IHUARULAM, MARYJANE OKWUCHI PG/Ph.D/12/64650 … · IHUARULAM, MARYJANE OKWUCHI, a postgraduate...

IHUARULAM, MARYJANE OKWUCHI

PG/Ph.D/12/64650

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC STAFF OF FEDERAL UNIVERSITIES IN SOUTH

EAST, NIGERIA

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL

FOUNDATION

Azuka Ijomah

Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name

O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka

OU = Innovation Centre

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC STAFF OF FEDERAL UNIVERSITIES IN SOUTH

EAST, NIGERIA

BY


PG/Ph.D/12/64650

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS (ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING).

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

MAY, 2015

TITLE PAGE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF CONFLICT BETWEEN ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC STAFF OF FEDERAL UNIVERSITIES IN SOUTH EAST, NIGERIA

BY


PG/Ph.D/12/64650

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph D) IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND

PLANNING

MAY, 2015

i

APPROVAL PAGE

This thesis has been approved for the Department of Educational Foundations, Faculty of Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka

BY

……….…………………. ………………………

PROF. A. I. Oboegbulem

Supervisor Internal Examiner

……………………… ………………………….

Prof. C.J.A. Onwuka

External Examiner Head of Department

……………………………….

Prof. U.C. Umo

Dean, Faculty of Education

CERTIFICATION ii

IHUARULAM, MARYJANE OKWUCHI, a postgraduate student in the Department

of Educational Foundations with registration No: PG/Ph.D/12/64650 has

satisfactorily completed the requirements for the research work, for the Degree

of Doctor of philosophy in Educational Administration and Planning.

The work embodied in this thesis report is original and has not been

submitted in part or in full for any other diploma or degree of this or any other

university.

………………………………… ………………………………

Ihuarulam, Maryjane O. Prof. A. I. Oboegbulem

STUDENT SUPERVISOR

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to the Almighty God for His infinite mercies, grace,

care and protection showered on me throughout the course of this study.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researcher’s special thanks go to her wonderful supervisor, Prof. A. I.

Oboegbulem. Her unrelenting effort and commitment to this venture was

heartwarming. She was always supportive, open, and accessible.

The researcher will ever remain grateful to Prof. N. Ogbonnaya, Dr. A.U.

Okere, Dr. L. K. Ejionueme, Dr. L. N. Onuigbo, Dr. G.T.U. Chiaha, who

painstakingly read through the work and made a lot of input that brought the

work to this appreciated standard. She equally appreciates all the amiable

lecturers of University of Nigeria, Nsukka whose expertise and advice equipped

her with knowledge and understanding during the Focus Group Discussions

(FGDs). The researcher is indebted to the following: Dr. S.C. Ugwoke, Dr. A. N.

Okolo, Dr. N. Anyaegbunam, Dr. B.C. Madu, Prof. C.J. A. Onwuka, Prof. and Dr.

iv

(Mrs) O.K. Oyeoku, Ass. Prof. J.C. Omeje, and Prof. P.N. Onwuasoanya for reading

and making invaluable suggestions towards the improvement of this work.

Deepest appreciation goes to the researcher’s wonderful mother, Mrs.

R.C. Onyeagwara. She was always there as a source of encouragement, a role

model and a pillar of support. The researcher is highly indebted to members of

her family for their support, understanding, patience and prayers. Among these

are Mr. & Mrs. G.I. Nguboh, Mr. Nnaemeka F. Ihuarulam, Mr. Osinachi J.

Ihuarulam and Chinyere Ojukwu.

The same compliment goes to Chief Survey C. Nwabuchie. His care was

another source of encouragement. Her thanks go to Mr. Kingsley C. Udogwu for

his moral and financial support. Her thanks also go to Dr. Ukpai Eke Ndukwe for

his advice and assistance in carrying out this study.

The researcher also appreciates the contributions made by the staff of

Federal University of Technology, Owerri (FUTO), Nnamdi Azikwe University,

Awka (NAU) and University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), who constituted the

research subjects for this study. The same compliment goes to the librarian and

staff of the departmental library, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, for their

assistance in providing her with the needed books and journals.

v

The researcher will ever remain grateful to Mr. Okey Onuzuruike

(Ojembaenweiro) of blessed memory for also inspiring her to embark on this

study even though he got snatched up by the cold hands of death before the

researcher had a chance to say thank you.

Finally, the efforts of all those who have contributed in one way or the

other to the successful completion of this work are hereby acknowledged; may

the Good Lord bless and reward you all bountifully in Jesus name, Amen!

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i

Approval Page ii

Certification iii

Dedication iv

Acknowledgements v

Table of Contents vii

List of Tables xi

List of Figures xii

Abstract xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study 1

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 15

Purpose of the Study 16

Significance of the Study 17

Scope of the Study 20

Research Questions 22

Hypotheses 22

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Conceptual Framework 24

Concept of Conflicts 25

Concept of Management 60

Concept of Conflict Management 64

Concept of Conflict Management Strategies 66

Theoretical Framework 78

Karl Marx theory of Conflict 78

Max Weber theory of Conflict 80

vii

Human Relations theory 80

Review of Related Empirical Studies 82

Studies on Nature of Conflict between Academic and Non-Academic Staff 82

Studies on Sources of Conflict between Academic and Non-Academic Staff 85

Studies on Consequences of Conflict 89

Studies on Management strategies of Conflict 91

Summary of Literature Review 94

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD

Design of the Study 97

Area of the Study 97

Population of the Study 98

Sample and Sampling Technique 99

Instrument for Data Collection 101

Validation of the Instrument 102

Reliability of the Instrument 103

Method of Data Collection 104

Method of Data Analysis 104

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Summary of Findings 125

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION,

IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY

Discussion of Findings 138

Conclusions from the Study 151

Educational Implications of the Findings 152

Recommendations 154

Limitations of the Study 155

Suggestions for Further Research 155

Summary of the Study 156

viii

REFERENCES 159

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Distribution of Academic and Non Academic Staff Strength

