Role of Personality, Length of Service and Gender as Determinants of Conflict Resolution Style Amongst Workers.
ABSTRACT
This study examined personality, length of service and gender as determinants of conflict resolution style among workers. 174 participants comprising of 79 males and 95 females from public service were randomly selected by means of simple random sampling among the workers. Conflict Resolution-Individual Protective Factors Index (1992) and Big Five Personality Inventory (1990) were used to gather empirical data to test the hypotheses of the study using multiple factorial design of 2x2x2 while Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) were used as the appropriate statistics.
The result confirmed that extraverted personality types preferred cooperation conflict resolution style to self-control conflict resolution style more than the neuroticism personality group; while workers who have stayed 10yrs and above preferred cooperation conflict resolution style to self-control conflict resolution style more than those that have stayed below 5 years in length of service. It is recommended that organizations adopt appropriate conflict resolution style in accordance to workforce diversities such as individual differences, personality and length of service.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Page – – – – – – – – i
Title Page – – – – – – – – ii
Certification – – – – – – – iii
Dedication – – – – – – – – iv
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – v
Table of Content – – – – – – – vi
Abstract – – – – – – – – vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study – – – – – – 1
Statement of the Problem – – – – – – 6
Research Questions- – – – – – – 8
Purpose of the Study – – – – – – – 10
Significance of the Study – – – – – – 11
Operational Definition of Terms – – – – – 12
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Review of Theories – – – – – – – 13
Review of Empirical Literature – – – – – – 42
Summary of Reviewed Literature – – – – – 48
Hypotheses – – – – – – – – 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHOD
Participants – – – – – – – – – 52
Instrument – – – – – – – – – 52
Validity and Reliability – – – – – – – 55
Procedure – – – – – – – – – 54
Design/Statistics – – – – – – – – 58
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT
Result – – – – – – – – – 60
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Discussion of Findings – – – – – – – 64
Summary of Findings – – – – – – – 70
Conclusion – – – – – – – – – 72
Implication of Findings – – – – – – – 74
Limitations of the Study – – – – – – – 77
Recommendations/Suggestions for Further Studies – – 79
References – – – – – – – – – 80
Appendices – – – – – – – – – 85
INTRODUCTION
The workplace has become an interesting aspect of human endeavour. Although, not all able member of the population is actively engaged in formal work organizations, greater percentage of the working population are housed in one some formal and semi organization which necessitates human interaction amidst the differences.
Over the years, the evolution of work and the working environment has been characterized by marked population growth, hyper advance in science and technology and the rise and fall of economies and these have brought volatility, competition and intriguing socialization process in the workplace though with attending conflicts (Sackett, Zedeck & Fogli, 2005).
This evolution has distinctly deepened the socialization process of human interaction and has helped re-classify work and working environment into several roles and segments. This breakdown into several roles and segments has supposedly re-organized interaction and socialization process into clusters of working-units using the workplace and the working environment as well as a socialization arena.
The inevitability of this interaction is endless as the working process ensures that workers work in various unit groups within and outside the organization. Purposefully, the evolution of the workplace is what has ensured relationship wellbeing among workers and in relation with other interaction groups within and outside the organization creating enabling environment for workers to socialize at the same time pursue their career and organizational goals and objectives.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cogntive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1991b). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and
self-regulatory mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on
motivation: Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69-164).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Bandura, A. (1991c). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.Beall, A. E., & Steraberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2003). The psychology of gender. New
York: Guilford Press.Bern, S. L. (1994). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (2000). Status organizing
processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479-508.Berscheid, E. (2003). Forward. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The
psychology of gender ° (vii-xvii). New York: Guilford Press.Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. 1994. The Managerial Grid Houston, Texas: Gulf.
StudentsandScholarship Team.