conflict oc-curs "strong feelings are frequently aroused,

objectivity flies out the window, egos arethreatened, and personal relationships areplaced in jeopardy" (p. 107). Therefore, it isimportant for administrators to understandand effectively manage conflict.

Extension administrators are con-stantly dealing with conflict situations suchas "allocation of funds to positions, travel,supplies, etc. [Additionally], ... poor jobdesign and unclear reporting relationshipscan cause conflict over work arrangements*(Buford and Bedeian, 1988, p. 185). Differ-ent work groups within Extension can be-come entangled in conflict if they pursuedifferent goals and objectives. ExtensionDirectors and District Directors are in posi-tions where they are prone to encounterthese conflict situations in their day to dayadministrative duties.

According to Rahim (1986), studiesconducted in the area of organizational con-flict management have (a) "attempted tomeasure the amount of conflict at variousorganizational levels and to explore thesources of such conflict;" and (b) "related thevarious styles ofhandling interpersonal con-flict of the organizational participants andtheir effects on quality of problem solution"(p. 27). Therefore, Rahim (1986) concludedthat it ic t,,ssential to understand the distinc-tion between the amount of conflict at nu-merous levels and the styles used to handleinterpersonal conflict. This data will pro-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

vide administrators insight regarding psy- 1.chological type preferences and how theyinfluence an individual's conflict manage-ment style. This knowledge will be usefulwhen they are: (a) building teams, (b) en-couraging creativity among faculty, (c) build-ing group dynamics, (d) exploring job satis-faction, and (e) examining work productiv-ity of faculty.

Statement of the ProblemThe Extension Service administra-

tors and educators are constantly confrontedwith conflict situations in dealing withgroups, clientele, volunteers, peers, superi-ors and subordinates. Kindler (1983) statedthat "when managers handle differenceswell, they can identify underlying concerns,stimulate creative effort, reduce antagonis-tic feelings, correct misunderstandings andmarshal' commitment to needed change" (p.27). Managers must be able to use a broadrepertoire of conflict management strate-gies. Therefore, in order to provide Exten-sion administrators with the skills neededto effectively manage conflict, an excellentstarting point would be for them to under-stand their conflict management styles whendealing with one another in superior/subor-dinate relationships.

Purpose and ObjectivesThe purpose of this descriptive-corre-

lational study was to (a) explore and de-scribe interpersonal conflict managementstyles, (b) identify psychological type prefer-ences, and (c) examine the relationshipsbetween conflict management styles andpsychological type preferences as well asselected demographic characteristics of theCooperative Extension Service's North Cen-tral Region Directors and District Directors.Additionally, regression models were con-structed to explain the variance in conflictmanagement styles of administrators due topersonality type preferences and demo-graphic characteristics. The specific objec-tives of the study were to:

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

describe the conflict managementstyles of the Cooperative ExtensionService's North Central Region Di-rectors and District Directors.describe the psychological type pref-erences of the Cooperative ExtensionService's North Central Region Di-rectors and District Directors.describe what relationships existedbetween conflict management stylesand psychological type preferences ofDirectors and District Directors.describe what relationships existedamong conflict management stylesand personal characteristics of Direc-tors and District Directors.describe what relationships existedamong psychological type prefer-ences and personal characteristics ofDirectors and District Directors.determine the proportion of variancein the conflict management styles ofDirectors and District Directors thatcould be explained by the indepen-dent variables of gender, personalitytype preferences, and role status andthe extraneous variables of age, ten-ure, educational degree and majorarea of study.

Methodology

This exploratory study was descrip-tive-correlational in nature. Data were ex-amined to determine the nature and strengthof the relationship between variables. Addi-tionally, stepwise multiple regression mod-els were constructed to men sure the propor-tion of variance in the conflict managementstyles of Directors and District Directorsthat could be explained by selected charac-teristics.