of Federal Universities in South East Nigeria. 171

Appendix B: Distribution of Study Sample 172

Appendix C: Request for Response to a Questionnaire 173

ix

Appendix D: Request for Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 213

Appendix E: Computation of Reliability Coefficient using Cronbach’s Alpha Method 180

Appendix F: Mean and t- Test Analysis 185

x

LIST OF TABLES

Title Page

1. Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the nature

of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal

universities. 106

2. Summary of independent t-Test Analysis for Hypothesis One 107

3. Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the sources

of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal

universities.

108

4. Summary of independent t-Test Analysis for Hypothesis Two. 109

5. Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the

Consequences of conflicts on academic and non academic

staff of federal universities. 100

6. Summary of independent t-Test Analysis for Hypothesis Three. 122

7. Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the extent to

which mediation is a suitable strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non academic staff in federal universities. 113

8. Summary of independent t-Test Analysis for Hypothesis Four. 114


which negotiation is a suitable strategy for managing conflicts between

academic and non academic staff in federal universities.

115

10. Summary of independent t-Test Analysis for Hypothesis Five. 116


which dialogue is a suitable strategy for managing conflicts between

academic and non academic staff in federal universities. 117

12. Summary of independent t-Test Analysis for Hypothesis Six. 118

13. Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the extent

to which effective communication is a suitable strategy for managing

conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal

universities. 119

14. Summary of independent t-Test Analysis for Hypothesis Seven. 120 15. Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the extent to

which clarification of goals and objectives is a suitable strategy for

managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal

universities. 121

16. Summary of independent t-Test Analysis for Hypothesis Eight. 122


which confrontation is a suitable strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non academic staff in federal universities.

123

18. Summary of independent t-Test Analysis for Hypothesis Nine. 124

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1: The influence of conflict on performance 53

Fig. 2: A Schematic Diagram of the Inter-Relationship between the Concepts 77

ABSTRACT

This study investigated management strategies of conflict between academic and non-academic staff of federal universities in South East, Nigeria. The study was guided by nine research questions and nine null hypotheses. The design of the study was descriptive survey. The population of the study was 16,387 respondents. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to select a sample of 1,025 subjects, comprising 527academic and 488 non-academic staff from the universities. Purposive sampling technique was also used to select another 10 academic and non-academic staff for the focus group discussion (FGD). The instrument for data collection was a questionnaire titled: Management Strategies of Conflict Questionnaire (MSCQ) and focus group discussion guide which was put in prose form. The research questions were answered using mean and standard deviation while t-test was used to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. Findings of the study were that interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts, interdependence conflicts, breakdown in communication, subordinate conflicts and breakdown of collective bargaining, among others are the nature of conflicts experienced in the federal universities. It was also found that breach of communication, poor human relationship, unequal attention to staff welfare, differences in staff perception, inadequate representation of staff in decision making, competition for scarce resources and their allocations, were among the sources of conflicts. The study revealed that conflict increases disunity, communication gap, bitterness, helps staff to voice out their dissatisfactions, reduces motivation, decreases productivity. The responses of academic and non-academic staff did not differ significantly (p<0.05) with regard to the strategies suitable for managing conflicts in federal universities. Among the recommendations were that university management should adopt the identified management strategies of conflict which, among others, include mediation, negotiation, dialogue, and effective communication that will tackle conflict between academic and non-academic staff in universities so as to enable them work together in peace and harmony for the effective and efficient achievement of the university goals. University management should organize conferences, workshops and seminars to create awareness on the adverse effects of conflicts in the universities and on their staff and students. This will encourage peaceful co-existence and team spirit for smooth running of the universities. Also university management should constitute conflict management committee who would be trained and guided on management strategies of conflict. This will help prevent and check any form of biased tendencies and will create synergy in order to achieve educational goals and objectives.

xiv

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Conflicts are inevitable in any organization. This is more so in an organization

as a university with a structure that allows two or more units or groups to share

functional boundaries in achieving its set objectives. In universities, people with

differing nature -students, lecturers and administrative staff - have to work

harmoniously together. The organizational structure is such that staff and staff,

students and students, staff and students share functional boundaries to exchange

knowledge.

The goal of university education is pursued through its main functions and

activities of teaching, research, dissemination of existing and new information,

service to the community, and being a storehouse of knowledge (Federal Republic of

Nigeria, 2004). In carrying out these functions, there are always conflicts within and

among the categories of people within the university community, namely students,

academics, non-academics and their unions. These categories of people have

different purposes and expectations from the university. In pursuance of their

individual and group purposes and expectations they sometimes disagree with one

another due to their differing ideals which result to conflict.

