1
OKPARA, MENUCHIM LEVI MILLER
PG/MSC/03/35023
THE INFLUENCE OF LOCUS OF CONTROL AND PERCEIVED INEQUITY
ON EMPLOYEES CONFLICT BEHAVIOUR.
A RESEARCH THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF
PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
Psychology
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
2009
Webmaster
2
THE INFLUENCE OF LOCUS OF CONTROL AND PERCEIVED
INEQUITY ON EMPLOYEES CONFLICT BEHAVIOUR.
BY
OKPARA, MENUCHIM LEVI MILLER
PG/MSC/03/35023
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
NSUKKA
MARCH 2009
3
TITLE PAGE
THE INFLUENCE OF LOCUS OF CONTROL AND PERCEIVED INEQUITY ON
EMPLOYEES CONFLICT BEHAVIOUR.
BY
OKPARA, MENUCHIM LEVI MILLER
PG/MSC/03/35023
A RESEARCH THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF
PSYCHOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA,
NSUKKA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD
OF MSc DEGREE IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
MARCH 2009
4
CERTIFICATION
Menuchim Levi Miller Okpara, a post-graduate student in the department of
Psychology with registration number PG/M.Sc/03/35023 has satisfactorily completed
the requirement for course and research work for the degree of Masters of Science in
Industrial and Organisational Psychology.
The work embodied in the project is original and has not been submitted in part or in
full for any other diploma or degree of this or any other university
Dr. L. I. Ugwu
Head of Department
Professor J.O.C Ozioko
Supervisor
External Examiner
DEDICATION
5
To my father and role model, late Elder Levi Miller Okpara whose early life
instructions, inspiration, guidance, and prayers bequeathed me with a sound
foundation and reason to be successful in life. And to the Almighty God, the giver of
life and wisdom, for seeing me through this journey.
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am profoundly indebted to various individuals who contributed to my graduate study
and in this research work. First and foremost, my indefatigable and highly respected
supervisor, Professor J.O.C Ozioko who I must acknowledge gave me a clear
direction, required guidance and encouragement towards the completion this project. I
really admire his sense of humour, passion for standards and promptings to work hard
and deliver this work. Prof, I am indeed very grateful and happy to have worked with
you.
My gratitude also goes to Professor Emeka Okpara, mni, who greatly influenced my
thoughts and quest for scholarly approach to addressing I/O psychological issues and
trend. I must recognize and appreciate Dr. Ike Onyishi who was very supportive and
who constantly encouraged and reminded me of the need to complete this research. I
am very proud and acknowledge the remarkable quality teaching of the academic staff
of the department of Psychology; Professor Ezeilo, Rev.Fr (Dr). M. Ifeagwazi, Dr.
Oyeneje, Rev. Sis (Dr). Nwoke Dr. Ugwu, Dr. Chris Chukwu, Mr. Amazue, Mr. Mefo
and Mr. John Ezeh and others. The non-academic staff of the department equally
deserves to be mentioned for their ready-to-assist attitude during my studies.
7
I am grateful and will continue to relish the camaraderie and memorable
moments I enjoyed with my fellow post-graduate Psychology Class 2003,
particularly the I/O Psychology majors; my very good friend Luke Onah, Marcel
Idogwu, Charles Nnadiukwu, Onwurah Ozioko alias ‘Gwogwo’ you were all nice
and warm.
Finally, I will not complete the listing without mentioning the jewel of inestimable
value, God’s special gift, my loving wife, Adanma, for her fervent prayers and
encouragement, which were the strength and catalyst to forge ahead and actualize this
goal.
My precious Children; Menuchimzi Jr, Chimyonum, Chimyemenum and
Chimwazilem, you are wonderful and I am ever grateful for your sacrifices and for
accepting my excuses and reasons to be away from home during my studies.
Above all, I give God all the glory and honour with a thankful heart.
Menuchim Levi Miller Okpara
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ii
CERTIFICATION -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iii
DEDICATION
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iv
-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT -
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTACT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
v
-
-
-
-
vii
-
ix
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem
-
-
-
Purpose of Study
-
-
- - 1
-
-
-
-
Operational definition of Terms
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
7
-
7
CHAPTER TWO:
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Review
Empirical Review
-
-
-
-
-
-
Summary of Literature
Hypotheses
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
-
11
-
23
24
9
CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY -
-
-
-
-
-
25
Participants
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
Instrument
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
Procedure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29
Design/Statistics
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29
CHAPTER FOUR:
RESULT
-
--30
CHAPTER FIVE:
DISCUSSION
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
32
Implication of the study
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Limitation of the study
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
36
-
37
Recommendations for further study
Summary and Conclusion
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35
37
REFERENCES
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
39
APPENDICES
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43
10
ABSTRACT
The study investigated how locus of control and perceived inequity influence conflict
behaviour among employees of Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited
(SPDC) Eastern Division in Port Harcourt Nigeria. The researcher made use of
questionnaire as an instrument of data collection. The Workers Locus of Control Scale
by Spector (1988) was used to measure employees’ locus of control. A Perceived
Inequity Scale developed by the researcher was used to measure employees’ perceived
inequity in their organization, while a Conflict Behaviour Scale also developed by the
researcher measured the pattern of employees’ conflict in their organisation. Two
hundred and twenty employees of SPDC, comprising of 149 Males and 71 female
participated in the study. Result of the study showed that locus of control significantly
influence conflict behaviors F(1, 219) = 50.33, p < .001. Also, that perceived inequity
is a significant factor in conflict behaviour in the organization F (1, 219) = 50.33, p <
.001. The implication of present findings is that any organization that allow conflict
culture to thrive amongst its workforce will fall short of the indices of effectiveness
such as commitment, satisfaction, and citizenship behaviour which are keys to
competitiveness in terms of quality employees in the marketplace.
11
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Developing countries in general seems to be in a crisis on all fronts: politically,
environmentally, religiously, and economically, and formal organizations are not
exceptions. Conflict, be it leadership generated or employee – induced have caused
various organizations enormous losses (Hines, 1980). Its resolution and management
has caused even greater losses on the resources of the organization (Demers, 2002).
Organizations can be thought of as collections of groups, often-loyal cohesive
groups. And when such groups come into contact, politics and conflict turn up too
(Okpara, 2005). He also stated that Politics and conflict; products of power, control,
and ascendancy occur in all organization. According to Okpara (2005) conflict is a fact
of organizational life and not necessarily a negative, burdensome fact. Conflict among
individuals and groups can provide checks and balances to the system and can
motivate creativity and innovation among numbers of the organization. Okpara (2005)
also asserted that conflict between groups arises when interests compete and are
enhanced by mistrust and closed communication.
Conflict is a serious disagreement, struggle, and fight arising out of differences
of opinions, wishes, needs, values, and interests between and among individuals or
groups ( Hornby, 1995). It is a struggle between and among individuals or groups over
values and claims to scarce resources, status symbols and power bases. The objective
of the individuals or groups engaged in conflict is to enjoy better status and the
12
available scarce resources. Conflict is prevalent within and between social relations,
such as families, ethnic groups, social institutions and organizations. Further, it is
prevalent in situations where the goals, aspirations, interests, and needs of the groups
cannot be achieved simultaneously and the value systems of such groups are at
variance. Invariably, the groups purposely employ their power bases to fight for their
position with a view to promote their welfare and general well being (Anstey, 1991).
Most researchers on the issue of conflict (Dessler, 1980; Moore, 1986; Pruitt &
Rubin, 1986) seem to agree that the causes of conflict include among others,
differences in terms of goals, value systems, interests, structural in- balances and
ambiguity in coordinating social structures. It emanates from socio-economic
inequalities, ethnicity, and absence of opportunities for participation, differences in
religious inclinations, fragile government structures and polices, inadequate civic
structures, and competition over scarce resources (Klingebiel, 2002).
Indeed, conflict is caused by actual or perceived inequality of control, use,
ownership and distribution of scarce resources. It takes place in a heterogeneous
situation or society where the dominant group, using its power, enforces its own value
systems, symbols, culture and language over other “powerless groups” (Anstey, 1991).
Lack of equitable share and control of resources as well as access to social services
among and between societal groups give rise to struggles and contributes to rising
levels of mistrust and disagreements which ultimately lead to conflict.
