Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
MODERATING EFFECTS OF AGE, GENDER AND HIERARCHY LEVEL OF THE SUPERIOR
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONFLICT HANDLING STYLES AND
SATISFACTION WITH SUPERVISION
Lee Kim Lian a, ψ and Low Guan Tuib
a
University College Sedaya International, Malaysia
b
Vesseltech Engineering Sdn Bhd, Malaysia
Abstract
Data from 139 respondents from major industries revealed that subordinates were more satisfied with their
superiors’ supervision through the exercise of integrating and to a lesser extent, compromising and obliging
styles. On the contrary, subordinates who perceived their superiors as primarily using avoiding style were
found to be less satisfied. The age of the superior serves to only marginally moderate the relationship
between compromising style in which older superior exercise of compromising style tend to lead to a
higher level of satisfaction with supervision. Interaction effect of gender seemed to result in a less satisfied
subordinate when they were supervised by female superior employing compromising style although in
general, such style should lead to a more satisfied subordinate. On the other hand, the effect of integrating
style on satisfaction with supervision is magnified when this style is used by a female superior. Result also
confirmed the moderating effect of hierarchy as its usually neutral effect on satisfaction with supervision
by the exercise of obliging style was negated in the case of superior at higher hierarchy level.
Keywords: Organization behavior; Managerial supervision; Conflict handling styles; Satisfaction; Age;
Gender; Hierarchy level; Moderation effect.
JEL Classification Codes: L2; M54.
1. Introduction
Conflict is said to be at the heart of organization’s problems. Thus, the study of conflict resolution is
persistently relevant. In any organizational setting, managers should be aware of various approaches in
handling the conflict to mitigate its negative effect on subordinates’ performance or job satisfaction
(Churchill, Ford & Walker, 1976; Fisher & Gittelson, 1983; Van Sell, Brief & Schuler, 1981; Rahim &
Buntzman, 1989). Positive interpersonal relationship at workplace is said to be able to increase
subordinates’ satisfaction and subordinates with higher level of satisfaction are more likely to be committed
to the organization (Brown & Peterson, 1993).
Conflict management skills are necessary for an individual to perform effectively at any level within
organizations. Unfortunately, there is inadequate attention given in looking at moderating effects of age,
gender and hierarchy in relation to conflict handling styles and satisfaction with supervision. While there
are other likely moderators, the authors have targeted these variables because of their relevance to the work
situation is noteworthy and their potential impact is evidently great. The age, gender and hierarchy level
provide understanding of why individuals behave and function differently in work situations (Gist, 1987;
Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Age may be one reason for such individual differences (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
Research has documented that attitudes are more stable in older people, while younger people’s attitudes
are likely to be more ‘impressionable’ and easily changed (Alwin & Krosnick, 1991).
Gender can also be an important variable in conflict handling styles. They are several findings from
psychology and other areas (e.g. Ruberey, Smith & Fagan, 1997) indicating that gender can be considered a
ψ
Corresponding author. Lee Kim Lian. Faculty of Management & Information Technology, University
College Sedaya International., No 1, Jalan Menara Gading, UCSI Heights, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Corresponding author Email: [email protected]
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
relevant moderator variable between the relationship of conflict handling styles and satisfaction. With
increasing number of women holding decision making positions in organizations (Powell, 1988), coupled
with the obvious importance of conflict management skills in providing effective managerial supervision,
there has been increased focus on the possible existence of gender differences in the ability to manage
conflict. This is a step away from the usual predilection that managerial role is often associated with
possession of masculine rather than feminine characteristics (Brenner, Tomkiewicz & Shein, 1989; Powell
& Butterfield, 1979).
There are several findings that suggest women have a more cooperative orientation to conflict management
than men (Rahim, 1983a; Rubin & Brown, 1975). Others suggest that women are more competitive
(Bedell & Sistrunk, 1973; Rubin & Brown, 1975). According to the gender role perspective (Bem, 1974;
Bem & Lenney, 1976; Spence & Helmreich, 1978), differences in conflict management behavior of men
and women may be linked to biological sex that explained how individuals behave in certain circumstances
(Cook, 1985). Our research focus more broadly on gender differences in dealing with conflict which may
provide a more effective means of explaining individual differences in conflict management style rather
than biological sex.
Knowing how conflict handling styles relate to these variables will enable the superior to change or
maintain his/her conflict styles to achieve desirable outcomes. Hence, this study seeks to answer the
following research questions.
•
•
•
Are there any significant differences in subordinates’ satisfaction with supervision when
subjected to different conflict management styles?
Can superior’s age and hierarchy level moderate the relationship between conflict
handling styles and subordinates’ satisfaction with supervision?
Is there any difference in conflict handling styles in women and men? Or does gender
moderate the relationship between conflict handling styles and satisfaction with
supervision?
The theoretical framework of this study is based on the interaction among variables as depicted in Figure 1.
Conflict Handling Styles
Strength Moderators
Age
Gender
Hierarchy Level
Integrating
Obliging
Compromising
Satisfaction with
Supervision
Dominating
Avoiding
Figure 1: Model of Moderators of Conflict Handling Style and their Interactions
2. Literature Review
This section discusses the relevant constructs and variables as well as their interactions involving: (1)
Conflict handling styles; (2) Age, gender and hierarchy as moderators, and (3) Supervision with satisfaction
as outcome.