Several definitions of conflict have been given by different scholars. According

to Enyi (2001), conflict can be regarded as a situation where disputants are hostile to

each other in their efforts to achieve goals which are at variance with each other.

Best (2006) defined conflict as pursuit of incompatible interests and goals by

different entities. It is the struggle over values or claims to status, power, and scarce

resources in which the aims of the groups of individuals involved are not to obtain

the desired values but to neutralize, injure or eliminate rivals (Louis and Coser, 1996).

Conflict is a disagreement between two or more parties who perceive that they have

incompatible concerns. This incompatibility can be about needs, interests, values or

aims (Bloisi, 2007). Nye (2001) conceived conflict as ‘mutual hostility’ at

interpersonal, inter-human, inter-group, inter-ethnic, inter-cultural and inter-

national level. From the above definitions, conflict is a fact in human existence and a

natural part of our daily lives.

Conflict means to come into collision, clash or being in opposition or at

variance with other person or group of persons. It equally mean strife, controversy,

discord of action, disagreement in opinions and antagonism of interest or principle

(Harks, 2001). Conflict could also be seen as a disagreement over social issues, beliefs

and ideologies (Horowitz and Borden, 1995). Adejuwon and Okewale (2009) defined

conflict as the result of interaction among people, an unavoidable concomitant of

choices and decisions and an expression of the basic fact of human interdependence.

Ejiogu (1998) postulated that conflict is a condition of disharmony or hostility within

an interaction process which is usually the direct result of clash of interests by the

1

parties involved. Whenever an action by one party is perceived as preventing or

interfering with the goals, needs or actions of another, then conflict is bound to

occur.

According to Holton (1998), conflict can be negative and can cause deep rifts

in the framework of the society and even in the university; it can also be used as a

tool to take the society and even university and the people in it from stagnation to a

new level of effectiveness. Conflicts are inherent and inevitable in any human

organization. It occurs when two or more values, perspectives and opinions are

contradictory in nature and have not been aligned or agreed upon yet, including

when values and perspectives are threatened (Fisher, 2000). Ikejiani-Clarke (2009)

sees conflict as a natural and inevitable part of people working together, sharing

diverse thoughts, concerns, perspectives and goals. It may occur at inter-

organizational, organizational, inter-group and interpersonal levels. From the

researcher’s point of view, conflict is said to occur when one party perceives the

action of another party as blocking the opportunity for the attainment of a goal. For

conflict to occur, two prerequisites must be satisfied, namely, perceived goal

incompatibility and perceived opportunity for interference or blocking of goals.

Management makes the difference as regards the effect of conflict on the society or

an organization.

Management, according to Drucker (2002), is a multi-purpose organ that

manages business, managers, workers and work. Management is a social process,

which is designed to ensure the cooperation, participation, intervention and

involvement of others in the effective achievement of a given or predetermined

objective (UNESCO in Ogunu, 2000). Laurie (2002) perceived management as

concerned with developing people, working with them, reacting objectively towards

them and achieving results. The researcher sees management as a process of

planning, and organizing operations in order to achieve a coordination of human and

material resources essential to achieve set objectives. The effectiveness of individual

staff and even the organization depends on how they manage interpersonal conflicts

at work.

Management, according to Heimann (2000), is a process that entails

assembling activities of an individual or a group of individuals that accept

responsibilities to run an organisation. Managers Plan, Organise, Direct and Control

all the essential activities of the organisation. Managers do not do the work

themselves but they motivate others to do the work and also co-ordinate the work of

others in order to achieve the objectives of the organization.

Conflict management is the ability to deal with every situation that involves

personal interactions, and differences of opinions (Casey and Casey, 1997). Conflict

management minimizes the negative outcomes of conflict and promotes the positive

outcomes of conflict with the goal of improving learning in an organization (Rahim,

2002). Conflict management refers to the long term procedures of controlling

intractable conflicts. Conflict management refers to resolution of disputes to the

approval of parties in the dispute. Its aim is to enhance learning and group

effectiveness or performance in an organizational setting. Conflict management also

involves designing effective plans to minimize dysfunctions of conflict and enhance

effectiveness in an organization (Rahim, 2002). Conflict is best managed since it

cannot be avoided or eliminated in any organization or society.

From the above definitions, Conflict management is the principle that all conflicts

cannot necessarily be resolved, but learning how to manage conflicts can decrease the

odds of nonproductive escalation. Conflict management involves taking action aimed

at conflict resolution, self-awareness about conflict modes, conflict communication

skills, and establishing a structure for management of conflict in an environment

(Imobighe, 1997) .

Conflicts exist at every level in the society, of which the university is not

exempted. This is because it operates with people performing certain specialized

complementary roles to make the system work. The university is a social system. Like

all social systems, it consists of individuals, groups, units, sections, departments, all

of which are important subsystems working together to achieve common goals. Ajayi

and Agalele (2004) pointed out that the university is a social institution and an

extension of the larger society. The categories of people within the university

community include students, academic staff, non-academic staff, and technical staff.

Administrative staff and technical staff are grouped under the non-academic staff.