Ambiguity is another source or cause of conflict. This according to Anstey
(1991), conflict normally occurs where there is social change resulting in uncertainty
13
with respect to the boundaries of authority, social and political acceptable behaviour.
Ambiguity is common in social settings where old ways of doing things are no longer
acceptable to a section of the community, and where traditional methods of exercising
authority are rejected by a section of the community, that is unwilling to continue to
relate to the group in authority in a subservient way. The consequence of this type of
relationship is a prolonged struggle of testing new boundaries in authority-relations
between the dominant group and the subservient one. Predictably, members of the
group in authority feel threatened, and seek new ways, or do whatever is in their
power, to ensure that they retain authority. On the other hand members of the
subservient group would do whatever is in their power to ensure that their concerns
and interests are addressed.
Pruitt and Rubin (1986) have articulated three phases by which the escalation of
conflict can be explained, namely: the aggressor-defender phase, the conflict-spiral
phase and the structural-change phase. The three escalation phases are not mutually
exclusive. The aggressor party is active in pursing its end, escalating its use of
contentions tactics progressively as its efforts are frustrated. The other party only
reacts, increasing levels of response in accordance with the activities of the aggressor.
The escalation continues until the aggressor desists or wins.
The conflict-spiral phase asserts that resolution of conflict is the consequence of
a self-reinforcing circle of action and reaction between warring parties. The spiral –
conflict situation may be retaliatory (punitive) or defensive (self protective) in
character. Unlike the one-way flow of the aggressor-defender phase, the spiral-model
14
process of conflict is a two-way causation model whereby each party reacts to the
other party. The conflict intensifies with time, and depends, on the intensity of the
reactions of the warring parties.
The third phase, structural-change, builds on the conflict-spiral model.
Conflicting tactics of each group produce residual changes, which in turn, encourage
further contentions behaviour. The escalated conflict is both an antecedent and
consequent of structural changes.
Even in formal organizations, conflicts are results of the organizations’
antecedents and/or structural defects vis-à-vis that of their counterparts in similar
organizations. Those defects are in form of disequilibrium in the reward system and
when compared to other organizations that perform the same or comparable tasks. In
fact, most industrial conflicts hinges around inequity or disparity in wages and
conditions of work. This is to suggest that one major cause of conflict in organizations
seem to be employees’ relative qualification, job specification and reward system
when compared to others (Adams, 1963).
When there are such perceived inequities, conflict ensues, especially between
the employees and the employer. Conflicts are usually emotionally costly both for the
individual and for the group they are battling. Such conflicts slow down decisions,
distorts plans and intensifies pain. But such conflict also carries positive effects
(Okpara, 2001).
The concept of locus of control has to do with how individuals view themselves
with regard to having control over events and situations in their lives. The term has
15
often been conceptualized as either internal or external in orientation. Those who are
self-directed and perceive them-selves, as the primary determinants of their own fate
are said to hold internal control expectancies. Those who perceive chance or fate as the
primary determinants of their destinies are said to hold external control expectancies
(Lefcourt, 1976; Rotter, 1966). Thus, those who ascribe control of events to
themselves are said to have an internal orientation and are referred to as “internals”
while those who attribute control to outside forces are said to have external orientation
and are termed “externals”. Internal orientation has been found to be positively
associated with such psychological adjustment indicators as resistance to influence and
the ability to cope with failure (Wolfe & Robertshaw, 1982). Differences in locus of
control have been related to some behaviours including behaviours in organisations
(Spector, 1982). Effort will be expended in this present study to relate the concepts of
locus of control and perceived inequity to conflict behaviours in formal organisations.
Statement of the Problems
One major cause of conflict in formal organisations seems to be employees’
relative qualification, job specification and reward system when compared with similar
organizations.
Most employees tend to seek for a job in an organization where their input to a
job is commensurably rewarded. Equity theory by Adams (1963) affirms that where
workers perceive inequity, they tend to device some alternative adaptable ways of
countering in order to cushion the effect and tension generated by the inequity and
16
moreso, personality disposition of the employees’ hence their locus of control is
equally a possible factor that could determine employees’ behaviors in organizations.
In Nigeria however, oil and gas jobs are believed to be the most lucrative and
there appears to be a general preference by job seekers for job placements in the
industry. As a result of the technical skills required by the job, expatriates imbued with
comparable knowledge with their Nigerian counterparts are usually preferred for
employment at the expense of Nigerian workers. The indigenous Nigerian workers
despite their equivalent skills are offered menial jobs within the oil and gas industry or
in some instances employed as casual or contract workers without desirable benefits.
In most instances the local employees are placed in subordinate position to the
expatriate’s staff. This is inequity.
Observation equally reveals a marked disparity in terms of remuneration and
working condition between the expatriates and the indigenous Nigerian workers
performing similar job.
In this state of affair therefore, the researcher felt a justified need to investigate
whether locus of control and perceived inequity would influence employees’ conflict
behaviour in formal organizations.
The study would therefore attempt to provide answers to the following
questions:
1.
Does locus of control influence employees’ conflict behaviour?
2.
Does perceived inequity influence employees’ conflict behaviour?
17
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of locus of control and
perceived inequity on employees’ conflict behaviour in Nigerian formal organizations.
More specifically, the objectives of the study include:
1.
To determine whether locus of control will have any impact on employees’
conflict behaviour.
2.
To ascertain whether perceived inequity would influence employees’
conflict behaviour.
Operational Definition of Terms
Locus of Control: Employees attribution of the effects and causes of events in
their lives, either to internal or external factors.
Internal Locus of Control: Belief that one is the primary determinant of one’s
own fate.
External Locus of Control: Belief or attribution of control of one’s fate to
external force.
Perceived Inequity: Employees perception of undue disparity in the reward
system in their organization when compared with others in the organization or in
other organizations offering similar service.
Conflict Behaviour: Employees adaptable ways or behaviour countering
mechanism in order to cushion the effect and tension generated by inequity in
organizations.
18
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Review of Literature for this Study was discussed under the following Subheadings:
Theoretical Review
Empirical Review
Summary of Literature Review
Theoretical Review
The Marxist conflict approach
The several social theories that emphasize social conflict have roots in the ideas
of Kart Marx (1818 – 1883). His approach emphasizes a materialist interpretation of
history, a dialectical method of analysis, a critical stance toward existing social
arrangements, and a political programme of revolution or, at least, reform.
The materialist view of history starts from the premise that the most important
determinant of social life is the work people are doing, especially work that results in
provision of the basic necessities of life, food, clothing and shelter. Marx thought that
the way the work is socially organized and the technology used in production will have
a strong impact on every other aspect of society. He maintained that everything of
value in society results from human labour. Thus, Marx saw working men and women
as engaged in making society, in creating the conditions for their own existence.
Marx divided history into several stages, conforming to broad patterns in the
economic structure of society. The most important stages for Marx’s argument were
19
feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. The bulk of Marx’s writing is concerned with
applying the materialist model of society to capitalism, the stage of economic and
social development that Marx saw dominant in 19th century Europe. For Marx, the
central institution of capitalist society is private property, the system by which capital
(that is, money, machines, tools, factories, and other material objects used in
production) is controlled by a small minority of the population. This arrangement leads
to two opposed classes, the owners of capital (capitalist) and the workers (called the
proletariat), whose only property is their own labour time, which they have to sell to
the capitalists.
Owners are seen as making profits by paying workers less than their work is
worth and, thus exploiting them. This economic exploitation leads directly to
oppression whereupon the workers seek a way of fighting for fairness, hence conflict.
Such conflict is escalated, especially when the workers of a particular organization
perceived inequity in the reward system or in the overall work condition in other
organizations that renders similar or comparable services.