Population and Sampling

The participants in this descriptive-correlational census study were the 12 Ex-tension Directors and the 68 District Direc-tors within the Cooperative Extension'sNorth Central Region. Completed surveyswere obtained from 78 of the 80 administra-tors for a total response rate (197.5 percent.

3

1

InstrumentationTwo self-report questionnaires, the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) FormG and the Rahim Organizational ConflictInventories-II (ROCI-II) Forms A and B,were used to measure the variables of inter-est. The MBTI, based upon Jungian theory(Jung, 1923), was used to assess the psycho-logical type preferences. Four dichotomousscales, transformed into four continuousscales, are used throughout the MBTI: ex-traversion (E) or introversion (I) reflectswhether a person's attitude is oriented pri-marily toward the outer world or the innerworld; sensing (S) or intuition (N) de-scribes the function of how information isperceived; thinking (T) or feeling (F) de-scribes the preference for making judgments;and judging (J) or perceiving (P) describesthe attitude toward dealing with the outerworld.

The ROCI-II measures five indepen-dent conflict management dimensions thatrepresent styles of handling interpersonalconflict, which are measuredon a summatedfive point Likert scale, with one indicatingstrongly disagree and five indicating stronglyagree. These five conflict management stylesare integrating a win/win solution accept-able to both parties; obliging satisfyingthe concern of the other party; dominating

a win/lose orientation or forcing one'sposition; avoiding withdrawing, passing-the-buck or sidestepping the situation; andcompromising both parties give up some-thing to reach a mutually acceptable solu-tion. Form A measures how an organiza-tinaal member handles conflict with his orher superior and was used with the DistrictDirectors. Form B measures howan organi-zational member handles conflict with his orher subordinate and was used with theDirectors.

Both instruments were field tested toensure face and content validity using fiveExtension administrators within the OhioCooperative Extension Service. Reliabilityand internal consistencywere calculated forboth MBTI and ROCI-II. The MBTI test-

3

retest product-moment correlations were .96ET, .95 SN, .77 TF and .90 JP while the split-half reliabilities were .83 EI, .89 SN, .8377,and .77 JP. The ROCI-II test-retest prod-uct-moment correlations were .40 integrat-ing, .93 obliging, .95 dominating, .77 avoid-ing, and .69 compromising while theCronbach's alphas were .84 integrating, .78obliging, .72 dominating, .80 avoiding and.56 compromising.

4

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were obtained through use ofdescriptive survey research. Descriptivestatistics were used to summarize andorga-nize the data. Measures of association wereutilized to determine the., linear relationshipbetween the conflict management styles,the Myers-Briggs Type preferences and se-lected demographic characteristics. "Theconventional notation for MBTI correlationsis followed, such that positive correlationsare associated with I, N, F, orP, and negativecorrelations are associated with E, S, T, or J(Myers and McCaulley, 1985, p. 176, em-phasis added by authors). The conventionsby Davis (1971) were used in describing themeasures of association.

Stepwise multiple regression analy-sis was used to determine the bestpredictor(s) of the dependent variableconflict management styles of Directors andDistrict Directors. The dependent variablefor the regression model in this study wasthe interval scoreson each ofthe five conflictmanagement styles. The independent andextraneous variables entered into the re-gression model included: position, tenure inextension, tenure in current position, ten-ure as an administrator, gender, age, majorfield of study, educational degree, extravert/introvert preference, sensing/intuition pref-erence, thinking/feeling preference, andjudging/perceiving preference. The total Et2was computed to determine the amount ofvariance accounted for by the linear combi-nation of the independent and extraneousvariables. Stepwise multiple regressionwasonly used to describe the respondentsin thestudy. No hypothesis testing was conducted

and no inferences were made to this popula-tion or to any other similar population.

