HOW TURKISH MANAGERS COPE WITH THE CONFLICT IN THEIR ORGANIZATIONS: AN

EXPLORATORY STUDY IN TURKEY

9th International Conference on Human Resource Development Across Europe

Theme: Developing Leaders and Managers

The Catholic University of Lille, France May, 2008

Enver Özkalp Zerrin Sungur A. Ayşe Özdemir

Concept of conflict

Negative and harmful phenomenon or a natural and pervasive phenomenon?

Group conflict as an inevitable outgrowth of social class and organizational hierarchy

No longer a dysfunctional, but a healthy process needed to be managed

No generally accepted definition of conflict A plenty of terms about social conflict; such as

competition, tension, dispute, opposition, antagonism, quarrel, disagreement, controversy, violence, conflict resolution, and the mode of resolution

Two main approaches

• the concept of conflict associated with the competitive intentions (Schmidt and Kochan, 1972).

• conflict-handling models ( Pondy, 1967; Thomas, 1976).

Definitions of the conflict “The interaction of interdependent people who perceive

opposition of goals, aims, and values, and who see the other party as potentially interfering with the realization of these goals..”(Putnam and Pool, 1987).

“The interaction of interdependent people who perceive incompatibility and the possibility of interference from others as a result of this incompatibility” (Falger, et.al, 2005).

Types of organizational conflict

Putnam and Poole categorize the organizational conflict in four types: interpersonal (e.g. between co-workers or superiors

and subordinates), bargaining and negotiation (e.g. between labor and

management) intergroup (e.g. between departments), and interorganizational (e.g. between companies).

Conflict resolution and conflict management

Resolution implies reduction, elimination or termination of conflict.

The needs of organizations are not the focus of conflict resolution; but conflict management, which involves effective macro-level strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict, could improve the functions of conflict.

Affective and substantive conflict

Affective conflict, known as inconsistency in interpersonal relationships which occurs when organizational members become aware that their feelings and emotions are incompatible, impedes group loyalty, group performance and work commitment.

Substantive conflict, identified as disagreement on organizational members’ tasks or content issues, improve group performance through better solutions and alternative breakthroughs.

Conflict Management Styles

The theory of Blake and Mouton (1964) The dual concern model Conflict is managed in different ways (namely;

withdrawing, smoothing, forcing, problem solving, compromising) based on high/low concern for production and high/low concern for people.

The dual concern model of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict

Integrating

Dominating

Obliging

Avoiding

Compromising

High Low

Hig

h

Lo

w

Source: M.A.Rahim (2002, p.217); Boonsathorn (2007, p. 200).

Are the conflict management styles dispositional or situational?

Relationship between Big Five personality factors and the styles of conflict management (Antonioni, 1998).

Resolving conflicts according to the nature and seriousness of the conflict issue (Goodwin, 2002).

What is universal (etic) and culture specific (emic) about conflict management theory?

Conflict is inevitable in all cultures, but every culture has its own way to struggle with conflict.

As a culturally bound event, conflict management is affected by cultural values.

Individualistic vs collectivistic cultures

People from individualistic cultures tend to be concerned with individual images, task accomplishment, and individual goals relative to the group's interests; they also tend to exhibit more self-face-saving conflict styles, such as dominating (Hofstede, 1980).

On the other hand, people from collectivistic cultures tend to see themselves as part of the group, place the group's goals over the individual's goals, and focus on maintaining harmony.

Individualists tend to prefer confrontational and competing conflict management styles, whereas collectivists appear to prefer harmony-enhancing conflict management styles.

Individualistic cultures prefer to use forcing more than collectivist cultures. On the other hand, collectivist cultures choose withdrawing, compromising and problem solving.

Individualistic vs collectivistic cultures

Avoiding was preferred by individualists rather than collectivists (Cai and Fink, 2002).

Individualists did not differ from collectivists in their preference for the dominating conflict style, but prefer compromising and integrating more than individualists do, whereas individualism-collectivism had no significant linear effect on preference for the obliging style (Ting-Toomey, et.al.1998, 2000; Morris, et.al.,1998; Leung, 1987, Wang, Jing, Klossek, 2007; Kim, et.al., 2007).

Middle Eastern executives were found to display more integrating and avoiding, while U.S. executives used more obliging, dominating and compromising styles (Elsayed-Ekhouly,Buda,1996).

The Economic Context of Turkey

Turkey’s population of 70 million is young and growing and its economy is the 17th largest in the world.