Economic exploitation leads directly to political oppression, as owners make
use of their economic power to gain control of the state and turn it into a servant of
bourgeois economic interests. Police power, for instance, is used to enforce property
rights and guarantee unfair contracts between capitalist and worker. Oppression also
takes more subtle forms: religion serves capitalist interests by pacifying the
population; intellectuals, paid directly or indirectly by capitalists, spend their careers
justifying and rationalizing the existing social and economic arrangements. In sum, the
20
economic structure of society molds the superstructure, including ideas (e.g, morality,
ideologies, art, and literature) and the social institutions that support the class structure
of society (e.g., the state, the educational system, the family, and religious
institutions). Because the dominant or ruling class (the bourgeoisie) controls the social
relations of production, the dominant ideology in capitalist society is that of the ruling
class. Ideology and social institutions, in turn, serve to reproduce and perpetuate the
economic class structure. Thus, Marx viewed the exploitative economic arrangements
of capitalism as the real foundation upon which the superstructure of social, political
and intellectual consciousness is built.
Marx’s ideas have been applied and reinterpreted by scholars for over a
hundred years. Example, in recent years, Marx theory has taken a great variety of
forms, notably the world-systems theory proposed by Wallerstein (1974,1980) and the
comparative theory of revolutions put forward by Skocpol (1980).
Dahrendorf Conflict Theory
Dahrendorf (1959) makes an interesting study in the area of conflict. He has the
unique advantage of analyzing the flaws of other theorists before him as well as using
such flaws to guide his own postulations. In other words, he tried to overcome the
limitations of social thinkers like Marx, Weber and Parsons and at the same time to
improve on their postulations largely by borrowing and refining their ideas and
concepts. It is the contention often that while Weber’s sociology is underlined by the
fatalistic assumption of the necessity of domination, Dahrendorf abstracted the concept
of authority from Weber and elaborated a comprehensive theory of class structuration
21
wholly in terms of it (Binns, 1977). In this way, Dahrendorf took both the ideas of
domination and authority from Weber and used them to fashion out what he believes is
a more realistic explanation of structural conflict in society.
However, Dahrendorf wrote largely in reaction to the conflict notion of Karl
Marx. Thus, his basic point of departure is a critical disavowal of the basic tenets of
Marx’s conflict perspective. Dahrendorf sees capitalism as a form of society in which
the principal cleavages derive from the possession of authority. Dahrendorf (1959)
presents what he sees as the two interrelated theories of integration and values’ on one
side and ‘coercion and interests’ on the other. He sees the two as embodiments of the
two faces of society. In a somewhat customary tradition, Dahrendof acknowledged the
emergence of two schools of sociological thought, viz the utopian school which
stresses value consensus and the rationalist’ school, which stresses force, domination
and constraints; each of which claims superiority of explanations and explanatory
powers.
Dahrendorf uses the term “utopian” in a bid to rubbish the claim or reality being
advanced by scholars of the integration school. Therefore, such notions as universal
consensus, structural functionalism, equilibrium and integration are more utopian
expressions. He particularly singles out Talcott Parsons as an archetypical
representative of this utopian conceptualization of social reality ( Dahrendorf, 1968;
Coser & Rosenborg, 1976). However, Dahrendorf agrees that both schools possess
explanatory validity for the solution of different sociological problems, but berate the
unmerited colossal domination of the integration school. He therefore, suggests that
22
either models or schools should constitute complementary rather than mutually
exclusive aspects of social reality.
Basically, Dahrendorf believes that power and authority are the most prized
possessions in industrial society. These divide the population of a society into the two
classes of those who have authority and power, in this context, employers and those
who have not, employees. As a result, those who have power coerce others who do not
have authority and power. Therefore, the consensus of society rests on the ability of
the powerful to coerce others. In other words, consensus is built squarely on an
enforced constraint. The central thesis therefore is that this differential distribution of
authority ultimately becomes the determining factor of a systematic social conflict of a
distinct type from the Marxian conflict. Accordingly Dahrendorf postulates, that
without the emergence of complex and ultimate organisation, this sort of conflict
cannot lead to the outbreak of war or intense hostilities.
Hence, what obtains is that the organisation of those without power which is
loose tries to enforce a change of status quo and those with power and authority
respond by either lessening their hold (conceding some power) or using the power to
diffuse conflict. In this scenario, society systematically encourages conflict that will
bring progress while sometime the destructive type. Dahrendorf’s idea of conflict, as
mentioned elsewhere, is that of dissociation. This dissociation emerges from the fact
that the same set of people do not occupy authority positions in all spheres of life,
rather the person with authority in the political sphere may lack it in the religion
sphere. Therefore, there exists a pace for compromise and consensus.
23
Because of this, the intensity of class conflict or access to authority and power
decreases to the extent that different group conflicts in the same society are dissociated
rather than superimposed. Dissociation in this case implies that the lines of conflict
between individuals are always criss-crossing, thus one’s foe in one area of the social
structure may be one’s good comrade in the other. This criss-crossing of conflict lines
and the fact that the same set of people are not imbued with authority in all areas of the
social structure tends to breed a dissociation or diffusion of the conflict because
individuals even in a conflict situation seem
not
to forget comradeship ties
(Okeibuner & Anugwom, 2002). From the foregoing therefore, Dahrendorf’s theory
has exposed him to some criticisms. For instance, Binns (1977) sees his social theory
as flawed by its metaphysical assumption concerning the primacy of authority
relations in the dynamics of conflict group formation. Also, Binns argues, rightly, that
Dahrendorf based his work largely on a misleading and erroneous evaluation of
Marx’s work. One good example of this error is the fact that Dahrendorf sees Marx’s
theory of class as more or less an essentially heuristic device. This ignores the stark
bound, objective socio-economic formations emerging from the social relations of
production. In another related case, Dahrendorf consistently separates Marx’s political
economy from his analysis of class formation.
Moreover, Giddens (1973) questioned both the account of social reality in
Dahrendorf’s theory and its internal consistency. He argues that Dahrendorf’s view of
class directs attention away from the contrast between class and classlessness. As
obvious in Marxian theory which laboriously tried to account for the origin and
24
persistence of classes, Dahrendorf has not adequately accounted for the emergence of
differential authority or the forces that generate and sustain authority in human society.
On this basis therefore, the validity of Dahrendorf’s theory remains unproven and may
be determined eventually by the extent to which we disavow the argument that “his
model of society as conflictual and his image of class as an aspect of an authority
relationship are, in other words, mechanically paired and have no organic or intrinsic
connection outside their strictly conceptual association” (Binns, 1977).
Coser’s Social Conflict Theory
Crucial to the sociological thought of Lewis Coser is the thesis that conflict
ultimately adds to the progress of the society in question. However, conflict is further
segregated in this scheme into the potentially advantageous and the potentially
disruptive even though the former is more characteristic of civilized society. To
properly appreciate Coser’s idea, it may be worthwhile to examine a related idea of his
concerning the nature of power. Predictably, Coser, adopting a conflict frame of
reference, sees interaction as largely or essentially conflict-oriented since it is
concerned with the powers of actors to accomplish their ends in potential conflict with
other actors whose resistance they must overcome to achieve their goals (Coser &
Rosenberg, 1976). But this assumption does gross injustice to the ideas of Coser since
he also looks at power beyond the prisms of conflict. This, it is his argument that
power can be seen in purely conflict context with regard to interacting individuals.
This context changes when power is put to a collective purpose. In other words, such
25
power is oriented towards social controls and its only concern is with the regulation of
conflict in the group.
This notion of power existing is two spheres -private and public- is
quintessential to a clear understanding of Coser’s perspectives on both power and
conflict. As a result, he distinguishes power in two ways viz:

Power may act (individual or collective) on another actor, even against the
latter’s resistance, so that the latter actor is dominated by the former.

Power may also be seen as a resource at the disposal of collective benefit of the
members. In other words power here becomes a collective facility.
What is obvious from the foregoing is that power, as rightly defined by Max Weber, is
all about the probability that one actor within a given social relationship will be in
position to carry out one’s own will despite resistance (Weber, 1947). Coser simply
modifies or qualifies that orientation by first removing the element of probability,
which infers some measure of uncertainty. Therefore, he contends that power implies a
marked degree of asymmetrical relationship. The person who wields power cannot be
seen as equal to the person on whom he exercises this power. It is this asymmetrical
relationship that enables the individual or group with power to triumph despite
resistance. In the same vein this asymmetries and exercise of power itself rests
squarely on the ability of the power wielder to apply negative sanctions in case of noncompliance. However, Coser quickly points out that this does not necessarily mean the
imposition of the active sanctions in case of non-compliance. Or the imposition of the
active will of one actor upon a passive one. What one can infer from this is that power
26
relationship somehow benefits the less powerful or powerless. To this end, compliance
is built more on a consensus or moral imperative of power wielder to exercise power
than on a ruthless use of sanction.
