Conflict management as a mediator between conflict and workplace bullying: implementation of the Dual Concern Theory Elfi Baillien, Inge Neyens, Hans De Witte Research Group for Stress, Health and Well-being KULeuven - Belgium
1
KUL Mobbers (Belgium) • Inge Neyens
• Guy Notelaers
2
KUL Mobbers (Belgium)(2) • Hans De Witte
• Elfi Baillien
3
1. Workplace bullying and conflict • Empirical studies relationship between conflict and workplace bullying • E.g.: O’Moore et al. (2003), Baillien et al. (2005), Neyens et al. (2005)
• ‘conflict’ inside the process of bullying • Leyman (1996) escalation of unresolved conflict (‘critical incident’) • Glasl (1982, 1984) escalation from what to who is the problem • Baillien et al. (2004) conflict escalation as one of the three main processes to lead to WB
4
Bullying versus conflict Conflict
Bullying
Yes
Yes
Subtle
Clear
Time
No
frequent behavior
Intention?
No
Yes (victim)
Not necessary
Yes
Interaction between ≥ 2 persons Negativity
Power difference? Keashly & Nowell (2003)
5
2. Research question • Not conflicts as such (the fact that there is a conflict) but the escalation of conflicts are antecedents of bullying • So, conflicts are related to bullying through conflict management (‘CM’) (=mediator) • If we take into account the mediation of CM no relationship between conflict and bullying 6
3. Escalation? Dual Concern Theory (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Van de Vliert, 1997; …) Accomodating
Concern for the other’s goals
2
Avoiding
Problem solving 1
Fighting
Concern for one’s own goals 1 = ‘integrative dimension’ integration of both party’s GOALS 2 = ‘distributive dimension’ division of the OUTCOME
7
• Avoiding – Prevention or termination of efforts to yield openly, to negotiate constructively, or to win completely
• Accomodating – One gives in to the opponent’s point of view
• Problem solving – A win/win strategy aimed at optimizing rather than at satisficing for the parties
• Fighting – One seeks to prevail at the expense of the adversary 8
• Conflict escalation – X: • Low on distribution – fighting
• Low on integration – Avoiding
– Concerns: • Low on concern for others
• No escalation of the conflict – X: • High on distribution – Accomodating
• High on integration – Problem solving
– Concerns: • High on concern for others 9
4. Hypotheses Problem Solving Conflicts
Fighting Accomodating
+
Workplace Bullying
+
Avoiding
10
5. Method • Sample: – 5420 respondents (74 organizations) • Diversity sector • Dutch speaking (Brussels and Flanders -Belgium)
• Questionnaire: 1. Demographics - age
- gender - position * blue collar worker * white collar worker * executives 11
2. Conflict in the team (self constructed) - number of conflicts in your team (1 item) - team = ‘the employees who work for the same supervisor” 3. Conflict Management in the team (DUTCH; Van de Vliert, 1997) - problem solving (4 items, α = 0.90) - fighting (4 items, α = 0.85) - avoiding (3 items, α = 0.76) - accomodating (4 items, α = 0.68) 4. Workplace Bullying (NAQ, translated by Notelaers et al., 2005) - α = 0.90
• SPSS 12.00 12
6. Analyses • Controlled for demographics • Regression Analyses mediation 1. Direct relationship between ‘number of conflicts’ and bullying? 2. Relationship between mediators (‘CM’) and bullying? 3. Relationship between ‘number of conflicts’ and ‘CM’? 4. Is the mediation model better?
13
7. Results Graph of β coefficients
from .41*** to .24***
Problem solving -.44*** .45***
Number of conflicts
Fighting
-.23***
.14***
Workplace bullying
-.26***
Accomodating .08***
Avoiding
p***< .001, p**<.01, p*<.05
14
8. Discussion (1) • Conflict - bullying: partial mediation by conflict management The direct relationship between conflict frequency and bullying remains – accumulation of negative feelings and frustrations => bullying? • conflicts have a -subtle- negative undertone
– cross-sectional (reversed interpretation): • bullying => increases conflict frequency in teams?
• Dual Concern Theory? – Confirmed: fighting and problem solving • are related to bullying (and are mediators) • escalation of conflict in bullying in the expected direction!
– Not confirmed: avoiding and accomodation 15
• Escalation of conflicts to bullying Concern for other’s goals (‘for own goals’: always high) – low = escalation – high = prevention
• Shift in relative power due to bullying process (cross-sectional design)
• Relationship between conflict frequency and 4 conflict management styles?: More conflicts Accumulation of negative feelings towards others Decrease in concern for goals of others: ⇒ less problem solving ⇒ less accomodation ⇒ more fighting ⇒ more avoiding 16
9. Future research • Cross sectional – Tautologies? Consequence? Cause? • Fighting and a lack of problem solving= workplace bullying? ⇒need for a longitudional design!
• Relationship between styles of conflict management? – SEM
• Conglomerated conflict behaviour? • Difference between large organizations and SME’s? - Less fighting in SME’s (t-test: .26*) 17
Thank you for your attention!
[email protected] [email protected]
18