Turkey as one of the ten most promising emerging economies.

6311 foreign investment companies operate in Turkey; direct investments in 50 countries amount to 50 billion Euro.

Growth rate of trade volume was 8.5 % between 1989-2001 and 29 % between 2002-2005.

According to Economic Forecast Spring, GDP at constant prices will grow by 5.9 percent in 2008.

The leading trading partners of Turkey are Germany, UK, US, Italy, Russia, Switzerland and France.

The Cultural Context of Turkey “society with low synergy, with many in-groups and intergroup

conflicts”. Ingroups, consist of primary relationships, tend to keep and

maintain relationships within their closed networks and tend to see the others as strangers (Sargut, 2000).

These qualifications are the barriers for generalized trust and high social capital in society. According to the study of 600 academics from different universities in Turkey has revealed that generalized trust is so low (10 %) and social capital profile of academics indicates closed, small network among academics (Özdemir, 2007).

The main findings of Turkish culture are high collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and conservatism.

Turkey is below the world average on performance and future orientation.

Kabasakal and Bodur (1998, 2002) have explained this qualification in the perspective of the so many in-group and family based relationships.

The Cultural Context of Turkey

Vertical hierarchical structure, low delegation, centralized decision making and strong personality of managers

High scores on power distance, loyalty towards community, collectivism and paternalism

Centralized decision making, autocratic and paternalistic leadership style are the dominant characteristics of Turkish management culture.

Leader power Team-oriented leadership The family and in-group-oriented societal culture Consultation and diplomacy

Conflict Management Styles of Turkish Managers

In his study of Turkish sub-cultures, Kozan (2002) identified two distinct groups, Traditionalists and Egalitarians. Traditionalists would like to adhere to a more traditional

outlook and lifestyle infused with Islamic values, and they are predominantly from smaller towns, villages, rural areas and include recent migrants to big cities.

Egalitarians continue to press for Westernization, secularism, and modernization. In his 2002 study, Kozan found that both Traditionalists and Egalitarians chose problem-solving as the most preferred approach suggesting a social desirability bias. Traditionalists chose avoidance as the fallback option, while Egalitarians chose accommodation as their fall back option.

Conflict Management Styles of Turkish Managers

According to the relevant studies, Turkey has been found to be relationship and consensus oriented in negotiations (Metcalf, et.al., 2006). In group-oriented cultures, a “third party” would be used frequently in resolving most conflicts to maintain harmony in organizations (Kozan, Ergin and Varoğlu, 2007).

Especially, in mediational third party strategy, Turkish leaders seem to be using their position power not only to manage the process, but also to solve the conflict (Kozan and İlter, 1994).

Managers and colleagues would be involved in resolving conflicts unrelated to them in order to preserve group solidarity in organizations. In a study conducted with 435 Turkish respondents, Ergin (2000) reported that a third party was involved in more than 65% of conflicts in organizations.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

RQ1: What is the overall trend in conflict style preferences?RQ2: Does individual attributes have a linear effect on the

preference for the conflict management styles?

H1: There is a significant difference between gender and preferred conflict management styles of managers.

H2: There is a significant difference between managers’ status and preferred conflict management styles of managers.

H3: There is a significant difference between the status of conflict partner and preferred conflict management styles of managers.

Method

Sample

* Data were collected among people (130 managers) from large variety of sectors.

Instrument• 28-item Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II

(ROCI-II) was used.• Several researches have reported satisfactory test-

retest and internal consistency reliabilities for ROCI-II (Rahim, 1983b; Weider-Hatfield, 1988; Kozan, 1999), and convergent and discriminant validities for the style subscales (Rahim, 1983).

• Cronbach α was 0.72 for the Turkish version of ROCI-II.