A critical observation of Coser’s presentation on power would indicate a rehash
of existing ideas on the notion. In this sense, Coser’s thesis on power, with a few
modifications, are reminiscent of those of Weber (1947), Blan (1964), Gouldner
(1960), Bierstedt (1961), Bachrach and Baratz (1962) among others. However, the
essence of Coser’s argument can be mainly captured in his view that power can be
seen as a veritable tool in conflict and group relationship. Thus, power exists both in
the sphere of social conflict and in diverse processes of interaction between different
actors. Also, the major role of power in a conflict context is to regulate or mediate
such conflict. This orientation automatically leads us to a consideration of the conflict
ideas of Lewis Coser.
The most distinguishing features of Coser’s conflict sociology are the
reluctance to see conflict as mainly a dislocation force in social life. This frame of
mind has led to a consensus among scholars that Coser’s conflict ideas revolve around
the benefits or advantages of conflict for human society. In this sense, conflict
performs some necessary and often desirable functions for society. It is pertinent to
point out here that Coser’s concern is with group conflict or the conflict that occurs
within a social group. Also, Coser, in spite of his main focus on the benefits of
conflicts, does not see all conflicts as inherently beneficial to the social system.
27
According to Coser (1956) conflict within a group may help to establish unity
or to re-establish unity and Cohesion where it has been threatened by hostility or
antagonism among the members. He goes on to point out that it is not every type of
conflict that is likely to favour or benefit the group structure and that conflict may not
necessarily serve this function for all groups. Hence, he makes the insightful caveat
that whether social conflict is beneficial to internal adaptation or not depends on the
type of issues over which it is fought and the type of social structure concerned. All
the same, typ0es of social structure most likely determine types of conflict. In other
words, types of conflict and types of social structure are not, strictly speaking,
independent variables (Okeibunor & Anugwom, 2002).
Given this premise, two basic forms of conflict can concern goals; values or
interests do not contradict the basic values of society; and the ones that go deeply to
legitimacy of the social structure rests. The first type of conflict tends to be positively
functional for the social structure concerned. This is because, according to Coser
(1977), such conflicts tend to make possible the readjustment of morns and power
relatives within groups in line with the felt needs of its individual members or sub
groups. Coser tries to explain the second type of social structure, which has failed to
institutionalize and tolerate conflict. Therefore, disruptive conflicts occur only in
social structures without proper institutionalization and tolerance of conflict.
From this standpoint, Coser (1977) argues that conflict is inherent in all types of
social structure since individuals and sub-group are likely to make rival claims to
scarce resources from time to time. Because of this, social structures, which are close
28
knit, that is, exhibit frequency of interaction among members, display more tolerance
of conflict than other. Since there is a high frequency of interaction, the resulting
hostilities are usually suppressed in order to preserve the high degree of intimacy in
such groups.
Finally, Coser (1977) posits that there is no social group or society in which any
and every antagonistic claim is allowed immediate expression. As a result of this, the
best thing that society can do is to establish mechanisms to channel discontent and
hostility while keeping intact the relationship within which antagonism arises.
In spite of the very insightful nature of Lewis Coser’s presentation, it falls short
of the penetrating nature of the classical Marxist thesis. In this sense, Coser fails to
clearly specify the factors that generate and sustain conflict in a society. In other
words, while it provides for the ubiquity of conflict in human society, the argument
that people disagree over scarce resources is not as explanatory since resources by
nature are usually scarce. This is to say that scarce resources may not have one to one
relationship with conflict, especially when cognizance is taken on the interpersonal or
inter-group relationship or interaction. In a sense, the adequacy or equity of the
societal mechanism for mediating resource allocation is more crucial. In a manner akin
to Marxism, the determining issues may be who decides who gets what, how and
where. This ultimately throws up the notion of domination in the allocation and
distribution of resources (Okeibumor & Arugwom, 2002). In view of the foregoing,
the fundamental question of who owns or controls what in society and in this context,
29
formal organisations is crucial to the understanding of organisation and employees’
conflict behaviour.
Empirical Review
Perceived Inequity and Conflict Behaviour
Various researchers have delved into the relationship between inequity and
conflict behaviours in organisations. Sarbin and Allen (1968) maintain that perceived
inequity causes cognitive strain on the employees, that is, the group involved finds it
difficult to locate because of conflicting aims from their environment.
In another related study, Tannenbaum (1966) investigated the effect of lack of
fairness (inequity) in organisation. Five hundred and sixty (500- employees from two
different comparable organizations were sampled. It was observed that at one hand,
employees felt a deep sense of unfairness by their organisation when they were
exposed to the overall condition of work of the other organisation. Consequently, the
workers agitated for improved working condition. In the process of this study
Tannenbaum (1966) made a striking observation which concurred with Adams (1963)
assertion, that it is until the inequity is perceived by the other organisation that the
feeling of tension and aggression is identified. Also Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman
(1970) observed that when workers perceive any form of injustice vis-à-vis similar
organisation and employees, conflict ensues to address the fundamental issue which
would determine the life and viability of the organisation.
30
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) in their study on the impact of unfairness
(inequity) on workers behaviour observed that workers react to perceived inequity and
their reactions often counteracts the objectives of the organisation and these in turn
have adverse consequence for organisaional effectiveness.
Furthermore, Baron (1991) rated the extent to which unfairness perception,
which is a forerunner of industrial conflict, produces both positive and negative
effects. The responses from a sample of 15 managers from both private and public
sector indicated that they rated severe negative effects significantly higher than any
positive effects. The works of Ifelluni (1993) revealed that the Nigerian organizations
experiences conflict as soon as its empl oyees perceived organisation vis-à-vis other
organization that renders similar service. According to the findings of Ifelluni (1993)
such conflict is usually spearheaded -by employees within the ages of 35-50 years and
diminishes gradually at subsequent age. Also his study revealed that such
organizational conflicts are higher for males than females in most organisations,
especially, in private organisations.
In a study by Howard (1995), conflict in organisations has negative effect on
performance and satisfaction, which in turn undermines the ultimate goals or
objectives of the organisation. Some studies have examined the correlations between
levels within the organizational hierarchy. Mullins (1999) reported evidence that
conflict in organisation correlate negatively with job performance at lower levels, but
does not correlate at all for higher managers.
31
In has been previously noted that ability or experience an individual has the
better that employee may be able to cope with conflict (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snock, &
Rosenthal, 1964). It is clear that higher levels positions frequently involve solving
unstructured problems, and function in situations of conflict.
Conflict seems not to be always undesirable. This was supported by the study
of Sieber (1974) that conflict is important in promoting innovation, clarification of
roles and in-group conflict, consolidation of groups. According to this report, conflict
is most desirable where lack of it is indicative of autocratic leadership, suppression,
intimidation and a silent to accept things as they are (Baron, 1991).
Coldwell (1982) measured conflict, by observing satisfaction and situation
anxiety in black industrial worker in Southern Africa using Coldwell’s (1979)
questionnaire in a Likert format measuring conflict, job satisfaction and situation
anxiety. The instrument is based on Zuckerman (1960) Affect adjective check-list
consisting of 3 (three positive adjectives: happy, secured and confidence and 3 (three)
negative adjectives: confused afraid, and worried. Using the product moment
correlation coefficient, it was observed that casual relationship between conflict and
situation anxiety and job satisfaction appears to be connected.
Locus of Control and Conflict Behaviour
Many studies have been carried out to establish the role locus of control play on
conflict behaviour in formal organisations. According to the study of Leius Guerin and
Fournier (1993) suggests that self reports of job stress, conflict, well-being, and health
32
influence personality traits like internal and external locus of control, and that such
personality dispositions hence should be controlled for (Schaubreeck, Ganster & Fox.
1992). Bref, Burke, George, Robinson and Webster (1988) in their own study observed
that perceptions of job stress, conflict and impaired well-being are manifestations of
the same personality, that is, a tendency to perceive self as the primary determinant of
one’s own fate (internals) and those who hold external control expectancies
(externals).