This is because they are non- teaching staff. The academics are the teaching and

research staff even though they also have dual functions in teaching and

administrative positions e.g. Deans of Faculties and Heads of Departments. In this

study, the staff are categorized into two groups namely, academic and non academic

staff. These two groups of staff have their job descriptions and specified roles in the

university. The academic staff in the university contribute very significantly to the

success of the university. They guide students academically and impart knowledge to

students through teaching and research. The academic staff organizes several

programs for students so as to motivate their interest in learning and research. They

are noted for effectiveness in teaching and learning activities of the university

(Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), 2011). Apart from teaching, the

academic staff are also involved in administrative jobs such as: producing specific

designed materials required for effective implementation of the orientation courses,

formulating a programme for orientations along with broad guidelines given by

university, setting up a documentation centre cum library for reference and source

materials necessary for orientation courses and organizing refresher courses for

students and serving teachers (ASUU, 2011).

The non-academic staff are the non-teaching staff. They are hired for the

primary purpose of performing academic support functions. They are responsible for

the day- to- day operations of the university and they also provide advice and

support for current and prospective students and academic staff in all matters

relating to studying at the university such as: enrolment, re-enrolment, leave of

absence and choosing a degree program. The administrative staff carry out functions

of recruitment, admission, examinations and provision of welfare services for the

staff and students. (Smerek and Peterson, 2000).

There have been incidence of conflicts in the universities including those in

South- East, Nigeria. These conflicts have been affecting the smooth running of the

universities. For instance, the non-academics who perform support functions feel

unappreciated by both the superior academics and the students. The administrators

sometimes clash with students and staff in carrying out their functions of

recruitment, admission, examination and provision of welfare services for the staff

and students. Also, the academics have a complex function of teaching and research.

The two, though reinforcing one another, could be a source of much tension over

their division of time, energy and commitment (Adeyemi and Ademilua, 2012).

It is noteworthy that studies have shown that it is in federal universities that

conflicts between academic and non-academic staff are prevalent. For instance,

Akinwonmi (2005) and Adeyemi and Ademilua (2012) observed that conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff of universities are prevalent in federal

universities due to the fact that the federal universities, quite unlike the state and

private universities, have large number of faculties, departments and units with a

corresponding large number of academic and non-academic staff that have come

from different ethnic groups with different mindset, values, goals, life perceptions

and religious background and that all these variables easily give room to

misunderstanding and conflicts between them. Consequent upon Akinwonmi’s and

Adeyemi and Ademilua’s observations, this study was restricted to federal

universities where conflicts between academic and non-academic staff are said to

be prevalent.

In an interview conducted on some of the academic and non-academic staff of

different federal universities, the major complaints were on the earned allowance

released by the federal government. This was one of the dividends of a prolonged

strike by ASUU from July, 2013 to December, 2013 over the nonpayment of their

allowances since the ASUU-FG 2009 agreement. The strike crippled academic

activities in public universities in Nigeria. The earned allowance has caused serious

conflict between the academic and non academic staff of both state and federal

universities on how the money should be disbursed. The non academic staff claim to

be doing more job for the university, therefore they feel or believe that their share of

the money should be greater than that of the academic staff and the academic staff

claimed that they should be given a lion share of the money. This caused a lot of

conflicts which eventually delayed the payment of the money, even though some

negotiations were still going on (Sotubo, 2013).

Unhealthy rivalry between groups in the university system has caused a lot of

conflicts. Each group claims to be more superior than the other.. For instance, in a

meeting held by the academic bodies of the universities, a professor argued that non

academic staff were attachment in the academic system who help the academic staff

in carrying out their duties. The statement was greeted with mutters of approval by

many others present. This statement was made in order to put the non academic

staff at a lower status (Adegbesan, 2012).

Furthermore, the issue of age disparity in retirement between the academic

and non-academic staff in the university does not go down well with non-academic

staff. This has caused a lot of conflicts in the university. Before now, the academic

staff were retiring at the age of 65 years while the non- academic staff were retiring

at the age of 60 years. Only recently the issue was harmonized with the non-

academic staff now retiring at 65 years. While academic staff retires at the age of 65,

professors retire at 70 years. This issue raised a lot of dust in the past (Osang, 2002).

Also, the issue of staff promotion where a staff promotion depend on the

number of articles or publications, specifying that it must be on a particular publisher

(Thomsin Luther) which is not favourable to some of the academic staff. These issues

have caused stress and tension in the university, thereby delaying the affected staff

promotions. Unlike the non-academic staff who are enjoying their promotions.

(Source interview)

Furthermore, Owens-Ibe (2000) pointed out that conflicts occur in federal

universities in South East, Nigeria and they can be attributed to ineffective

communication network, poor management style, power tussle, maladministration,

disagreement over goals by staff, manipulation of results, alterations of submitted

scores of students’ examination, staff benefits, promotion style, irresponsibility

towards one another in carrying out official functions, and academic staff being the

head of department over the non academic staff in an office.

The existence and prevalence of such conflict and their traumatic effect

cannot be ignored. There is need to trace the source, nature, consequences and

management strategies to control and resolve conflict. It becomes very necessary

because when this mutual hostility is not resolved, the effect is disharmony and

dearth of peace. Peace is order, brother-hood, and life itself. That is to say that when

conflicts are allowed to linger, no matter at what level, the organization will not be

able to achieve its aims and objectives and develop as expected even with the

highest quality of staff and infrastructure. Hence, unrestricted and unresolved

conflict is counterproductive to any organization.