209
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
2.1 Typologies of Conflict Handling Styles
The first conceptual scheme for categorizing conflict revolved around a simple cooperation-competition
dichotomy followed the intuitive notion that styles can be a single dimension i.e. competition or selfishness
(Deutsch, 1949, 1973). However, the limitation of single-dimension model is that it fails to encompass
styles that involve high concern for both self and other, and styles that involve neither high concern for
neither self nor others (Ruble & Thomas, 1976; Smith, 1987; Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Pruitt & Rubin,
1986).
Subsequent theorists then drawn on a new two-dimensional grid for classifying the styles as suggested by
Blake and Mouton (1964, 1970) which is a self-oriented and other-oriented concern. Other authors have
labeled the two dimensions differently (e.g., Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Rahim, 1983a, 1986; Thomas,
1976; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Van de Vliert & Hordijk, 1989), but the basic assumptions have remained
similar. Although it has also been debated that individuals select among three or four conflict styles (Pruitt,
1983; Putnam & Wilson, 1982), but evidence from confirmatory factor analyzes concluded that the five
factor model has a better fit with data than models of two, three and four styles orientations (Rahim &
Magner, 1994, 1995).
The styles of handling interpersonal conflict on two basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for
others is among the most popular styles of handling conflict used in research (Gross & Guerrero, 2000;
Rahim, 1985, 1986, 2001; Rahim & Buntzman, 1989; Rahim & Magner, 1995). In fact, Rahim and
Bonoma’s (1979) model was based on Blake and Mouton’s (1964) grid of managerial styles as well as the
Thomas-Kilmann (1974) MODE instrument. This work leads them to identify five specific conflict styles
as shown in Figure 2. Rahim (1983a, 1986, 2001) defines styles of handling conflict as integrating,
obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising. It was Rahim’s (1986) idea that “organizational
participants must learn the five styles of handling conflict to deal with different conflict situations
effectively” (p.30). The five conflict styles that emerge from various combinations of these two
dimensions are described below:
High
High
Concern for
Others
Low
Low
Integrating
Obliging
Compromising
Dominating
Avoiding
Figure 2: The Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict Concern for Self
Note: Adapted from Rahim and Bonoma (1979)
Integrating Style
High concern for self and others reflects openness, exchange of information, and examination of
differences to reach an effective solution acceptable to both parties. This style concentrates on problem
solving in a collaborative manner. Thus, the integrating style is believe to be both effective and appropriate
in managing conflicts and, therefore, is perceived as highly competent (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967;
Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988).
Obliging Style
Low concern for self and high concern for others style is associated with attempting to play down the
differences and emphasizing commonalities to satisfy the concern of the other party. Obliging is associated
with accommodating behaviors. It can be used as a strategy when a party is willing to give up something
with the hope of getting something in exchange from the other party when needed (Blake & Mouton,
1964).
Dominating Style
High concern for self and low concern for others style has been identified with win-lose orientation.
210
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Within interpersonal context, the dominating (competing/distributive) style has been found to be associated
with low levels of effectiveness and appropriateness (Blake & Mouton, 1964).
Avoiding Style
Low concern for self and others style has been associated with withdrawal when a person fails to satisfy
his/her own concern as well as the concern of the other party. This style is useful when the issues are
trivial or when the potential dysfunctional effect of confronting the other party outweighs the benefits of
the resolution of conflict.
Compromising Style
Intermediate in concern for self and others style involves give-and-take whereby both parties give up
something to make a mutually acceptable decision. It may be appropriate when the goals of the conflicting
parties are mutually exclusive or when both parties who are equally powerful (e.g. Labor and
management). This style may be of some use in dealing with strategic issues, but heavy reliance on this
style may be dysfunctional.
2.2. Moderating Effects of Age, Gender and Hierarchy Level
Age
Studies by Posner (1986) and Hignite, Margovio and Chin (2002) found that age does account for
differences in conflict management styles. McKenna and Richardson (1995) suggested that with increasing
age respondents have a clear tendency to become more assertive. In fact, they found that older peoples do
indicate a collaborative style. Yan and Sorenson (2004) examined conflict in Chinese family business,
found that the differences in age strengthen the use of avoiding and accommodating styles of handling
conflicts. However, another study found that there is no relationship between age and conflict management
styles (Konovsky, Jaster & McDonald 1998). These diverging finding may indicate the importance of age
in the working environment in changing perceptions and the use of conflict resolution style.
A number of converging work force issues makes improving our understanding of how age can affect
conflict styles and work satisfaction. Employees of all ages continuously upgrade their skills in order to
work effectively (Paul & Townsend, 1993). These trends suggest the need for a coherent, well-grounded
understanding of the impact of age on job outcomes to use as a basis for constructive work force
management. However, conceptual reviews (Davies, Matthews & Wong, 1991; Rhodes, 1983; Welford,
1985) and meta-analyses (Waldman & Avolio, 1986; McEvoy & Cascio, 1989) of research on age suggest
that searches for simple conclusions have not been fruitful. As with satisfaction, tenure can be a confound,
and controlling for it tends to reduce or eliminate age-related differences in work outcome (Kacmar &
Ferris, 1989). Researchers (Labouvie-Vief & Chandler, 1978; Waldman & Avolio, 1993) have begun to
call for a contextual approach to study the effects of age on work outcome potential. Similarly, McEvoy
and Cascio (1989) have suggested the appropriateness of further investigation of potential moderator
influences on age-performance relations.