Burton (1999) embarked on a study to determine other factors that could spark
off conflict in organisations other than unfairness. Burton’s study utilized respective
individuals as units for his study. In fact, Burtons’s ultimate goal was to ascertain the
impact of individuals’ idiosyncrasy on conflict behaviour and resolution. He observed
in his study that personality disposition of employees play far much dominant role in
conflicts in an organisation. This according to him is because personality disposition
determines to a large extent how certain employees interprets events and/or policies of
the organisation. Burton stated that employees who attributed their stressful life events
to external forces are more involved in conflict than their counterparts who look within
(internals).
Demers (2002) countered this earlier observation of Burton (1999). According
to Demers’ (2002) study, once the workers who expend energy for organizational
growth and advancement perceives any form of injustice on the part of the
organisation, they react accordingly for re-dress. According to Demers (2002) such
situation has implication in turnover intention on the employees. Demers’ (2002) study
33
therefore implies that no matter the type of personality disposition an employee is
endowed with, once the reward system of the organisation is not in any way
commensurate with their input and it is perceived, employee or group of employees
often react adversely, which usually leaves the organisation with enormous loses.
In a related study by Van der Merve (2003), demonstrated that conflict is an
offshoot of domination and unfairness. Van der Merve (2003) in his study with factory
workers in Finland observed that when the employers of labour treat their workers
poorly, conflict ensues, which often leads to withdrawal and high level of turnover,
especially when such workers perceive alternative jobs. According to Van der Merve
(2003) the workers agitation has put various ogranisations in Finland on the right
pedestal, which in turn had lead to viability as a result of the organizational harmony
that often follow employer-employee conflict in formal organizations.
Summary of Literature Review
Economic exploitation leads directly to political oppression, as owners make
use of their economics power to gain control of the state and turn it into a servant of
bourgeois economic interest. Marx (1971) believed that any stage of history based on
exploitative economic arrangements generated within itself the seeds of its own
destruction. For instance, feudalism in which land owners exploited the peasantry,
gave rise to a class of town-dwelling merchants, whose dedication to making profits
eventually led to the bourgeois revolution and the modern capitalist era. The class
relations of capitalism embody a contradiction: capitalists need workers, and vice
versa, but the economic interests of the two groups are fundamentally at odds. Such
34
contradictions mean inherent conflict and instability, the class struggle. This is the
basis of this review of conflict behaviour in organisations.
However, three theories of conflict were highlighted: the Marxist theory of
conflict, Dahrendorf conflict theory, and Coser’s social conflict theory. Each tried to
offer a plausible explanation of the causes and origin of conflict behaviour in society,
and each has their shortcomings, which were equally highlighted in review.
Furthermore, prior studies, which investigated the role of perceived inequity
and locus of control on conflict behaviour were reviewed to provide the bedrock or
foundation to the present study.
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested:
(1)
There will be no statistically significant differences in conflict
behaviour between employees who have external locus of control
orientation and those with internal locus of control orientation.
(2)
There will be no statistically significant differences in conflict
behaviour between employees who have high level of perceived
inequity and those with low perceived inequity.
35
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
PARTICIPANTS
The participants for this study were drawn from employees in Shell Petroleum
Development Company Limited (SPDC), in the Eastern division operation, located in
Port Harcourt Nigeria. A total of 220 participants randomly selected from, Production
Engineering, Information Technology, Well Engineering, Human Resources and
Safety and Security departments of the company will make up the study sample. The
participants included 149 male and 71 female workers.
INSTRUMENT
Questionnaire was the instrument for data collection. The questionnaire
comprised of Section A and Section B. Section A focused on eliciting information on
demographic variable such as age, gender, job status and job tenure of the participants.
Section B will focus on other variables of interest including measures of Locus of
control, measures of perceived inequity, and measures of employees’ conflict
behaviour.
Locus of Control Scale
The Spector (1988) Locus of Control Scale was used in the measurement of
employee locus of control orientation. Spector (1988) devised a locus of control
personality test to assess the extent to which an individual possess internal or external
reinforcement beliefs.
The test consists of a 16-item Likert type structure
36
questionnaire ranging from strongly disagree to strongly disagree. The WLCS is a
domain specific locus of control scale that correlates about .55 with general locus of
control. The format is summated rating with response choices from Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Not Sure, Agree and Strongly Agree as validated, scored from 1 to 5,
respectively. Total score is the sum of all items, and ranges from 16 to 80. The scale is
scored so that externals receive high. The scale has been shown to relate to several
work variables, including job performance and job satisfaction. It also relates to
counterproductive behavior and organizational commitment.
The 16 items were subjected to validity and reliability tests to make it useable in
Nigeria. For the content and face validity, the 16 items were shown to four experts in
the fields of management and psychology. The experts included two lectures in the
Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka and two human resources
experts. The experts were asked to go through the items and then indicate those items
that seem to measure employees perceived inequity in an organization. All the experts
agreed that the items measure workers locus of control orientation and a pilot study
was thereafter conducted using the 16 items.
In the pilot study, 138 participants randomly selected employees of Shell
Petroleum Development Company, in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria,
participated in the study. Out of the 138, 125 copies of the questionnaire were properly
completed and returned, representing a return rate of 90.58%. The responses of the 125
participants were subjected to reliability analysis. The item-total correlations ranged
37
from .35 to .81 (see Appendix A). The scale had a reliability coefficient, Cronbarch
alpha, of .91.
Perceived Inequity Scale
A scale was developed by the researcher to measure workers’ perceived
inequity in their organizations. The Perceived Inequity scale is a five-point Likert type
format ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Some of the statements were
positively worded while others were negatively worded.
The scale was subjected to validity and reliability tests. For the content and face
validity, an initial 35 items were shown to four experts in the fields of management
and psychology. The experts included two lectures in the Department of Psychology,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka and two human resources experts. The experts were
asked to go through the items and then indicate those items that seem to measure
employees perceived inequity in an organization. The 30 items that all the experts
agreed measure perceived inequity in an organization were used in a pilot study.
In the pilot study, 138 workers randomly selected from Shell Petroleum
Development Company, Lagos, Nigeria, participated in the study. Out of the 138
participants surveyed, 125 copies of the questionnaire were properly completed and
returned, representing a return rate of 90.35%. The responses of the 125 subjected to
reliability analysis. Out of the 30 items used in the pilot study, 25 items that had interitem total correlation ranging from .30 and above were retained and would be used for
38
the main study (see Appendix B). The scale has full-scale reliability Cronbarch alpha
of .94.
Conflict Behaviour Scale
A scale was developed by the researcher to measure workers’ conflict
behaviour patterns in their organizations. The Conflict Behaviour Scale is a five-point
Likert type structure ranging from strongly agrees to strongly disagree. Some of the
statements were positively worded while others were negatively worded.
The scale was subjected to validity and reliability tests. For the content and face
validity, an initial 31 items were shown to four experts in the fields of management
and psychology. The experts included two lectures in the Department of Psychology,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka and two human resources experts. The experts were
asked to go through the items and then indicate those items that seem to measure
employees perceived inequity in an organization. The 28 items that all the experts
agreed measure perceived inequity in an organization were used in a pilot study.
In the pilot study, 138 workers randomly selected from Shell Petroleum
Development Company, Lagos, Nigeria, participated in the study. Out of the 138
participants surveyed, 125 copies of the questionnaire were properly completed and
returned, representing a return rate of 90.35%. The items were subjected to reliability
analysis. Out of the 28 items used in the pilot study, 23 items that had inter-item total
correlation ranging from .30 and above were retained and was used for the main study
(see Appendix C). The scale has reliability Cronbarch alpha of .93.
39
PROCEDURE
The questionnaire was administered by the researcher to the participants during
their working hours. No time limit was imposed on the participants. Completed copies
of the questionnaire were collected immediately or at later dates as agreed between the
participants and the researcher.
DESIGN/STATISTICS
The study was a cross-sectional survey design, with two levels of locus of
control (internal versus external) and two levels of perceived inequity (high versus
low). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for data analysis.
40
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Table 1: The Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) Scores for Locus of Control and
Perceived Inequity on Conflict Behaviour.