Findings

The demographic variables of rolestatus, gender, age, educational degree,major area of study and tenure were in-cluded in this study. Of the 78 individualsthat provided data, the majority (76.9 per-cent) were male whereas less than one-fourth (23.1 percent) were female The meanages were 52.6 and 50.1 years for Directorsand District Directors respectively. Nearly92 percent of the Directors held a doctoratedegree whereas slightly more than 71 per-cent of the District Directors held a master'sdegree. The majority (74.4 percent) of therespondents' major area of study for theirhighest academic degree was in the socialsciences. The average number of years em-ployed in Extension was over 22 years forboth Directors and District Directors. Two-thirds (66.7 percent) of the Directors andnearly 40 percent of the District Directorshad less than five years experience in theircurrent positions. The average tenure as anadministrator, including service in otherorganizations, was 15.7 years and 11.9 yearsfor Directors and District Directors respec-tively.

Conflict Management Styles

Both the Directors and the DistrictDirectors, as shown in Table 1, indicatedthat the integrating conflict managementstyle was their most preferred style whenthey were found to be in a conflict situation.The mean scores for the integrating stylewere 4.81 and 4.32, respectively. Directorswere found to be significantly more inte-grating than the District Directors but nosignificant differences were found betweenthe administrators on the remaining fourstyles.

Myers-Briggs Type Preferences

Of the population shown in Table 2,the majority (26.9 percent) was of the ESTJ

personality type whereas the majority (33.3percent) of the Directors was of the ISTJpersonality type. The ENTJ personalitytype accounted for the second largest per-centage (15.2 percent) of District Directorswhereas the ESTJ personality type ac-counted for the second largest percentage(25 percent) of Directors.

The individual with an ESTJ person-ality preference is practical, realistic, mat-ter-of-fact, has a head for business, likes toorganize and run activities and makes agood administrator if they consider other'sfeelings. An individual with an ISTJ per-sonality preference is serious, quiet, practi-cal, orderly, matter-of-fact, logical, realistic,dependable, well organized but will worktoward a goal regardless of distractions.Those individuals who prefer the ENTJ per-sonality preference are hearty, frank, lead-ers in activities, good at reasoning and pub-lic speaking, well informed but may appearmore confident than their experience war-rants (Myers and Myers, 1987).

Relationships Between Variables

Correlations, shown in Table 3, be-tween conflict management styles and MBTIpreferences revealed that the intuition pref-erence had a low (Davis, 1971) correlationwith the integrating conflict managementstyle while the sensing preference had a lowcorrelation with the avoiding and compro-mising conflict management styles. Thejudging preference .vas shown to have a lowcorrelation with the avoiding conflict man-agement style.

Measures of association between con-flict management styles and selected demo-graphic characteristics indicated that theintegrating and obliging styles showed a lowcorrelation with tenure as an administra-tor. The dominating style had a low correla-tion with tenure in current position whilethe avoiding style had a low correlation withtenure in Extension.

The associations between the MBTIpreferences and selected characteristics, as

5

5

Table 1MEAN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES SCORES FOR DIRECTORS AND DISTRICT DIRECTORS

(N = 78)

Group n Mean sd t

IntegratingDirector 12 4.81 .27 < .001*District Director 66 4.32 .47

ObligingDirector 12 3.51 .31 .34District Director 66 3.68 .59

DominatingDirector 12 2.90 .88 .40District Director 66 3.13 .57

AvoidingDirector 12 2.72 .82 .36District Director 66 2.96 .77

CompromisingDirector 12 3.58 .64 .30District Director 66 3.79 .48

Note. 1= Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree; * p < .05

Table 2MYERS-BRIGGS TYPES OF EXTENSION ADMINISTRATORS (N = 78)

All Administrators(n = 78)

Directors(n = 12)

District Directors(n = 66)