Gender
Researches exploring gender differences in conflict management style has been escalating but the findings
were inconsistent. Some studies suggest that women have a more cooperative to conflict style than men
(Rahim, 1983a). Others suggest that women are more competitive (Rubin & Brown, 1975). Brewer,
Mitchell and Weber (2002) found that two predominant modes of handling conflict for both men and
women were compromising and avoiding, although the greatest tendency for men was compromising and
for woman is avoiding. Hignite et al. (2002) found that gender produced some significant differences in
using conflict resolution styles. Specifically, they found that females had significantly higher scores on the
construct of collaboration than did the male subjects.
There is evidence that male are more dominating and less compromising than female in conflict situations
(Imler, 1980; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977). While few researchers have investigated the relationship
between gender role and conflict management style, those who have done so found that (a) feminine
individuals disapproved of conflict more than masculine (Baxter & Shepherd, 1978), (b) androgynous
individuals reported more frequent use of integrating or compromising styles than feminine or
undifferentiated individuals (Yelsma & Brown, 1985), and (c) masculine individuals were more likely to
211
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
report a dominating style, while androgynous individuals were more likely to report an integrating style
(Portelo & Long, 1994). Thus, since it is clear that gender roles do not conform to the principal of
biopsychological equivalence (Korabik, 1990), many previous studies of the relationships between
biological sex and conflict style in organizational are open to reinterpretation.
In addition, gender would appear to be a significant way that human beings differ in relationship to conflict
resolution style. Similarly, within the workplace, how one chooses to resolve conflict may be affected in
large part that intuitively, individuals of different genders, different cultural backgrounds and employees
within the workplace would appear to solve conflicts in very different ways. In handling conflict, women
unlike men favour accommodating strategies (Greeff & De Bruyne, 2000; Rubin & Brown, 1975) whereas
men unlike women prefer to be more confrontational (Rosenthal & Hautaluoma, 1988), aggressive (Kilman
& Thomas, 1977) and competitive (Rubin & Brown, 1975). There is also evidence that suggests men are
more avoiding in their style of conflict management than are women (Greeff & de Bruyne, 2000; Mackey
& O’Brien, 1998; Haferkamp, 1991). Haferkamp (1991) believes that this later finding accords with
gender role expectations, as men are considered less able to manage relationships and are expected to
remain calm and in control. Furthermore, many men experience anxiety in social settings, and this may
make men more likely than women to avoid conflict (Levant, 1996; Heavey, Layne & Christensen, 1993;
Gottman & Levenson, 1986).
In studies involving managers, conflict management styles do not converge as much with gender role
expectations (Korabik, Baril & Watson, 1993). While it is true that many earlier studies in gender
differences in handling negotiations showed that women were less competitive and more accommodating
(Rubin & Brown, 1975; Rosenthal & Hautaluoma, 1988) and that men were less cooperative and more
dominating (Vinacke, Mogy, Powers, Langan & Beck, 1974), recent studies report little or no difference
between the way male and female mangers handle conflict (Korabik et al., 1993; Eagly & Johnson, 1990;
Watson & Hoffman, 1996). Not all contemporary findings are consistent, however. There are studies that
still indicate gender-specific preferences (Brewer et al., 2002; Korabik et al., 1993) as well as studies that
find men more accommodating (Rahim, 2001) and women more avoiding (Brewer et al., 2002). Female
avoidance of conflict, however, probably has more to do with power differentials than with gender
differences (Korabik et al., 1993; Randel, 2002; Watson & Hoffman, 1996; Stockard & Johnson, 1992).
Hierarchy level
Hierarchy level indicates the position ranking of superior in terms of reporting structure. Several studies
have acknowledged that organizational hierarchy may be important contributors to conflict management
style (Brenner, 1982). Watson (1994) found that high-level individuals used a competitive style, whereas
low-level individuals tended to cooperate. Empirical findings concluded by Putnam and Poole (1987) that
preferences for conflict styles differ across hierarchical levels with superiors exhibiting forcing styles and
subordinates preferring avoidance, smoothing and compromise.
Moreover, employees may use different conflict management styles according to the organizational level.
Rahim (1985) found that respondents choose different styles with different levels. They used obliging style
with supervisors, integrating style with subordinates, and compromising style with peers. Brewer, Mitchell
and Weber (2002) study found out that upper organizational status individuals were higher on the
integrating style, while lower status individuals reported greater use of avoiding and obliging styles.
Moreover, Tjosvold and Okum (1979) found that lower power subjects act more cooperatively and are
more obliging than high-power subjects. McKenna and Richardson (1995) found that those respondents
already in positions with some authority and responsibility tend to operate in an authoritative manner.
Hierarchy level appears to be positively correlated with satisfaction with all aspects of the job (Cranny,
Smith & Stone, 1992). Most researchers have found that job satisfaction increases as the level of the job
increases within an organizational hierarchy (e.g., Adams, Laker & Hulin, 1977; Kornhauser, 1965; Smith
& Brannick, 1990; Super, 1939). However, some researchers have found negligible associations between
job satisfaction and job level (e.g., Bretz, Boudreau & Judge, 1994; MacEachron, 1977). It has even been
reported that job satisfaction decreases as job level increases (e.g., Bourne, 1983; Mossholder, Bedeian &
Armenakis, 1981). The nature of the relation between job level and job satisfaction is important to both
212
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
researchers and practitioners. Job level sometimes can be merely a potential contaminant in a job
satisfaction study, as when different jobs are combined in a study without concern for level.