The nature of conflict that occurs in federal universities in South East, Nigeria

varies from one university to another. These include intra-personal conflict, inter-

personal conflict, inter-group conflict, ethnocentric conflict and subordinate conflict

etc. Intra-personal conflict deals with crises arising from within the human

personality. It concerns how the individual takes in, processes and produces

information. It is mostly psychological in nature. Inter-personal conflict is mutual

hostility between two people who have incompatible goals, needs and approaches in

their relationship. An example is academic and non-academic staff in conflict. They

are both working towards similar goals. Inter-group conflict is the conflict that takes

place among department, units, sections or group of persons in the university.

Ethnocentric conflict is one motivated by discrimination between indigenous and non

indigenous school members and subordinate conflicts have to do with hierarchy of

position between two persons or groups among others (Walton and Dutton, 2005).

The sources of conflict that exist in organizations, include: personality clashes,

communication gap, unresolved power tussle, role conflict and interpersonal conflict,

among others (Oboegbulem and Onwurah, 2011). Personality clash is a very strong

difference in motives, style or values in dealing with people that are not resolvable.

For example, if individuals differ in their style of dealing with people, they will be

unproductive working in teams to execute a task. A hasty man will not have a

harmonious working relationship with a slow man.

Communication gap or breakdown is one of the major sources of

interpersonal conflict. Therefore learning communication skill is very important

because it is used to prevent and resolve conflict at any level in an organization. It is

the lifeline of any organization (Oboegbulem and Onwurah ,2011).

Unresolved power tussle usually recycles and escalates to the point of

relationship breakdown and termination. For example, if both parties in a

relationship have a high need for power and both want to be dominant in the

relationship, there is no way both can be satisfied, so a power struggle ensues

(Oboegbulem and Onwurah, 2011) .

Role conflict involves very real differences in role definitions, expectation or

responsibilities between individuals who are interdependent in a social system. If

there are ambiguities in role definitions in an organization or unclear boundaries of

responsibilities, then the stage is set for interpersonal friction between the persons

involved. Unfortunately, role conflict is often misinterpreted as interpersonal conflict

and resolution is then complicated and misdirected. The emotional intensity is often

quite high in role conflict since people are directly involved as individuals and there is

a strong tendency to personalize the conflict (Oboegbulem and Onwurah , 2011).

The consequences of conflicts on the school organization have been

regrettable. Part of the repercussions on school is disruption of academic

programmes, hostility, stress, anxiety, unnecessary tensions, suspicion and

withdrawal from active participation in school activities. It also renders school

environment uncomfortable for serious academic activities. Hence, there is a need

for management strategies of conflict.

Management Strategies of Conflict (MSC), according to Rahim (2002), are

designed to enhance critical and innovative thinking to learn the process of

diagnosing and interventions in the right ways. They are a plan of action designed to

achieve a specific goal (Amoh and Bacal, 2007). There are many management

strategies of conflict but for this study the researcher considered the strategies that

are most closely related to the study. According to Oboegbulem and Onwurah

(2011), some of these strategies include: Dialogue, Confrontation, Mediation,

Negotiation, Effective communication, and Clarification of goals and objectives.

Dialogue strategy is a process in which parties in a conflict engage in deep

and meaningful discussion with their opponents, not for the purpose of resolving a

dispute (as is usually true with negotiation or mediation) but rather for the purpose

of developing a better understanding of the people on the other side through

dialogue. Disputant’s breakdown negative stereotypes, focus on deep-rooted feeling,

values, and needs, and come to the understanding of the conflict and the issues on

all sides. It is a process where groups in conflicts are brought together (face-to face)

to express their views on the subject matter. Dialogue is also a discussion where the

conflict parties share their feelings and fears, are open to listening to the other

parties’ needs, are willing to be changed by what they hear, and are open to the idea

of being vulnerable (Oboegbulem and Onwurah, 2011).

Confrontation strategy is direct expression of one’s view (thoughts and

feelings) on the conflict situation and an invitation for the other party to express his

or her views on the conflict. It is also where the problem is subjected to debate

between those in conflict in order to expose the problem and convince the

disputants on its emptiness. Confrontation process allows one to get at the root

cause of the conflict in a productive manner. One is indirectly trying to say, let’s

exchange ideas, pleasantly and comfortably. Once one has heard others’ opinions,

one will decide on the best option. This is not contest for superiority. Confrontation

is a matter of achieving understanding for behaviour change (Amoh and Bacal, 2007).

Mediation is another strategy. It is a situation where a neutral party helps

groups in conflicts to discuss their difficult issues. Mediation allows disputants to

ventilate anger and frustration in a free, open and therapeutic fashion. It helps

disputants to receive an increased sense of power and personal worth. Mediation

helps disputants gain access to a readily available, quick and inexpensive forum (in

comparison to litigation). It also helps disputants to equalize interpersonal power

struggles by promoting an egalitarian ethic (Oboegbulem and Onwurah, 2011).

Negotiation strategy is another method of resolving conflicts. This is an official

discussion between the representatives of opposing groups trying to reach an

agreement. The purpose of negotiation is to allow both sides involved in conflict to

air their differences and to reach an agreement .This will result in a successful

resolution of the conflict (Amoh and Bacal, 2007).

Effective communication is a very effective strategy for managing conflicts. It

is a process where all the necessary information needed by groups are

communicated to them in due time. Communication has a big role to play in conflict

management because it has been observed that poor communication results in

misunderstanding and ultimately conflicts. Communication has to be clear and

precise to avoid conflicts (Oboegbulem and Onwurah, 2011).