Locus of Control
Perceived Inequity
Mean
SD
N
External
81.53
16.80
106
Internal
59.64
15.72
114
High
79.73
18.01
111
Low
60.47
16.03
109
The results of the descriptive statistic as presented in Table 1 above
indicated that workers with external locus of control orientation reported higher
scores on conflict behaviour (M = 81.53, SD = 16.80) than those with internal
locus of control orientation (M = 59.64, SD = 15.72).. Also, workers with high
perceived inequity reported higher scores on conflict behaviour (M = 79.73, SD
= 18.01) than those with low perceived inequity (M = 60.47, SD = 16.03). The
tests of significance of the means are reported in Table 2 below.
41
Table 2: An ANOVA Summary Table Showing the Differences in Locus of
control and Perceived Inequity on employee conflict behaviour.
Source
Sum of
df
squares
Mean
F
square
Locus of Control (A)
11924.55
1
11924.55
50.33
Perceived Inequity (B)
6305.83
1
6305.83
26.62
Locus of Control X Perceived
163.40
1
163.40
0.69
Error
51173.97
216
236.92
Total
83853.40
219
Inequity (A X B)
The results of the analysis of variance as indicated in Table 2 show that locus of
control significantly influence conflict behaviour, F(1, 219) = 50.33, p < .001. The
results therefore shows that the externally oriented individual exhibited more conflict
behaviour than the internally oriented individuals. Also the results show that when
workers are classified in terms of their level of perceived inequity, workers with high
perceived inequity differed significantly with those with low perceived inequity in
their exhibition of conflict behaviour, F(1, 219) = 50.33, p < .001.
42
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
The results of analysis of variance showed that when workers were classified
according to their locus of control orientation, that worker with external locus of
control reported higher scores on conflict behaviour than those with internal locus of
control. This finding opposed the first null hypothesis, that there will be no statistically
significant differences in conflict behaviour between employees who have external
locus of control orientation and those with internal locus of control orientation.
The findings of the present study demonstrate that the more externally-oriented
the individual is, the more the person is likely to engage in conflict behaviour. This
present finding may be as a result of the fact that individuals’ personality disposition,
in this context, the attribution of causes of events in individuals’ lives (locus of
control) is an indicator of how they react, interpret and deal with environmental and
even psychological issues within and around them. It may further indicate that human
beings have a natural disposition to the principle of hedonism, and whenever this is
threatened he or she reacts in a way to wriggle his or her head out of the noose; may be
defensively. However, researches have provided evidence that employees who are
almost always in conflict with some environmental issues are externals that tend to
heap blame on the environment as the cause of their misfortune. Managers and/or
management practitioners should therefore be cognizance of this fact and it should
serve as a lamp unto their feet to ensure organizational harmony which researches
43
have provided support to have a direct relationship with organizational effectiveness.
This current finding is not a far cry from the observations of many previous studies on
conflict behaviour and personality. For instance, the current finding is in tandem with
that of Leius, Guerin and Fournier (1993) who established that personality traits like
internal and external locus of control influences conflict behaviour. The present study
equally agrees with the study of Brief, Burke, George, Robinson and Webster (1988)
who observed that perceptions of job stress, conflict and impaired wellbeing are
manifestations of the same personality – locus of control. It is equally in accord with
the findings of Burton (1999) whose ultimate goal was to ascertain the impact of
individuals’ idiosyncrasy on conflict behaviour and resolution. Burton found that
personality disposition of employees plays far much dominant role in conflicts in an
organization.
Also, the findings of the study showed that workers with high-perceived
inequity reported higher scores on conflict behaviour than those with low perceived
inequity. This result therefore counteracts the second null hypothesis of the study,
which stated that there will be no statistically significant differences in conflict
behaviour between employees who have external locus of control orientation and those
with internal locus of control orientation. This present findings may be as a result of
the fact that when individuals become aware of the fact that they are not rewarded
adequately especially when compared with those in another organisation that perform
similar work, it evokes ill feelings which may lead to conflict behaviour in the
organisation. This means that organisational fairness is sine-qua-non for any form of
44
organisational effectiveness. If organisation aspires to remain viable and become
competitive in the marketplace, such organisation must give equity its rightful place in
the scheme of things in the organisation. Otherwise, the realisation of its set goals may
remain permanently elusive. At this juncture, the saying that ‘what is good for the
goose is also good for the gander’ comes to mind. And when this long standing
principle is in any way violated in any organisation there is tension which may
degenerate into conflict in organisations. Even though it has been observed that
employees are no longer loyal to only one organisation (Caudron, 1996; Meyer &
Allen, 1997), employers should be aware of the fact that most employees may want to
reciprocate every good gesture from their employers (social exchange), thereby
eliminating every form of turnover intention or actual turnover.
However, the result of this present study is not an isolated case. It is in congruence
with that of Tannenbaum (1966) who discovered that employees who felt a deep sense
of unfairness by their organization agitated for improved working condition. This
finding is also in consonance with the finding of Greenhalgh and Rosemblatt (1984)
who observed that workers react to perceived inequity and their reactions often
counteract the objectives of the organisation, which in turn have adverse consequences
for organisational effectiveness. The current finding is equally in agreement with the
observation of Demers (2002) who found that once the workers who expend energy
for organisational growth and advancement perceives any form of injustice on the part
of the organisation, they react accordingly for redress. This present finding is also in
45
harmony with that of Van der Merve (2003) who demonstrated that conflict is an
offshoot of domination and unfairness, that when employers of labour treat their
workers poorly, conflict may ensue.
Implications of the study
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) stated that workers react to job or work
condition and their reactions often have adverse consequences for organisational
effectiveness. Conflict behaviour has consistently been found to be predicted by
personality disposition (locus of control) of the employees and also their perception of
inequity in the organisation. According to Mullins (1999), such conflict correlates
negatively with job performance. This is in line with earlier findings of Sieber (1974).
But Baron (1991) reported that conflict is desirable, especially where lack of it is
indicative of autocratic leadership, suppression, intimidation and a silent to accept
things as they are.
Nonetheless, the implication of these present findings is that any organisation
that has conflict culture will fall short of the ingredients and/or indices of effectiveness
such as commitment, satisfaction, and citizenship behaviour which ensure that
organisation remain very competitive in the marketplace. This goes further to warn
that organisations that hopes to realise her full potential and objectives and to remain
relevant must eschew those things that may stir up employees’ negative emotions.
Such organisation should also endeavour to embrace fairness, especially as it concerns
employee remuneration vis-a-vis what are obtainable in other or similar organisations.
These could create an atmosphere of trust within the organisation, and organisational
46
trust has been found to play significant role in organisational viability (Dirks & Ferrin,
2002), better team processes (Jones & George, 1998), and superior levels of
performance (Dirks, 2000).
Limitations of the study
It could rather be unfair to pretend that the variables studied in this work offer
a wholesome picture of the events and activities that occur in formal organisations.
Due to the fact the study focuses on locus of control and perceived inequity in work
organisations, it has only offered a partial or incomplete model of what happens in
organisations and in fact what undermines the growth and development of
organisations. Fundamentally as the review suggests, there are other factors not
accommodated in the present study, yet have been indicated to predict conflict
behaviour in organisations. In other words, this study is not an exhaustive embodiment
of all that prohibits organisational harmony, which is an essential characteristic of
organisational effectiveness.
Another possible shortcoming of the study is that some of the employees
might have masked their ‘real’ feelings about the situation because it may be used
against them. Even though strong confidentiality of their responses was promised, they
might have thought that adequate security of their responses was not in any way
assured, which to a great extent might have culminated in the eventual result obtained.
Moreover, the sample of the study could be said to be relatively small, which may also
have influenced the result of the study in no small measure.
47
Finally, that perceived inequity is not based on objective reality, but a
subjective phenomenon cannot be over emphasized. In other words, it is based on
employees’ subjective feelings and interpretation of the work condition. The
implication is that employees may perceive the situation differently and/or give
different interpretation to it, which will ultimately predict how they would react, to it.
Based on the above-cited limitations, the inferences of this study remain grossly
incomplete.