2.3 Satisfaction with Supervision
Numerous research findings suggest that conflict management style is related to various aspects of
employee satisfaction are of interest and represent an important extension to the job satisfaction literature
(Johnson, 1993; Locke, 1976). Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969), in their Cornell JDI (Cornell Job
Descriptive Index) described five areas of satisfaction: the work itself, the supervision, the co-workers, the
pay and the opportunities for promotion on the job. Since the theme of the present study is on the superiorsubordinate relationships, the job-facet satisfaction is most relevant to satisfaction with supervision. The
conflict handling styles which superior uses in supervising their subordinates can have a broad impact on
the subordinates’ attitude towards work. Many studies recorded that supervision to the extent that the
superior exercises dominating and avoiding is found to have a negative impact on the subordinates’
satisfaction (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck & Rosenthal, 1964; Likert, 1961).
3. Research Hypotheses
Organizational conflict researchers (e.g. Rahim & Buntzman, 1989; Burke, 1970; Lawrence & Lorsch,
1967; Likert & Likert, 1976) generally assert that superior who exhibits integrating, compromising and
obliging styles are more prone to foster a cordial dyadic relationships among superiors and subordinates.
However, later study by Rahim and Buntzman (2001) indicate that obliging style was not related to
satisfaction with supervision. On the other hand, other studies recorded that superiors’ use of avoiding
style is linked to negative effect on subordinates’ satisfaction (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck & Rosenthal,
1964; Likert, 1961). Organizational behavior researchers such as Churchill, Ford and Walker (1976) noted
that age was related to conflict handling style. Several studies tend to suggest that older employee tend to
use more collaborative style. As such age can moderate the relationship. Thus, it can be hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1:
Superior’s integrating and compromising styles have direct and positive effect on the
subordinates’ satisfaction with supervision. This relationship is moderated by age.
Al-Ajmi (2007) study indicated that female is more likely to avoid conflicts than male respondents.
Brewer, Mitchell & Weber (2002) found out that obliging style is more related to female superior.
Focusing on the more common and effective style of conflict handling style i.e. compromising style, most
researchers (Rahim & Buntzman, 2001; Korabik, Baril & Watson, 1993; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988; Wall &
Galanes, 1986; Vigil-King, 2000), unambiguously concluded that such approach certainly result in greater
satisfaction with supervision. As research also points to the conclusion that women favor accommodating
strategies (Rubin & Brown,, 1975, Content, 1986; Rosenthal & Hautaluoma, 1988; Nelson & Lubin, 1991;
Greeff & De Bruyne, 2000) which is akin to compromising style, it is likely that intervening relationship
exist between compromising style, gender and satisfaction with supervision. As such the following
hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 2:
Superior’s compromising style is positively associated with subordinates’ satisfaction
with supervision. This relationship is reversed when the exercise of such style is
made by the female superior.
Superiors in the higher hierarchy level is said to be using more integrating style and less on obliging style
(Brewer, Mitchell and Weber (2002). There are several studies show that subordinates’ satisfaction with
supervision is deteriorated when superior is in the higher rank (Bourne, 1983; Mossholder, Bedeian &
Armenakis, 1981). This infers that superiors in higher position tend to communicate with subordinates
using their authority rather than other means of influence (McKenna & Richardson, 1995). Taking this into
consideration, the following relationship is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 3:
Superior’s obliging style is not associated with subordinates’ satisfaction with
supervision. This relationship is moderated by hierarchy level.
213
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
4. Research Methodology
Sampling Design
Sampling frame is generated from the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM), Construction
Industry Development Board (CIDB), and Malaysian Trade and Commerce Directory. Respondents
chosen to answer the survey questionnaires were executives, managers and professionals. Random
sampling procedure was used in selecting the samples from the large database.
Research Instruments
All data used in the study consist of responses to questionnaire items. Measures of the relevant constructs
were taken from previous studies and are discussed here.
Conflict Handling Style
Conflict management styles were measure by using the Form C of ROCI-II (Rahim, 1983a). This multiitem instrument contains 28 items uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess subordinates’ perceptions on
supervisor’s style of handling conflict.
Age and Gender
Age is measure using statement such as “Please state your age” and “What is the age of your immediate
superior? Gender is stated in the category form i.e. 1 = Male; 2 = Female.
Hierarchy Level
Hierarchy level is defined as the number of layer of authority structure below the top manager in an
organization. With the top manager or managing director assigned as level one in the organizational
hierarchy, this means that the higher score for this scale reflects the lower hierarchy level.
Satisfaction with Supervision
The instrument used to measure satisfaction with supervision is the updated version of the original Job
Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith at el., 1969) which was later revised by Roznowski (1989).
Data Analysis Techniques
Reliability of the scales was estimated by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha. Age, hierarchy, and genderrelated comparisons with respect to the three dependent measures were performed by means of t-testing.
The research questions concerning the interaction between conflict handling styles and satisfaction was
tested by means of hierarchical regression analysis. The testing of research question was performed against
an error rate of .10.
5. Research Results and Discussions
Sample Characteristics
From the total of 145 responses received, data from 139 respondents were usable. By ethnic group, 42% of
the respondents were Chinese, 38% were Malay, 17% were Indian, while other races made up the rest. By
gender, 53% were male and 47% were female. In terms of age, the highest proportion of respondents fell
into the 23-30 years age group. They accounted for 63% of the total number of respondents. On the
whole, the education level of the respondents was high. This was reflected in the position or the type of
occupation held by the majority of the respondents. The average salary of the respondents was higher than
the population’s average. On average, the respondents had worked in the present company for 4 years.
The survey also revealed the information about the respondents’ superiors. 76% superiors reported in the
survey were males. On average, the superiors had worked in the organization for 11 years – far longer than
the subordinates’ average. Most of the superiors were holding high positions in the company with 33% of
them in the first hierarchical level. Their educational level was also strikingly high, with 90% of them
having had tertiary education.