MBTI Type n % n . % n %

ISTJ 11 14.1 4 33.3 7 10.6ISF 2 2.6 0 0.0 2 3.0INFJ 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 1.5INTJ 4 5.1 0 0.0 4 6.1ISTP 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 1.5ISFP 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 1.5INFP 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 1.5INTP 3 3.8 0 0.0 3 4.5ESTP 3 3.8 1 8.3 2 3.0ESFP 0 0.0 0 . 0.0 0 0.0ENFP 5 6.4 2 .16.7 3 4.5ENTP 6 7.7 1 8.3 5 7.6ESTJ 21 26.9 3 25.0 18 27.3ESFJ 5 6.4 0 0.0 5 7.6ENFJ 4 5.1 1 8.3 3 4.5ENTJ 10 12.8 0 0.0 10 15.2

Note. E = Extravert, I = Introvert; S = Sensing, N = Intuition; T = Thinking, F = Feeling;J = Judging, P = Perceiving

6

shown in Table 4, indicated that the intu-ition preference had a low association withmajor area of study and educational degree.The associations between conflict manage-ment styles and selected characteristics in-dicated that the ir tegrating conflict man-agement style slur ved a moderate associa-tion with role status while the obliging con-flict management style showed a moderateassociation with educational degree.

2.

3.

Results of the Stepwise MultipleRegression Analyses

Using stepwise multiple regressionanalysis, as shown in Table 5, it was deter-mined that the linear combination of threecharacteristics could account for 25.9 per-cent of the variance in the integrating con- 5.flict management style. Role status, thefirst characteristic entered into the model,accounted for 14 percent of the total vari- 6.ance in the integrating style. Years as anadministrator accounted for an additional6.3 percent of the variance while the intu-ition preference added an additional 5.6 7.percent of the variance.

Only one characteristic in Table 6,educational degree, accounted for 10.6 per- 8.cent of the variance in the obliging conflictmanagement style. Likewise in Table 7,only one characteristic, the sensing prefer-ence, accounted for 5.9 percent of the vari-ance in the avoiding conflict management 9.style. No characteristics were found to ac-count for any variance in either the domi-nating or the compromising conflict man-agement styles.

Conclusions

Based upon the review of literatureand the findings related to the researchobjectives, the following conclusions, appli-cable to the population of this study, werereached:

1. Directors and District Directors indi-cated they preferred to use the inte-

4.

10.

11.

12.

grating conflict management stylewhen confronted with a conflict situ-ation.The majority of the administratorswere of the thinking/judging person-ality style indicating they make logi-cal, objective, and tough-minded de-cisions and prefer a decisive, struc-tured and organized environment.Administrators who favored the in-tuitive preference were more apt touse the integrating conflict manage-ment style when confronted with aconflict situation.Administrators who favored thesensing preference tended to handleconflict situations using the avoidingor compromising conflict manage-ment styles.Administrators who favored thejudging preference were more apt toavoid conflict situations.As tenure in Extension increased, themore the administrators preferred touse the avoiding conflict manage-ment style.The longer administrators remainedin their current position, the morethey tended to dominate the conflictsituation.Directors and District Directorstended to use the integrating andobliging conflict management stylesless as their tenure in an administra-tive position increased.Administrators who held a master'sdegree or less were more apt to usethe obliging conflict managementstyle than those who held a doctoraldegree.The best predictors of the integratingconflict management style includedrole status, years as an administra-tor, and the intuitive preference ofthe perceiving function.The obliging conflict managementstyle was beat predicted by educa-tional degree.The best predictor of the avoidingconflict management style was thesensing preference of the perceivingfunction.

Tab

le 3

SU

MM

AR

Y D

AT

A: I

NT

ER

CO

RR

ELA

TIO

NIB

rtw

ntS

ELI

CT

ID C

HA

RA

CT

ZR

UIT

ICIS

AN

D C

ON

FLI

CT

MA

NA

GE

MIC

NT

9rf

LIN

I (N

in 7

8)

Inte

rcor

rela

tions

Cha

ract

eris

tics

X1

Xs

Xs

Xs

Xs

Xs

X7

Xs

Xs

Xt.