Clarification of goals and objectives as a strategy in managing conflict is a

process of defining one’s interest and values and getting clear about the interest and

values of one’s opponent. It is important for parties to be clear about what they want

their opponents to do and how best to encourage them to do it. Clarification of

goals and objectives enables one party to understand the position of the other party

(Amoh and Bacal, 2007).

It is disheartening when institutions of higher learning that are supposed to be

a model of democratic unity, principles, and cooperation degenerate into conflicts

between academic and non- academic staff as a result of controversies. The

existence of conflict in the university if neglected can result to chaos, breakdown of

law and order, and decline in attainment of established standards of performance.

However, there have been diverse opinions concerning the management strategies

of conflict in federal universities such as: negotiation, effective communication,

confrontation, dialogue, mediation, negotiation, and clarification of goals and

objectives. Nevertheless, these opinions lack sufficient empirical evidence because

no study known to the researcher has been carried out to ascertain them. It is on this

note that the researcher investigated the management strategies of conflict between

academic and non-academic staff of federal universities in South East, Nigeria.

Statement of the Problem

There have been claims that the incidence of conflicts between academic and

non-academic staff of universities have been affecting the basic environmental

conditions required for effective teaching, learning and research in federal

universities in South East Nigeria. The seemingly chaotic situation is said to have

undermined many programmes aimed at enhancing knowledge and skills in the

various universities. As noted at the background of this study, some of these

conflicts have caused stress, tensions, disorganized timing of school activities and in

most cases render school environment unconducive for serious academic activities

and created ineffective management. As a result of ineffective management of

conflicts, many universities’ conflicts are said to turn to violence and some seem to

have become unresolved.

Regrettably, the opinions of people concerning the management strategies of

conflict between academic and non-academic staff of federal universities lack

sufficient empirical evidence because no study known to the researcher has been

carried out in federal universities in South East, Nigeria to determine these.

Consequently, this gap in knowledge has informed the need for this study. It was,

therefore, the problem of this study to empirically investigate the management

strategies of conflict between academic and non-academic staff of federal

universities in South East, Nigeria.

Purpose of the Study

The general purpose of this study was to investigate the management strategies

of conflict between academic and non academic staff of federal universities in South

East, Nigeria.

Specifically, this study sought to:

1. Find out the nature of conflicts between academic and non academic staff in

federal universities.

2. Ascertain the sources of conflict between academic and non academic staff in


3. Determine the consequences of conflicts on academic and non academic staff in


4. Find out the extent to which mediation is effective for managing conflicts

between academic and non academic staff of federal universities.

5. Ascertain the extent to which negotiation is effective for managing conflicts


6. Find out the extent to which dialogue is effective for managing conflicts between

academic and non academic staff of federal universities.

7. Determine the extent to which effective communication is effective for managing

conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal universities.

8. Ascertain the extent to which clarification of goals and objectives is effective for

managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal

universities.

9. Determine the extent to which confrontation is effective for managing conflicts


Significance of the Study

The study has both theoretical and practical significance. The theoretical

significance was hinged on the Marxism (Karl Marx) theory. This theory emphasizes

the role of coercion and power in producing social order. This perspective is derived

from the works of Karl Marx who saw society as fragmented into groups that compete

for social and economic resources. This social order is maintained by domination.

This theory also stated that societies contain a basic contradiction which means that

they cannot survive in their existing form without exploitation of one social group or

another. The findings of this study will help to explicate the functionality of these

theoretical postulations on conflict management. The result of the study will further

provide empirical information that will be of particular significance to researchers on

conflict management.

On the practical aspect, the findings of this study will be of benefit to academic

and non academic staff, educational policy makers, university management, students,

university communities, Nigerian Society and researchers.

The results of this study when communicated to the academic and non

academic staff through seminars, workshops and university bulletins will help them to

be cautious of causes of conflicts in their area of jurisdictions and to ensure that such

conflicts are effectively resolved through open door administration and participative

governance. This will in turn promote proper understanding and enhance cooperation

among them.

The findings of this study when placed in government gazette will provide

educational policy makers with a useful guide in drawing up policies that will be used

in resolving and preventing conflicts in the universities. This will bring peace and help

in the attainment of educational goals and objectives in the universities.

The results of this study when placed in the university gazette will help the

university management to become aware of the conflict management strategies that

will be used to prevent and resolve conflicts in the university. This knowledge will put

the university management in a better position to prevent and resolve conflicts

between its academic and non-academic staff. The prevention and successful

resolution of conflicts in the university will equally give the university management

time for other administrative work and also help them to achieve academic excellence,

peaceful atmosphere and orderliness in the university.

The findings of the study will also be of immense benefit to students. This is

because when the research findings are made accessible to them in their departmental

and university libraries, they will provide vital information to them on conflict and its

consequences and this will make them to be morally behaved and to obey the rules

and regulations governing the university. This will equally expose them to good and

peaceful academic environments which are conducive for effective teaching and

learning.

The findings of this study will also benefit the university communities. This is

because when these findings are communicated to them through university bulletins,

seminars and workshops they will become aware of the strategies they can adopt to

prevent and resolve conflicts thereby maintaining a peaceful atmosphere in the

university. This will ultimately bring about progress that will make members of the

university community happy.