Validating the Scales
The standardized Cronbach Alpha for each subscale is provided in Table 2. The internal consistency
reliability coefficients for all the scales were satisfactory (Nunnally, 1978). All the scales had coefficient
Cronbach Alpha greater than .78.
214
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Table 2: Summary of Scale Items and Measure of Scale Reliabilities
Scales
Cronbach Alpha
Conflict Handling Styles
Integrating
.95
Obliging
.85
Compromising
.78
Dominating
.90
Avoiding
.78
Moderating Variables
Age
n.a.
Gender
n.a.
Hierarchy level
n.a.
Satisfaction with Supervision
.86
Note: n.a. Indicates alpha is not applicable
Testing of Hypotheses
Hypothesis H1 predicts that superior’s integrating and compromising styles have direct and positive effect
on subordinates’ satisfaction with supervision. It is further hypothesized that the relationship is moderated
by superior’s age. To test the moderation effect of age on conflict handling styles and satisfaction with
supervision, a moderated regression analysis was performed by including the interaction term of the
conflict styles and satisfaction. Table 3 presents the results of the multiple regression analysis on
satisfaction with superiors’ conflict handling styles and age as the main effects variables. The conflict
handling styles consist of integrating, obliging, avoiding, compromising and dominating. Similar to past
researchers the result indicate that integrating style has direct positive effect (Beta = 0.426, p = 0.0001) on
satisfaction with supervision while the dominating style has a negative effect (Beta = -0.274, p = 0.001).
The result also shows that superior age has no effect on the satisfaction with supervision (Beta = -0.064, p
= 0.34) in Table 3.
Table 4 presents the moderated regression model used to test the interaction effects of superior’s age on
satisfaction with supervision (R2 rises by 0.025). In combination, Table 3 and Table 4 show that age has no
significant effect on satisfaction with supervision but it has negative interaction effect (Beta = -0.996, p =
0.213) when integrating style is applied. The interaction effect however failed to achieve the required
significant level. In contrast, albeit only marginally significant, age has a positive interaction effect (Beta =
1.127, p = 0.089) when compromising style was used. The result showed that the effect of compromising
style on satisfaction with supervision is heighten when superiors’ age is older. As the interaction effect is
only marginally significant, the present finding must be viewed with caution. The findings also suggested
that superiors may need to adjust the conflict handling style periodically when dealing with subordinates as
subordinates response differently to different conflict style and superior’s age.
Table 3: Multiple Regression of Satisfaction with Supervision onto Conflict Handling Styles and
Superior’s Age
Variables
Betaa
Constant
Integrating
.426
Obliging
.004
Avoiding
-.055
Compromising
.106
Dominating
-.274
Superior’s Age
-.064
R2
.456
.430
Adjusted R2
F ratio
17.568+++
Note: a Standardized Beta are reported, +++ p < 0.001
215
t
3.083
4.179
.044
-.746
1.308
-3.399
-.958
P
.003
.000+++
.965
.457
.193
.001+++
.340
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Table 4: Moderated Multiple Regression of Satisfaction with Supervision onto Conflict Handling
Styles, Superior’s Age and their Interaction
Variables
Constant
Integrating
Obliging
Avoiding
Compromising
Dominating
Superior Age
Integrating x Superior’s Age
Obliging x Superior’s Age
Avoiding x Superior Age
Compromising x Superior’s Age
Dominating x Superior’s Age
Betaa
t
1.380
1.935
-.364
-.683
-1.298
-.560
-.852
-1.253
.376
.555
1.590
-.026
1.170
-.172
-.301
-.621
-.259
-.547
-.996
.242
.348
1.127
-.015
P
.170
.055
.717
.496
.197
.577
.396
.213
.708
.580
.089+
.979
R2
∆R2
.456
.481
.025
R2
.481
Adjusted R2
.434
F ratio
10.184+++
Note: a Standardized Beta are reported., + p < 0.1., +++ p < 0.001
Hypothesis H2 suggested that superior’s compromising style is negatively associated with subordinates’
satisfaction with supervision when it is female superior who utilizes this style. The much debated gender
differences in the behavioral and organizational study is tested in this research. The result in Table 5
indicates that there is no relationship between compromising style and satisfaction with supervision, but
this relationship becomes negative (Beta = -.866, p = 0.050) when female is the one who exercises
compromising style. This implied that compromising style is less effective and can lead to less satisfied
employees when it is exercised by female superior. On the other hand, the positive effect of integrating
style on satisfaction with supervision (Beta = 0.432, p = 0.001) is magnified when this style is exercised by
a female superior (Beta = 0.897, p = 0.04) suggesting a significant interaction effect. This result presents
an interesting paradox in the sense that the gender can affect conflict styles on satisfaction both in negative
and positive ways.