Xu

X,

Yt

Ys

Ys

Y4

Ys

mea

nsa

Rol

e St

atus

(X

I)1.

00.0

2.2

0'-.

18-.

07-.

13-.

01-.

50*

-.10

-.08

.09

.07

-.37

'.1

1.1

3.1

1.1

5.8

5.3

6

Yrs

Ext

ensi

on (

X,)

1.00

.46'

.36*

.07

.64'

.23

.02

.07

-.30

'-.

03-.

24*

-.11

.01

.00

.20'

.06

22.8

58.

39

Yrs

Cur

rent

Pos

ition

(X

,)1.

00.4

1'.0

2.5

1*.1

4.0

0.0

8.0

1.1

3-.

02-.

06-.

03.1

8*-.

06.0

76.

925.

82

Yrs

Adm

inis

trat

or (

X4)

1.00

.14

.55*

.17

.26*

.05

.07

-.24

'.0

6-.

18*

-.29

*.1

0-.

02-.

0412

.49

7.76

Gen

der'

(X,)

1.00

.12

-.32

*.3

5*.1

6-.

10-.

16-.

09-.

12-.

14-.

02-.

04-.

10.7

7.4

2

Age

ad

1.00

.00

.22'

.05

-.15

-.03

-.13

-.14

-.14

.14

.11

-.03

50.4

57.

22

Maj

or A

rea

of S

tudy

(X

7)1.

00-.

05.0

5.2

1*.0

4.0

2.0

6.0

3-.

01.1

2.0

1.7

4.4

4

Edu

catio

nal D

egre

e' (

X,)

h2U

2tef

elr4

021.

00.1

7.2

4*-.

09-.

01.0

7-.

33*

.01

-.10

-.13

.36

.48

Ext

rave

rt/I

ntro

vert

(X

,)1.

00-.

20'

-.25

*-.

14.0

2-.

17-.

12.0

0-.

0790

.36

25.3

8

Sens

ing/

Intu

ition

(X

,,)1.

00.2

5*.6

0*.2

5*-.

16.0

9-.

24'

-.19

*96

.87

32.0

7

Thi

nkin

g/Fe

elin

g (X

11)

1.00

.32

.07

.12

.05

-.05

.03

81.8

524

.71

Judg

ing/

Perc

eivi

ng (

X.)

rang

lidid

ata/

Xle

i

1.00

.17

-.05

.04

-.22

*-.

1484

.96

28.9

9

Inte

grat

ing

(Y,)

1.00

.11

-.16

-.19

'.4

0*4.

40.4

7

Obl

igin

g (Y

,)1.

00-.

11.5

0'.2

3'3.

66.5

5

Dom

inat

ing

(Y,)

1.00

.13

-.02

3.09

.62

Avo

idin

g (Y

,)1.

00.1

72.

93.7

8

Com

prom

isin

g (Y

,)1.

003.

76.5

1

Not

e. C

oeff

icie

nts

repo

rted

as

Pear

son'

s Pr

oduc

t-M

omen

t Cor

rela

tions

.

Con

vent

iona

l not

atio

n fo

r ra

n co

rrel

atio

ns: p

ositi

ve c

orre

latio

ns a

re a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith I

, N, F

, or

P an

d ne

gativ

e co

rrel

atio

ns a

re a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith E

, S, T

, or

Ja:

Dir

ecto

r =

0, D

istr

ict D

irec

tor

=1;

b: F

emal

e . 0

, Mal

e .1

; c: N

atur

al S

cien

ce s

i 0, S

ocia

l Sci

ence

is 1

; d: M

aste

rs o

rle

ss =

0, D

octo

ral .