Descriptive Statistics Demographic characteristics Managers

Age Frequency %

25-29 5 3.8

30-34 29 22.3

35-39 37 28.5

40-44 21 16.2

45-49 24 18.5

50 and above 14 10.8

Total 130 100.0

Gender Frequency %

Female 35 26.9

Male 95 73.1

Total 130 100.0

Educational status Frequency %

High-school 11 8.5

Graduate from University 69 53.1

MBA degree 50 38.5

Total 130 100.0

Working Experiences in Current Positions Frequency %Less than 4 years 22 16.9

5-9 year 25 19.2

10-14 year 21 16.2

15-19 year 38 29.2

20 and above 24 17.5

Total 130 100.0

Status Frequency %

Top level managers 29 22.3

Middle level managers 60 46.2

Low level managers 41 31.5

Total 130 100.0

Sector Frequency %

Banking 14 10,8

Automobile industry 9 6,9

Durable Consumer goods 37 28,5

Construction 6 4,6

Information and communication systems 6 4,6

Education 6 4,6

Aviation 28 21,5

Others 24 18,5

Total 130 100.0

Conflict…. Frequency %

is positive 73 56.2

is negative 46 35.4

neither negative nor positive 10 7.7

Total 129 99.3

Conflict with my… Frequency %

Manager 49 37.7

Peer 52 40.0

subordinate 29 22.3

Total 130 100.0

Reasons of conflict…. Frequency %

Different ideas related to job content 44 33.8

Differences in working styles 34 26.2

Personality differences 22 16.9

Lack of communication 20 15.4

Total 130 100.0

Analysis and Results

Scales of Conflict Styles

Cronbach Alpha

Mean SD

Integrating .84 3.80 .80

Obliging .75 2.42 .67

Dominating .71 2.63 .71

Avoiding .70 2.28 .79

Compromising .57 2.91 .76

Table 4: Reliability Analysis, Means and Standart Deviations

RQ1: What is the overall trend in conflict style preferences?

Paired t test was used…. We found that integrating was significantly

preferred over compromising, t (129)= 11.81, p< .001 ; compromising was significantly preferred over dominating, t(129)=3.250, p< .001; dominating was significantly preferred over obliging, t(129)=2.440, p< .001; obliging was not significantly preferred over avoiding t (129)=1.832, p< .001.

RQ1: What is the overall trend in conflict style preferences?

low level managersmiddle level managerstop level managers

status

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

Mean

SMEAN(obliging)

SMEAN(compromising)

SMEAN(dominating)

SMEAN(avoiding)

SMEAN(integrating)

H1: There is a significant difference between gender and preferred conflict management styles of managers.

To analyze the hypothesis 1, Independent t test was used. There was a statistically significant difference in compromising style between female and male managers (F=1.584, t=.635, p<.05). Female have a higher degree (M=3.10) in resorting compromising style than male (M= 2.80). Then H1 was partly supported

H2: There is a significant difference between managers’ status and preferred conflict management styles of managers.

To analyze the hypothesis 2, Independent t test was used. There was a statistically significant difference in dominating style between the top and middle level managers (F=1.875, t=2.085, p<.05). Top level managers prefer (M=2.80) to use dominating style more than middle level managers (M=2.40). Besides dominating, also integrating is more preferred by top level managers (M=4.00) than low level managers (M=3.58). Then H2 was partly supported.

H3: There is a significant difference between the status of conflict partner and preferred conflict management styles of managers.

To analyze the hypothesis 3, One Way Anova is used. There was a statistically significant difference in obliging style according the status of conflict’s partners (F=4.144, p<.05). Obliging is the most preferred style (M=2.63), if the conflict partner’s status is upper than individual’s status. There is not a significant difference in preferring obliging style if the conflict partner’s status is lower (M=2.27) or equal (M=2.29) to individual’s status. Then H3 was partly supported.

DISCUSSION Conflict is an inevitable condition in all cultures and

organizations; but the important point is to understand the emic side of conflict management styles of managers.

In this study, integrating at first, and compromising at second are found as the most preferred conflict styles of Turkish managers. This finding is compatible in a sense of a collectivist culture of Turkish society. The main feature of collectivism is to foster social harmony and protect the relationships; in this context Turkish managers’ mostly using integrating and compromising styles may reflect social desirability since both styles can be considered positive ones, involving a moderate high concern for self and the others.

Discussion(continued…)

The other important finding is that preferring obliging styles of conflict management changes according to the status of managers. Obliging is mostly used when the conflict partner has an upper level status.

The results of this study confirm the assertion that national cultural dynamics serve as the predictors of conflict management styles of Turkish managers. Additional data from cross-cultural studies are needed to make a comprehensive understanding of conflict management styles.

Discussion (continued…)

Subordinates are forced to accept the views or interests of their superiors due to a formal and fear based relationship with their superiors. As a result, obliging style of conflict may enhance harmony and social desirability, but diminish the potential of creativity and innovation.

The implementation of a different insight into the nature of conflict and the practice of conflict management will render organizations as more multicultural and therefore, more desirable business partners in international markets.