Table 5: Multiple Regression of Satisfaction with Supervision onto Conflict Handling Styles and
Superior’s Gender
Variables
Constant
Integrating
Obliging
Avoiding
Compromising
Dominating
Superior’s Gender
Betaa
.432
-.004
-.059
.106
-.280
.039
R2
.454
Adjusted R2
.428
F ratio
17.574+++
Note: a Standardized Beta are reported., +++ p < 0.001
216
t
2.576
4.261
-.054
-.799
1.309
-3.522
.577
P
.011
.000+++
.957
.426
.193
.001+++
.565
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Table 6: Moderated Multiple Regression of Satisfaction with Supervision onto
Conflict Handling Styles, Superior’s Gender and their Interaction
Variables
Betaa
Constant
Integrating
Obliging
Avoiding
Compromising
Dominating
Superior Gender
Integrating x Superior’s Gender
Obliging x Superior’s Gender
Avoiding x Superior’s Gender
Compromising x Superior’s Gender
Dominating x Superior’s Gender
-.195
.324
-.309
.587
-.237
.072
.897
-.565
.570
-.866
-.073
t
.783
-.625
1.195
-1.315
2.381
-.899
.136
2.081
-1.103
1.140
-1.927
-.174
P
.435
.533
.234
.191
.019++
.370
.892
.040++
.272
.257
.050++
.862
R2
∆R2
.454
.488
.024
R2
.488
Adjusted R2
.442
F ratio
10.565+++
Note: a Standardized Beta are reported., ++ p < 0.05., +++ p < 0.001
Hypothesis H3 predicts that superior’s obliging style is not associated with subordinates’ satisfaction with
supervision. This relationship is moderated by the superior’s hierarchy level. The result in Table 7
confirms the assertion that obliging style is not related to satisfaction with supervision (Beta = -0.011, P =
0.891) but significant negative interaction effect exist when the obliging style is exercise by a higher
hierarchy level superior (Beta = -0.944, p = 0.04). This implied that superior at higher hierarchy level tends
to interact with subordinates using their authority rather than other means of influence (McKenna &
Richardson, 1995). Whether this mode of influence is more effective in affecting better work culture is
questionable since there was also a study that suggests that higher hierarchy level superior tends to favor
integrating and obliging style (Aquino, 2000). The present result showed that the exercise of obliging style
does not lead to more satisfaction for superior holding a higher rank. This is probably due to the reason
that subordinates tend to misperceive the superiors authoritative position being used instead of their
obliging style.
Table 7: Multiple Regression of Satisfaction with Supervision onto Conflict Handling Styles and
Hierarchy Level
Variables
Constant
Integrating
Obliging
Avoiding
Compromising
Dominating
Hierarchy Level
Betaa
.418
-.011
-.049
.111
-.307
-.090
R2
.462
Adjusted R2
.437
F ratio
18.055+++
a
Note:
Standardized Beta are reported., +++ p < 0.001
217
t
3.297
4.195
-.138
-.667
1.376
-3.849
-1.362
P
.001
.000+++
.891
.506
.171
.000+++
.176
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Table 8: Moderated Multiple Regression of Satisfaction with Supervision onto Conflict Handling
Styles, Hierarchy Level and their Interaction
Variables
Betaa
Constant
Integrating
Obliging
Avoiding
Compromising
Dominating
Hierarchy Level
Integrating x Hierarchy Level
Obliging x Hierarchy Level
Avoiding x Hierarchy Level
Compromising x Hierarchy Level
Dominating x Hierarchy Level
-.056
.363
-.098
.244
-.566
-.356
.994
-.944
.127
-.319
.500
t
1.784
-.234
1.783
-.529
1.263
-2.840
-.534
2.175
-2.034
.297
-.742
1.504
P
.077
.815
.077
.598
.209
.005++
.594
.032++
.044++
.767
.459
.135
R2
∆R2
.462
.494
.032
R2
.494
Adjusted R2
.448
F ratio
10.758+++
Note: a Standardized Beta are reported., + p < 0.05., +++ p < 0.001
6. Conclusion
Overall, the results of this study were quite agreeable with the hypotheses based upon other organizational
studies involving qualified and professional people. The research instruments used in this study were
tested and found to be reliable in our Malaysian work environment. The results provided some tentative,
but hopefully useful guidance for organizational conflict management.
The results revealed that superior’s age only marginally moderated the relationship of satisfaction with
supervision on conflict handling styles when it involved the use of integrating style. Although age has no
effect on satisfaction with supervision, it has a negative interaction effect when integrating style is used.
On the other hand, satisfaction with supervision was heightened when compromising style was used by
older superior. Thus, it might be necessary for superiors to modify his/her conflict handling style when
dealing with subordinates especially when their age difference is contrasting. The second hypothesis was
supported where gender moderated the relationship between subordinates’ satisfaction with supervision on
conflict handling styles. Female superiors’ exercise of compromising style tend to worsen the subordinates’
satisfaction while on the contrary, the use of integrating style tend to magnify the satisfaction with
supervision. This counter-intuitive finding would invite further enquiry on gender effects. The result also
confirmed that superior’s uses of obliging style did not affect employees’ satisfaction. In fact, employees
were less satisfied when this style was used by superior in higher hierarchy level. This could be due to the
reason that subordinates may interpret superior’s action as exerting more authoritative position than
obliging style when dealing with them.
The implication derived from the present study suggests that age, gender and hierarchy level can affect the
use of conflict handling styles. Knowing these factors can help managers to use the appropriate styles to
reduce job dissatisfaction and job conflict. It is obvious that the present study encourages more researchers
to empirically examine the causes and effects of conflict in the work place. The results of this study also
offer an interesting opportunities for future research to focus on identifying other important respondent
characteristics and more importantly, on understanding the processes by which such variables impact on
person perceptions. In future studies, attempts should be made to incorporate additional endogenous
variables such as compliance and performance of subordinate which are more indicative of the
organizational outcomes. It addition it may be useful to further examine whether the perception of superior
conflict handling styles carry the same attitudinal and behavioral implication across the demographic
variables such as gender, role status, race and etc.
218
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
References
Adams, E.F., Laker, D.R. & Hulin, C.L. (1977). An investigation of the influence of job level and
functional specialty on job attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 335-343.