Recommendations for further study
From the foregoing limitations many recommendations present themselves for
consideration. The present study relates locus of control and perceived inequity to
conflict behaviour in organisations within a single data collection wave. This implies
that the study did not consider it necessary to look at the long term effect of such
scenario observed. The researcher therefore considers it pertinent for further studies to
actually look at the study longitudinally, that would offer the opportunity of
ascertaining the cause and effect of this variable. When this is achieved then there
would be a possibility of unveiling how this condition (conflict behaviour) could be
handled, managed or even expunged from the organisations’ menu. More so, further
researches should endeavour to look at other potential variables that may equally
predict conflict behaviour in work organisations, such as distrust, perceived
uncertainty, role ambiguity to mention but a few of them.
Summary and Conclusion
48
The present study investigated the roles of locus of control and perceived
uncertainty on conflict behaviour among employees in Shell Petroleum Development
Company (SPDC), Eastern Operation in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. A total number of two
hundred and twenty participants (220) comprising one hundred and forty-nine (149)
male and seventy-one (71) female employees participated in the study. Results
obtained showed that locus of control significantly influenced conflict behaviour of
employees in the organization. Also, the finding of the study showed that perceived
inequity is a significant factor in conflict behaviour in the organization.
By and large, the two independent variables studied here are potentially
emotionally disturbing in that they can change the mood of employees; make them
unsettled which may in turn lead to conflict behaviour. This is because any individual
who finds him/herself in a tension state must initiate action(s) that looks promising to
ensure his/her freedom from such awkward situation. This may explain why many
Nigerian workers organizations have in the past resorted to strike action as a tool to
engage in conflict with their employers. Research evidence and even observation has it
that any organisation that allows a situation that has the potential of leading to conflict
to manifest, it almost always leaves quantum damage in employees’ commitment to
duty which to a great extent undermines their performance. It could therefore be
concluded that employers and/or management practitioners should aspire to create an
atmosphere that is not saddled by conflict and by so doing will be creating an
atmosphere for success, which is an essential aspiration in the whole organisational
process.
49
REFERENCES
Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of equity. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 12 422-436.
Anstey, M. (1991). Negotiating Conflict: Insights and Skills for Negotiators and
Peacemakers. Cape Town: Tuta and Co. Ltd.
Bachrach, P & Baratz, M. (1962). Two faces of Power, American Political
Science review, Vol 5C, pp.947-952.
Baron, R.A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict. A cognitive perspective. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal 4(1)
Bierstedt, R. (1961). An Analysis of Social Power. American sociological Review,
5(6), 730-738.
Binns, D. (1977). Beyond the Sociology of conflict. London: The Macmillan
Press.
Blan, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social Life. New York: John Wiley.
Brief, A.P. Burke, M.J., George J.M., Robinson, B.S., & Webster, J. (1988).
Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the Study of job
stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 193-198.
Burton, J.W. (1999). Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St Martins’
Press.
Caudron, S. (1996). How pay launched performance. Personnel Journal, 75(9), 70-76
Coser L (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. London: Routledge
Coser L (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought, San Diego: Harcourt, Brace,
Javanovich
Coser, L. & Rosenberg, B. (1976). Sociological theory. 4th Ed. New York: Macmillan
50
Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class Conflict in an Industrial Society. London:
Routeledge and Kegan Paul.
Dahrendorf, R. (1968). Essays in the theory of society. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Demers, J. (2002). Settling International Disputes. CMA Management, 53
October, 2002
Dessler, G. (1980). Organisation theory: Integrating structure and behaviour.
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership team performance: Evidence from NCAA
basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 123-136
Dirks, K. T. & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for organizational research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
123-136
Giddens, A. (1973). The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. London:
Hutchinson and Co.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. The
American Sociological Review, 35(2), 161-178.
Greenhalgh, L. & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity.
Academy of Management Review, 3. 438-448.
Hines, J.S. (1980). Conflict and Conflict Management. Athens: University of
Georgia Press.
Hornby, A.S. (1995). Peace and conflict resolution in Africa: The continuing
Challenge to African organisations. Paper Presented at the Conference of
Rectors, Vive Chancellors and Presidents of African Universities. Mauritius,
March, 1995.
Jones, G. R. & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust:
Implications for cooperation and team work. Academy of Management Review,
23, 531-546.
Khan, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snock, J. & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964).
51
Organisational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New Yord:
Willey.
Klingebiel, G. (2002). Crisis prevention and conflict management: New fields of
development Cooperation. Development Cooperation. No 5, October,2002.
Lefcourt, L.M. (1976). Locus of Control: Current trends in theory and
Hillscale, N.T.: Lawrence Enibaum.
research.
Marx, K. (1971). Preface to A Contribution to the critique of political
economy,
Translated by S.W. Ryanzanskaya, edited by M. Dobb.
London:
Lawrence & Whishart.
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace, theory, research
and application. California: Sage.
Moore, C.W. (1986). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving
conflict. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Mullins, L.J. (1999). Management and organisational behaviour (5th edition).
London: Financial Times Management.
Okeibunor, J.C., & Anugwom, E.E. (2002). Sociological theory: An insight into
the dominant viewpoints. Nsukka: Fulladu Publishing Company.
Okpara, E. (2001). Organisational Psychology. Enugu: Image Books.
Okpara, E. (2005). Industrial / Organisational Psychology. Enugu: Idika Press.
Pruitt, D.G. & Rubin, J.Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and
settlement. New York: Random House.
Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J, & Lirtzman, S.C. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in
complex organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Monograph, 80(1), Whole No. 609.
Sarbin, T.R., & Allen, V.L. (1968). Role theory. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E
(Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd ed.)( vol. ), Reading,
Massachusset: Addison-Wesley.
Schaubreeck, J., Ganster, D.C., & Fox, M.L. (1992). Dispositional affect and
52
work-related stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 322-335.
Sieber, S.D. (1974). Toward a theory of role
Sociological Review, ( Vol. 39.), (1) 567-578
accumulation:
American
Skocpol, T. (1980). States and social resolutions: A comparative analysis of
France, Russia, and China. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Specter, P.E. (1982). Behaviour in Organization as a function of employees
locus of control. Psychology Bulletin, 91, 482-497.
Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal
Occupational Psychology, 61, 335-340.
of
Tannenbaum, A.S. (1966). Social Psychology of the work organization: Tavistock
publication, London and Wadsworth, Belmont, California
Van der Merve, H. (2003). The Truth and Reconciliation commission and
community Reconciliation: An Analysis of Competing Strategies and
Conceptualizations http: //www.csvr.org.za/papers/pahdz.htm.
Wallerstein, I.M. (1974). The modern world-system: European world-economy
in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.
Wallerstein, I.M. (1980). The modern world-system 11: Mercantilism and the
consolidation of the European world-economy, 1600-1750. New York:
Academic Press.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organisation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Wolfe, L.M. & Robertshaw, D. (1982). Effects of college attendance on locus of
control. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 43, 902-910
53
Appendix A.
Result of item analysis on Locus of Control Scale
S/no
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Item
Item Total
Correlation
A job is what you make of it.
.9096
On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever they set .9119
out to
Accomplish
If you know what you want out of a job, you can find a job that
.9008
gives it to you
If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their boss, they
.9148
should do
Something about it
Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck
.9019
Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune
.9036
Most people are capable of doing their jobs well if they make the
.9039
effort
In order to get a really good job, you need to have family members .9045
or friends in high Places
Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune
.9083
When it comes to landing a really good job, who you know is more .9050
important than what you know
Promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job
.9163
To make a lot of money you have to know the right people
.9053
It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs
.9064
People who perform their jobs well generally get rewarded
.9035
Most employees have more influence on their supervisors than they .9036
think they do
The main difference between people who make a lot of money and .9067
people who make a little money is luck
54
Appendix B.
Result of Item Analysis on Inequity Scale
S/no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Item
Item Total
Correlation
My salary is not commensurate with my input in the organization
.4551
My colleagues with same qualification earn better than me in this .4955
company.
People are treated fairly in this company.
.7691
Promotions in my company are dependent on who you know.
.1222
My company is not employee sensitive in terms of salary and .7393
compensations.
My position equivalent in other oil and gas company attracts higher . 5859
pay than in my company.
It takes too much a long time for one to be promoted in this company. .7082
There is clear evidence of discrimination in the way employees are .6299
nominated for courses.