1

p <

.05

B

Table 4RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ROLE STATUS, GENDER, MAJOR AREA OF STUDY AND EDUCATIONAL

DEGREE WITH MBTI PREFERENCES AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES (N = 78)

Major Area°Characteristics Role Status' Gender" of Study

Educational('Degree

MBTI Preferences.17.24*

-.09-.01

.07-.33*.01

-.10-.13

Extravert/Introvert -.10 .16 .05Sensing/Intuition -.08 -.10 . .21*Thinking/Feeling .09 -.16 .04Judging/Perceiving .07 -.09 .02

Conflict Mgt. StylesIntegrating -.37* -.12 .05Obliging .11 -.14 .03Dominating .13 -.02 -.01Avoiding .11 -.04 .12Compromising .15 -.10 .01

NOTE: Coefficients reported as Point-biserial correlationsa: Directors = 0; District Directors =1b: Females-, 0; Males =1c: Natural Science = 0; Social Science =1d: Master's or less = 0; Doctoral = 1*p<.05

Table 5REGRESSION OF INTEGRATING CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLE WITH SELECTED VARIABLES -

STEPWISE ENTRY (N = 78)

Variables R2 R2 b t p

Role status' .140 .140 -.526 -3.95 < .001Years an Administrator .203 .063 -.016 -2.65 .010Sensing/Intuition .259 .056 .004 2.36 .021(Constant) 4.706

Std. Error = .417Adjusted R2 = .230For model: F = 8.63; p < .001a: Director = 0; District Director =1

1.0

Table 6REGRESSION OF OBLIGING CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLE WITH

SELECTED VARIABLES - STEPWISE ENTRY (N = 78)

Variables R2 R b t p

Educational Degree .106(Constant)

.106 -.3743.791

-3.00 .004

Std. Error = .528Adjusted R2 = .094For model: F = 9.00; p < .01a: Master's or less = 0; Doctoral =1

Implications

As described iu various studies(Chanin & Scheer, 1984; Rahim, 1983; andKilmann & Thomas, 1975), personality pref-erences of individuals and how they affectedtheir conflict management styles did notindicate any significant type of trends. Thesensing preference was found to be signifi-cantly correlated with the compromisingconflict management style in this study aswell as in the Chanin and Scheer study. Theother personality preferences were corre-lated at a low or moderate level with anindividual's conflict management styles butno one preference was clearly associatedwith one or more ofthe conflict managementstyles of Directors and District Directors.Therefore, those Directors and District Di-

rectors who favored the sensing preferencewould be more apt to compromise becausethey are practical, realistic, present-oriented,and like specific concrete fact:.

Directors (superiors) used the inte-grating conflict management style in deal-ing with their District Directors (subordi-nates). This supports Lee's (1990) findingsthat managers reported using the integrat-ing style with their subordinates. The ma-jority of the District Directors also indicatedthat they used the integrating style withtheir Directors. This does not support Lee's(1990) findings that managers reported us-ing the obliging style with their superiors.This implies that (a) the District Directorsin the North Central Region were morewilling to collaborate and problem solvewith their Directors to find an acceptable

Table 7REGRESSION OF AVOIDING CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLE WITH

SELECTED VARIABLES - STEPWISE ENTRY (N = 78)

Variables R2 R2Chanp b t p

Sensing/Intuition .059(Constant)

.059 -.0063.500

-2.18 .032

Std. Error = .762Adjusted R2 = .047For model: F = 4.76; p < .05

I

10

solution to a conflict situation or (b) theDirectors provided an atmosphere wherethe District Directors felt more comfortableusing the integrating style.

Gender of the Directors and DistrictDirectors did not play a significant role intheir selection of a conflict managementstyle. The literature showed inconsisten-cies when examining conflict managementstyles of males and females. .However, thefindings in this study coincided with those ofRenwick (1977) when she looked at howmale and female managers dealt with differ-ences involving their immediate supervisor.She found no difference between the malesand the females in use of conflict manage-ment styles.