Al-Ajmi, R.S. (2007). The effect of personal characteristics on conflict management style: A study among
public sector employees in Kuwait. Competitive Review, 17(3), 181-193.
Alwin, D.F. & Krosnick, J.A. (1991). Aging, cohorts and the stability of socio-political orientations over
the life span. American Journal o f Sociology, 97, 169-195.
Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of
hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26(2), 171-193.
Baxtel, L.A. & Shepherd, T.L. (1978). Sex-role identity, sex of other and affective relationship as
determinants on interpersonal conflict management styles. Sex Roles, 4, 813-825.
Bedell, J. & Sistrunk, F. (1973). Power opportunity costs and sex in a mixed-motive Game. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 219-226.
Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 42, 155-62.
Bem, S.L. & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex-typing and the avoidance of psychological androgyny. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634-643.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1970). The fifth achievement. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6,
413-426.
Bourne, B. (1983). Age, work values and job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
of Missouri, Columbia.
Brenner, O. (1982). Relationship of education to sex, managerial status and the managerial stereotype.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 380-383.
Brenner, O.C., Tomkiewicz, J. & Schein, V.E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and
requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662-669.
Bretz, R.D., Jr., Boudreau, J.W. & Judge, T.A. (1994). Job search behaviors of employed managers.
Personnel Psychology, 47, 275-301.
Brewer, N., Mitchell, P. & Weber, N. (2002). Gender role, organizational status and conflict management
styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(1), 78-94.
Brown, S.P. & Peterson, R.A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Metaanalysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 63-77.
Burke, R.J. (1970). Method of resolving superior-subordinate conflict: The constructive use of subordinate
differences and disagreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 393-411.
Churchill, G.A., Ford, N.M. Jr. & Walker, O.C., Jr. (1976). Organizational climate and job satisfaction in
the sales force. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 323-332.
Cook, E.P. (1985). Psychological androgyny. New York: Pergamon Press.
Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. & Stone, E.F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how
it affects their performance. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Davies, D.R., Matthews, G. & Wong, C.S.K. (1991). Ageing and work. In C.L. Cooper and I.T.
Robertson, (Eds.) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, John Wiley and
Sons, Ltd., 149-211.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-151.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven and
London, Yale University Press.
Eagly, A.H. & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 108(2), 233-56.
Fisher, C.D. & Gittelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320-333.
Gist, M.E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.
Gist, M.E. & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and
mallability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211.
Gottman, J.M. & Levenson, R.W. (1986). Assessing the role of emotion in marriage. Behavioral
Assessment, 8, 31-43.
219
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Greeff, A.P. & De Bruyne, T. (2000). Conflict management style and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex
and Marital Therapy, 26, 321-34.
Gross, M.A. & Guerrero, L.K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of
the competence model to Rahim’s Organizational Conflict Styles. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 11, 200-226.
Haferkamp, C.J. (1991). Orientations to conflict: Gender, attributions, resolution strategies and selfmonitoring. Current Psychology, 10(4), 227-40.
Heavey, C.L., Layne, C. & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A
replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 16-27.
Hignite, M., Margovio, T. & Chin, J. (2002). Assessing the conflict resolution profiles of emerging
information systems professionals. Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(4), 315-24.
Imler, J.R. (1980). The effects of occupational category, organizational level, organizational size, sex, and
conflict opponent on the conflict handling styles of hospital management personnel. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, Youngstown State University, OH.
Johnson, D.W. (1993). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self actualization, Allyn and Bacon.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoeck, J.D. & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizational stress.
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity, New York: Wiley.
Kacmar, K.M. & Ferris, G.R. (1989). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the age-job
satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 201-207.
Kilmann, R.H. & Thomas, K.W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling
behavior: The “MODE” Instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 309-325.
Konovsky, M., Jaster, F. & McDonald, M. (1998). Using parametric statistics to explore the construct
validity of the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode survey. Management Communication Quarterly, 3(2),
268-91.
Kornhauser, A.W. (1965). Mental health of the industrial worker. New York: John Wiley.
Korabik, K. (1990). Androgyny and Leadership Style. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 283-292.
Korabik, K., Baril, G.L. & Watson, C. (1993). Managers’ conflict management style and leadership
effectiveness: The moderating effects of gender. Sex Roles, 29, 405-420.
Labouvie-Vief, G. & Chandler, M.J. (1978). Cognitive development and life span theory: Idealistic versus
contextual perspectives. In P.B. Baltes (Ed.) Lifespan Development and Behavior, Vol. 1, Academic
Press, NY, pp. 104-136.
Lawrence, P.R. & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and environment. Homewood, III: Irwin-Dorsey.
Levant, R. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 27(3),
259-65.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Likert, R. & Likert, J.G. (1976). New ways of managing conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Ed. Marvin Dunnette. Chicago, IL: 1297-1350.
MacEachron, A.E. (1977). Two interactive perspectives on the relationship between job level and job
satisfaction. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 19, 226-246.
Mackey, R.A & O’Brien, B.A. (1998). Marital conflict management: Gender and ethnic differences.
Social Work, 43(2), 128-41.
McEvoy, G.M. & Cascio, W.F. (1989). Cumulative evidence of the relationship between employee age
and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 11-17.
McKenna, S. & Richardson, J. (1995). Business values, management and conflict handling: Issues in
contemporary Singapore. Journal of Management Development. 11(4), 56-70.