The findings of this study will also benefit the Nigerian society at large. The

research findings, when communicated to the Nigerian society at large through public

enlightenment campaigns, will inculcate to them values and norms which are

necessary for the socialization of the people.

The findings of this study will benefit the university communities. This is

because there will be progress and members of the communities will be happy for the

peaceful atmosphere existing in the university communities. The findings of this study

will benefit the society at large. It will inculcate values and norms necessary for the

socialization of the people.

Finally, the results of this study when placed in university libraries will add to

the body of knowledge in universities concerning the causes of conflict and its

management strategies. The research findings will also benefit researchers by serving

as a poll of data for them whenever they are carrying out studies in related areas and

these will provide them with direction and guidelines for their studies.

Scope of the Study

The geographical scope of this study was de-limited to the federal universities

in South East Nigeria. The use of federal universities in South East Nigeria for the

study arose from the fact that they were among the federal universities in Nigeria

where conflicts between academic and non-academic staff were said to be prevalent

due to the fact that their staff are people from different ethnic groups who have

different mindset, values, goals, life perceptions, and religious background which

easily give room to misunderstanding and conflict between them. The content

dimension of this study focused on the nature of conflict, sources of conflict,

consequences of conflict and six management strategies for revolving conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff of federal universities in the South East,

Nigeria.

Research Questions

The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. What is the nature of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of

federal universities?

2. What are the sources of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of


3. What are the consequences of conflicts on academic and non academic staff of


4. To what extent is mediation an effective strategy for managing conflicts between

academic and non academic staff in federal universities?

5. To what extent is negotiation an effective strategy for managing conflicts between


6. To what extent is dialogue an effective strategy for managing conflicts between


7. To what extent is effective communication an effective strategy for managing

conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities?

8. To what extent is clarification of goals and objectives an effective strategy for

managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal

universities?

9. To what extent is confrontation an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non academic staff in federal universities?

Research Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses guided the study and were tested at 0.05 level of

significance.

Ho1: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of academic and

non academic staff with regards to the nature of conflicts between them in



non academic staff with regards to the sources of conflicts between them in



non academic staff with regards to the consequences of conflicts between them

in federal universities.


non academic staff with regards to the extent to which mediation is an effective

strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.


non academic staff with regards to the extent to which negotiation is an

effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.


non academic staff with regards to the extent to which dialogue is an effective



non academic staff with regards to the extent to which effective communication

is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Ho8: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of academic and non

academic staff with regards to the extent to which clarification of goals and

objectives is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.


academic staff with regards to the extent to which confrontation is an effective


CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of related literature was presented under the following sub

headings: Conceptual framework, theoretical framework, review of empirical studies

and summary of literature review.

Conceptual Framework

Concept of Conflicts

Concept of Management

Concept of Conflict Management

Concept of Conflict Management Strategies

Schematic Diagram of the Inter-Relationship between the Concepts.

Theoretical Framework

Karl Marx theory of conflict

Max Weber theory of conflict

Human Relations Theories

Review of Empirical Studies was based on;

Studies on nature of conflict between academic and non-academic staff.

Studies on sources of conflict between academic and non-academic staff.

Studies on consequences of conflict between academic and non-academic staff.

Studies on management strategies of conflict between academic and non-

academic staff of universities.

Summary of Literature Review

Conceptual Framework:

Concept of Conflict

24

Conflict and high level violence are characteristics of modern day society,

principally due to lack of credible and satisfactory avenues for resolving conflicts at

all levels. Mullions (1999) referred to conflict as a reality of management and

organizational behaviour intended to obstruct the achievement of some other

person’s goals and arises from opposing behaviours. It varies at individuals, groups

and organizational level. Mullions differentiated between conflict and competition

even though the two terminologies have common aspects. Both involve at least

some degrees of opposing behaviour and belief that a party is attempting to deprive

others of something which they value. Conflict situation denote both incompatibility

of goals and opposing behaviour.

According to Tossi, Rizzo and Carall (1990) conflict is the presence of tension

or the existence of difficulty between groups or individuals. Conflict situation may

also arise when goal- directed behaviour of one organizational group blocks the goal-

directed behaviour of another. Certain factors that are inherent in the way

organizations operate could produce conflict among functions, division and

individuals (Hills and Jones 1999). These may have to do with job related factors such

as funding and organizational politics. Others may be task relationship such as

overlapping authority and incompatible evaluation system that appropriate scarce

resources in a way that is perceived to be against equity and fairness.

Conflict is currently expressed as “an interaction among interdependent

people who perceive others as opposing their goals, aims or values, and having the

potential to frustrate them in achieving these goals, aims and values” (Morreale,

Spitzberg and Barge, 2001:363). Closely related to conflict is dispute which is “the

tangible expression of conflict” (UMNOTHO Development, 2000:11). Dispute

manifests when the means employed by one party to protect or further its interest

are perceived to be antagonistic to one or more other parties. Both dispute and

conflict have become crucial constructive/destructive developmental features in all

fields of human endeavours.

From these definitions, some valuable insights have been given about conflicts

which imply that conflict is organic and instinctual; that is to say that conflict is a

basic instinct in humans (and may be so for non-humans) and such basic instincts can

be used for solving both individual and collective problems.