The literature does not address howvarious extraneous variables affect anindividual's selection of a conflict manage-ment style; however, this study indicatedthat tenure of the individual correlates withtheir choice of styles. The findings indicatedthat those Directors and District Directorswho had been employed in Extension for aconsiderable amount of time were more likelyto avoid conflict situations. This may be dueto the fact that: confronting the isisue wouldbe more dysfunctional for the administratoror the other participants; the issue is trivialand not really worth the administrator'stime and effort; or the situation is bestavoided until the participants lave had acooling off period. The avoidance style is thebest approach to use in these situations(Rahim, 1983).

The length of tenure in their currentposition and as an administrator tended toaffect the choice of conflict managementstyles of Directors and District Directors.The more time spent in their current posi-tion, the more the Directors and DistrictDirectors tended to dominate the conflictsituation. However, the longer they hadbeen in an administrative position the lessthey used the integrating and obliging styles.This suggests that Directors and Dist-'ctDirectors were more confident and felt moresecure in their positions as administratorsand did not believe it was necessary to col-

laborate and use problem solving skills.No studies were found that used mul-

tiple regression analyses to account for thevariance in an individual's choice of conflictmanagement styles. However, the sensingor the intuition preferences made signifi-cant contributions to explaining variance intwo of the five conflict management styles.The more practical, realistic, and concretethe administrator (sensing), the more aptthey were to use the avoiding or compromis-ing conflict management styles whereas themore theoretical, imaginative and concep-tual the administrator (intuition), the moreapt they were to use the integrating conflictmanagement style.

Recommendations

The review of literature, the findingsof this study, and the subsequent conclu-sions and implications led to several recom-mendations for both the Cooperative Exten-sion Service's North Central Region Direc-tors and District Directors and for furtherstudy. Following are these recommenda-tions:

Recommendations for theCooperative Extension Service

1. Directors and District Directors needto understand the strengths andweaknesses inherent within each ofthe five conflict management stylesand work toward being able to appro-priately use each style dependingupon the situation.

2. Extension administrators need to rec-Ogni.* and appreciate the diversity ofpersonality type within their organi-zation as this awareness can lead to(a) a better understanding of groupdynamics, (b) building an empoweredteam, and (c) managing conflict in aconstructive manner.

3. Extension administrators with con-siderable tenure should analyze thecosts and benefits before using theavoiding conflict management style.If the benefits ofresolving the conflict

ti

out weigh the costs or losses, thenanother conflict management styleshould be used to resolve the conflictand to avoid further complications.

4. It is recommended that the Directorsand District Directors incorporatetraining and update sessions on con-flict management and mediation 4.techniques and skills into theirinservice education programs andmanagement retreats.

5. All new Extension educators' orien-tation should incorporate sessions onconflict management and mediation 5.skills.

6. A short course on conflict manage-ment and mediation skills for all Ex-tension educators should be offeredat the Minnesota or North CarolinaExtension Summer Schools. 6.

7. It is recommended that conflict man-agement and mediation be includedas a major component of any gradu-ate level course on administrationand management in Extension oradult education.

Recommendations for furtherstudy

1. It is recommended that this study bereplicated in the other three regionsof the Cooperative Extension Service.Then, comparisons of the results ofthe four populations could be made.

2. Since this study dealt exclusivelywith the quantitative aspect of con-flict management style3, a qualita-tive aspect should be an added com-ponent of future studies to insure atriangulation of results. This wouldinvolve case study analysis, face-to-

interviews, and/or direct obser-vation with the participants to helpassess other potential extraneousvariables and to assure the accuracyof the self-reporting of conflict man-agement styles.

3. After reading and hearing commentsfrom Directors and District Directorsof the Extension Service's North Cen-tral Region, it was concluded that

11

Associate Directors would be a moreappropriate audience to use as theimmediate supervisor of District Di-rectors in each state. Therefore, fu-ture studies should be based uponwho the immediate supervisor is ineach state.It is recommended that this study bereplicated using District Directors assuperiors and county chairs as subor-dinates to ascertain how these groupshandle conflict when in a conflictsituation with one another.It is recommended that this study bereplicated using county chairs as su-periors and county personnel as sub-ordinates to ascertain how thesegroups handle conflict when in a con-flict situation with one another.It is recommended that this study bereplicated using Directors as superi-ors and Associate Directors as subor-dinates to ascertain how these groupshandle conflict when in a conflictsituation with one another.