Mossholder, K.W., Bedeian, A.G. & Armenakis, A.A. (1981). Role perceptions, satisfaction and
performance: Moderating effects of self-esteem and organizational level. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 28, 224-234.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paul, R.J. & Townsend, J.B. (1993). Managing the older worker - don’t just rinse away the grey. Academy
of Management Executive, 7, 67-74.
Posner, B. (1986). What’s all the fighting about? Conflicts in projects management. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 33(4), 207-11.
220
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Portello, J.Y. & Long, B.C. (1994). Gender role orientation, ethical and interpersonal conflicts and conflict
handling styles of female manager, Sex Roles, 31, 683-701.
Powell, G.N. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Powell, G.N. & Butterfield, D.A. (1979). The good manager: Masculine or androgynous? Academy of
Management Journal, 2, 395-403,
Pruitt, D.G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, pp. 167-194.
Pruitt, D.G. & Rubin, J.Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, settlement. New York: Random
House.
Putnam, L. & Poole, M. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F.M. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts and L.
Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 549-98.
Putnam, L.L. & Wilson, C.E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliability and
validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication Yearbook, 6, pp. 629-652.
Rahim, M.A. (1983a). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management
Journal, 26, 368-376.
Rahim, M.A. (1985). A strategy for managing conflict in complex organizations. Human Relations, pp.
81-89.
Rahim, M.A. (1986). Referent role and styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Journal of Social
Psychology, 126, 79-86.
Rahim, M.A. (2001). Managing organizational conflict. Challenges for organization development and
change. In R.T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (2nd rev. ed., pp. 365387). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Rahim, M.A. & Bonoma, T.V, (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and
Intervention. Psychological Reports, 44, 1323-1344.
Rahim, M.A. & Buntzman, G.F. (1989). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict with
subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction. Journal of Psychology, 123, 195-210.
Rahim, M.A. & Magner, N.R. (1994). Convergent and discriminant validity of the Rahim Organizational
Conflict Inventory-II, Psychological Reports, 74, 35-38.
Rahim, M.A. & Magner, N.R. (1995). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Styles of Handling
Interpersonal Conflict: First-order Factor Model and its Invariance across Groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 122-132.
Randel, A.E (2002). Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender composition
and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 749-66.
Renwick, P.A. (1977). The effects of sex differences on the perception and management of superiorsubordinate conflict: An exploratory study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19,
403-415.
Rhodes, S.R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 328-367.
Rosenthal, D.B & Hautaluoma, J. (1988). Effects of importance of issues, gender and power of contenders
on conflict management style. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 699-701.
Roznowski, M. (1989). Examination of the Measurement Properties of the Job Descriptive Index with
Experimental Items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), pp. 805-814.
Rubin, J.A. & Brown, B.R. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York:
Wiley.
Ruble, T.L. & Thomas, K.W. (1976). Support for a Two-dimensional Model of Conflict Behaviour.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 143-155.
Smith, W.P. (1987). Conflict and Negotiation: Trends and Emerging Issues. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 17, 641-677.
Smith, C.S. & Brannick, M.T. (1990). A role and expectancy model of participative decision-making: A
replication and theoretical extension. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 11, 91-104.
Smith, P.C.; Kendall L.M. & Hulin C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement.
A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Spence, J.T. & Helmreich, R.L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions,
correlates and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Stockard, J. & Johnson, M.M. (1992). Sex and gender in society. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Super, D.E. (1939). Occupational level and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 547-564.
Tannenbaum, A. (1968). Control in organizations. McGraw-Hill, New York.
221
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Thomas, K.W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Thomas, K.W. & Kilmann, R.H. (1974). The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument. Tuxedo, NY:
Xicom.
Tjosvold, D. & Okum, M. (1979). Effect of unequal power on cooperation in conflict. Psychological
Reports, 44, 239-42.
Tutzauer, F. & Roloff, M.E. (1988). Communication processes leading to integrative agreements: There
paths to joint benefits. Communication Research, 15, 360-380.
Van de Vliert, E. & Hordijk, J.W. (1989). A theoretical position of compromising among other styles of
conflict management. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 681-690.
Van Sell, M., Brief, A.P. & Schuler, R.S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the
literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34, 43-71.
Vinacke, W., Mogy, R., Powers, W., Langan, C. & Beck, R. (1974). Accommodative strategy and
communication in a three-person matrix game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(4),
509-25.
Vigil-King, D.C. (2000).
Team conflict, integrative conflict-management strategies, and team
effectiveness: A field study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Waldman, D.A. & Avolio, B.J. (1986). A meta analysis of age differences in job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 33-38.
Waldman, D.A. & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Aging and work performance: Contextual and developmental
considerations. In G. Feris (Ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 3,
JAP Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 79-114.
Wall, V.D. Jr. & Galanes, G. (1986). The SYMLOG dimensions and small group conflict. Central States
Speech Journal, 37, 61-78.
Watson, C. (1994). Gender versus power as a predictor of negotiation behavior and outcomes. Negotiation
Journal, 9, 117-27.
Watson, C. & Hoffman, L.R. (1996). Managers as negotiators: A test of power versus gender as predictors
of feelings, behavior and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 63-85.
Welford, A.T. (1985). Changes of performance with age: An overview. In Charness, N. (Ed.) Aging and
Human Performance, Wiley, NY, 333-369.
Yan, J. & Sorenson, R. (2004). The influence of Confucian ideology on conflict in Chinese family
business. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(1), 5-17.
Yelsma, P. & Brown, C.T. (1985). Gender roles, biological sex and predisposition to conflict management.
Sex Roles, 12, 731-747.
222