In this company, bonus payment is based on subjective discretion .6628
rather than objective appraisal
I feel I had made a mistake to accept the offer to work in this .7408
company.
My professional colleagues in other companies are better off in pay .2306
and promotion.
I am optimistic that things may change in this company concerning .5980
employees’ relationship with management.
It is possible that my inability to deliver my task has affected my .7078
salary increment
This company employee policy is too exploitative in terms of .8319
remuneration.
The organizational structure of this company does not favour my .7761
growth.
I have not been told of my progression pattern in this company.
.6248
55
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
I feel less troubled if I am not promoted as long as my salary is paid
monthly
My task and target are too enormous compared to my pay.
I have so much assignment than my colleagues in the same job level
I feel bad when I am given very little task to perform.
The latitude of my responsibility is too small compared to my
qualification.
I am not properly placed in this company by my experience.
I had a good impression of this company concerning welfare but think
otherwise now.
My job does not offer me opportunity for personal development.
I can say that my supervisor rewards any effort I put in the job.
When compared with my previous work and the present, I feel I have
less stress in this job but with higher pay.
My job is really exciting
I discovered that I do much more than I am supposed to do
My job motivates me to do my best.
My day-to-day task is far more important than my co-workers.
.8427
.6860
.5516
.2811
.2441
.2665
.8260
.6485
.8588
.8724
.3679
.7979
.3679
.7979
56
Appendix: C
Results of Item Analysis on Conflict Behaviour Scale
S/no Item
Item Total
Correlation
1. I always find myself complaining about trivial matters
.4904
2. I usually support strikes by the union especially when it has to do with .4849
wages and Compensation.
3. I often quarrel with my boss.
.7781
4. Most often I disagree with some Management decisions.
.0992
5. I feel like resigning my appointment and seek for job elsewhere.
.7308
6. I would not mind doing other business side by side with my work
.5910
7. I prefer to fight for my cause with every means rather than to keep things .6944
to myself.
8. I would confront the management verbally to change their benefit policy. .6569
9. I would not mind sell company trade secret to compensate myself.
.6403
10. I can go to the public to expose my company non-compliance of .7282
government policy on local content in employment.
11. I would not mind seeking redress in the law courts to challenge .2594
management on wage discrimination.
12. Working in this company is a hell of troubles.
.6260
13. I will rather engage myself in doing other things than attending .7011
departmental meetings.
14. I will withhold all vital operational information unless the company treats .8411
me fairly.
15. I will refuse to comply with any posting, which I did not initiate myself.
.7895
16. I and not my supervisor timeline will determine my working pace.
.6311
17. I do not see any need to give my best in this company.
.8217
18. I can quit this company without thinking twice.
.7085
19. I feel seriously hurt my supervisor humiliates me.
.5557
20. I do not believe in using the grievance procedure to resolve issues.
.2800
21. I feel indifferent to issues of workers demand for pay rise.
.2432
22. I feel that strike action is inevitable in this company.
.2303
23. I can no longer guarantee the protection of company properties in my .8454
custody.
57
24. I do not believe in strict compliance to company policies.
25. I no longer have the sense of contributing to the team
26. I feel alienated amongst my co-workers
27. I do not trust my supervisor and co-workers
28. I have completely lost confidence on the company management.
.6808
.8425
.8786
.3024
.7605
Appendix D: Questionnare for the study.
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
NSUKKA
30 NOVEMBER, 2007
Dear Respondent,
QUESTIONNAIRE
I am a post-graduate student of the department of Psychology, University of Nigeria
Nsukka. This questionnaire is for academic research on; “The influence of locus of
Control and Perceived Inequity on Employees Conflict Behaviour”
Your kind co-operation in completing as well as returning the attached questionnaire
will be highly appreciated.
Your responses will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Thank You.
Menuchim Levi Okpara
Researcher
58
Section. A
Personal Data . Please mark ‘ X ’ in the boxes below as it applies to you
1. Sex:
Male
Female
2. Age:
18 - 27
28- 37
38-47
48 and above
3. Marital Status: Single
Married
4. Educational Qualification: SSCE/WASC
5. Job Status.
OND
B.Sc
M.Sc
Top Level
Senior Level
Middle Level
Lower Level
6. No. of years in the company: 1 - 7
7. Employment Status:
Staff
Contract staff
8-13
14-19
20 and above
PhD
59
Third Party Staff
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Item
My salary is not commensurate with my input in the organization
My colleagues with same qualification earn better than me in this
company.
People are treated fairly in this company.
My company is not employee sensitive in terms of salary and
compensations.
My position equivalent in other oil and gas company attracts
higher pay than in my company.
It takes too much a long time for one to be promoted in this
company.
There is clear evidence of discrimination in the way employees are
nominated for courses.
In this company, bonus payment is based on subjective discretion
rather than objective appraisal
I feel I had made a mistake to accept the offer to work in this
company.
I am optimistic that things may change in this company
concerning employees’ relationship with management.
It is possible that my inability to deliver my task has affected my
salary increment
This company employee policy is too exploitative in terms of
remuneration.
The organizational structure of this company does not favour my
growth.
I have not been told of my progression pattern in this company.
Strongly
Agree
S/n
o
1
2
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Not Sure
Agree
Section. B..
The following questions are about how you perceive your current job with reference to
the reward system in your organization. Please mark (X) as appropriate
60
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section. C.
The following questions concern your beliefs about jobs in general. They do not refer
only to your present job. Please Mark (X) as appropriate
S/no
Item
1.
A job is what you make of it.
2.
On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever they
set out to
Accomplish
3.
If you know what you want out of a job, you can find a job that
gives it to you
4.
If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their boss,
they should do
Something about it
5.
Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck
6.
Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune
7.
Most people are capable of doing their jobs well if they make the
Strongly
Agree
18
Agree
16
17
I feel less troubled if I am not promoted as long as my salary is
paid monthly
My task and target are too enormous compared to my pay.
I have so much assignment than my colleagues in the same job
level
I had a good impression of this company concerning welfare but
think otherwise now.
My job does not offer me opportunity for personal development.
I can say that my supervisor rewards any effort I put in the job.
When compared with my previous work and the present, I feel I
have less stress in this job but with higher pay.
My job is really exciting
I discovered that I do much more than I am supposed to do
My job motivates me to do my best.
My day-to-day task is far more important than my co-workers.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Not Sure
15
61
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
effort
In order to get a really good job, you need to have family
members or friends in high Places
Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune
When it comes to landing a really good job, who you know is
more important that what you know
Promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job
To make a lot of money you have to know the right people
It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs
People who perform their jobs well generally get rewarded
Most employees have more influence on their supervisors than
they think they do
The main difference between people who make a lot of money
and people who make a little money is luck
2
I usually support strikes by the union especially when it has to do
with wages and
Compensation.
3
I often quarrel with my boss.
4
I feel like resigning my appointment and seek for job elsewhere.
5
I would not mind doing other business side by side with my work
6
I prefer to fight for my cause with every means rather than to keep
things to myself.
Strongly
Agree
Not Sure
Agree
S/no Item
1
I always find myself complaining about trivial matters
Strongly
Disagree
Disgree
Section D
The following question concerns how you will generally react towards your
organization based on how your expectations are met or not. Please Mark ‘X’ as
appropriate
62
7
I would confront the management verbally to change their benefit
policy.
8
I would not mind sell company trade secret to compensate myself.
9
10
I would not mind seeking redress in the law courts to challenge
management on wage discrimination.
Working in this company is a hell of troubles.
11
I will rather engage myself in doing other things than attending
departmental meetings.
12
I will withhold all vital operational information unless the company
treats me fairly.
13
I will refuse to comply with any posting, which I did not initiate
myself.
14
I and not my supervisor timeline will determine my working pace.
15
I do not see any need to give my best in this company.
16
I can quit this company without thinking twice.
17
I feel seriously hurt my supervisor humiliates me.
18
I can no longer guarantee the protection of company properties in
my custody.
19
I do not believe in strict compliance to company policies.
20
I no longer have the sense of contributing to the team
21
I feel alienated amongst my co-workers
22
I do not trust my supervisor and co-workers
63
23
I have completely lost confidence on the company management.