References

Buford, J. A. & Bedeian, A. G. (1988). Managementin extension (2nd ed). Auburn, AL: AuburnUniversity, Alabama Cooperative Exten-sion Service.

Chanin, M. A & Scheer, J. A. (1984). A study of therelationship between jungian personalitydimensions and conflict-handling behavior.Human Relations, 37(10), 863-879.

Darling, J. R. & Brownlee, L. J. (1984). Conflictmanagement in the academic institution.Texas Tech Journal of Education, 21(Fall),243-257.

Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis.Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Jung,*C. G. (1923). Psychological types; or thepsychology of individuation. New York:Harcourt, Brace.

Kilmann, R. H. & Thomas, K W. (1975). Interper-sonal conflict-handling behavior as reflec-tions of jungian personality dimensions.Psychological Reports, 37(Part 1), 971-980.

Kindler, H. S. (1983). The art of managing differ-ences. Training and Development Journal,(January), 26-32.

Lee, C. (1990). Relative status of employees andstyles of handling interpersonal conflict: Anexperimental study with Korean managers.

3

The International Journal of Conflict Man-agement,/(4), 327-340.

Lidelow, J. & Scott, J. J. (1989). Managing conflict.In School leadership: Handbook for excel-lence (pp. 337-355). (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service ED 309 519)

Myers, I. B. & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: Aguide to the development and use of themyers-briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim organizational conflictinventories: Professional manual. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Rahim, M. A. (1986). Managing conflict in organiza-

tions. New York: Praeger.Renwick, P. A. (1977). The effects of sex differences

on the perception and management of supe-rior-subordinate conflict: An exploratorystudy. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Performance, 19(2), 403-415.

Schmidt, W. H. & Tannenbaum, R. (1960). Manage-ment of differences. Harvard Business Re-view, 38(6), 107-115.

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH SERIES

Dealing with conflict between and among individuals can be one of the mostfrustrating and uncomfortable experiences for administrators. Extension Directors andDistrict Directors are in positions where they are prone to encounter these conflictsituations in their day to day administrative duties. This study describes interpersonalconflict management styles, identifies psychological type preferences, and exar 'nes therelationships between conflict management styles and psychological type preferences aswell as selected demographic characteristics of the Cooperative Extension Service'sNorth Central Region Directors and District Directors. This study should help ExtensionDirectors and District Directors recognize and appreciate the diversity of personalitytypes within their organizations and point out the importance of incorporating conflictmanagement and mediation skill training into their inservice education program.

This summary is based on a dissertation by Garee W. Earnest under the directionof N. L. McCaslin and Jo M. Jones. Garee W. Earnest was a t,:aduate student in theDepartment of Agricultural Education at The Ohio State University. He is currently anExtension Associate, Leadership Development with Ohio State University Extension.Dr. McCaslin is an Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Education and Dr.Jones is an Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Education, The Ohio StateUniversity. Special appreciation is due to Brenda Seevers, New Mexico State University;Dick McCallum, University of Minnesota; and R. Kirby Barrick, The Ohio State Univer-sity for their critical review of the manuscript prior to publication.

Research has been an important function of the Department of AgriculturalEducation since it was established in 1917. Research conducted by the Department hasgenerally been in the form of graduate theses, staff studies, and funded research. It is thepurpose of this series to make useful knowledge from such research available topractitioners in the profession. Individuals desiring additional information on this topicshould examine the references cited.

Wesley E. Budke, Associate ProfessorDepartment of Agricultural Education

SR 71 1993