Conflicts as defined by Unoh (1991:39) are “situations of discord and

disharmony, discontent and disillusionment and or dissatisfaction and disaffection

brought about by communication interaction”. Wall and Callister (1995) defined

conflict as a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed

or negatively affected by another party. Hellriegal, Slocum and Woodman (1999)

defined conflict as any situation in which there are incompatible goals, cognitions or

emotions within or between individuals or groups that lead to opposition. Conflicts,

according to Galadima (2002), generally occur as a result of exchanges and

interactions between people of different belongings, who have to interact in order to

survive and could be caused by human or natural resources, psychological needs or

social values. Conflict is a situation whereby people, institutions, groups,

communities or nations disagree on issues that affect their interests especially when

they perceive that they are getting less than their fair share or that equity and has

not prevailed (Arnold, 1998). Conflict can take place when rival claims are made to

scarce resources, prestige or power positions (Kareen, 2000). The underlying idea in

these definitions is that conflict is a perception and thus could occur whenever a

person believes or feels that the other person or a group of people are on his way to

achieving a goal.

The concept of conflict has also been viewed in other ways. According to

Adenokun(2005), conflict is opposition of persons or forces that give rise to some

tension. In essence, it is a kind of disagreements or opposition between groups,

individuals or in the university system, between the academic and non academic

staff or students. Adelue and Kamolafe (2000) defined conflict as a dispute or

struggle between two parties that is characterized by overt expression of hostility or

international interference in the goal attainment of the opposing inaction of another

person, group of persons/parties. Omenyi in Obi (2004) defined conflict as a violent

collision, a struggle or context, a battle or a mental struggle which can be destructive

in any organization. Akinwonmi (2005) defined conflict as something that exists

whenever an action is incompatible with another thus preventing, obstructing and

interfering with in some ways that makes the action less likely or less effective. The

incompatible action may originate in one person (intra-personal), one group (intra-

group), two or more persons (inter-personal) or two or more groups (inter-group).

Conflict is an inevitable part of people relating to and with one another.

Oyitso (2004) opined that in any human organization, no matter the size or

the population, conflicts are inherent and take different dimension or manifestation.

This is because each member of the group has personal needs, interest and motives

which he or she wants to achieve. Conflicts could increase solidarity or hostility

among groups performing functions in an organization, especially school

organization (Okolo, 2005). According to Seaman (1995), conflict implies the stress

experienced by an individual when different individual or groups make contradictory

demands that he cannot satisfy by a compatible course of action. Stoner in Akinlaiya

(2001) defined organizational conflict as disagreement between two or more

organizational members or groups arising from the fact that they must share scarce

resources or work activities and or from the fact that they have different status,

goals, values or perception.

The term “conflict” has also been defined by various writers and scholars from

administrative and sociological points of view. From administrative point of view,

Panton and Gitten in Ogunu (1993) defined conflict as an obstacle to achieving a

desired goal. They further asserted that it does not always take two to be in conflict

because sometimes we are in conflict with ourselves. Imhabekha (2000) stated that

conflict is interaction of interdependent people or groups, who perceive

incompatible goals and inference from each other in achieving their goals. Owens-Ibe

(2000) pointed out that conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two

interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce reward and

interference from the other party in achieving their goals.

These definitions imply that conflicts are inherent in all organizations,

educational institutions inclusive, since organizations are made up human beings. It

can also be deduced that conflict is the product of interaction between or among

parties. According to Oputa (2003), nothing good comes from conflict; rather conflict

disrupts peace which to him is vitally essential for harmonious human existence.

Conflicts occur due to violation of human rights and needs. Hence some conflict that

occur in the educational setting and organizations border on lack of equal

representations in decision making, breach of contractual agreement, lack of

organizational communication and violation of human rights (Njoku, 2000).

Sociologically, Ogunu (1993) defined conflict as a situation in which persons or

groups disagree over means or ends and try to establish their views in preference to

others. In the view of Onoyase (1993), conflict is a condition of disagreement,

involving at least two parties, for example, the employer and the employee or

employee and employer. Weber in Nwaji (2003) explained that conflict is a form of

socialization and that a certain amount of discord, inner divergence and outer

controversy is originally tied up with the very elements that ultimately hold the

group together.

Oyibo (1995) pointed out that conflict is any kind of opposition or antagonistic

interaction between two or more parties. Conflict refers to mutual interference of

past actions and reactions in a social system. It involves opposite needs in action at

the same time, such as the apparent incompatibility of the human needs of teachers

in the school system itself (Ejiogu 1998). Okolo (1999) asserted that potentials for

conflict depends on how incompatible the goals of the entities are; the extent to

which required scare resources are utilized and the degree of interdependence of

role activities among those participating in school organization as voluntary agencies.

Therefore the chances of conflict are small, if groups have their own resources

respectively and perform entirely different roles directed towards completing of

separated goals. Imobighe (1997) defined conflict as disharmony in an interaction

process describing it as an inevitable universal phenomenon affecting all cultures,

irrespective of size, stages of political, social and economic development.

Conflict occurs in all kinds of human relationships and in all social settings due

to the wide range of potential differences among people. The absence of conflict

usually signals the absence of meaningful interaction. However, the way in which

conflict is handled determines whether it is constructive or destructive. Thus, conflict

situation can take the form of a mild disagreement between spouses, friends,

relations or colleagues on what decision to make regarding an issue. Or it may be a

sharp disagreement between organizations, institutions, ethnic nationalities, states

or nations on the basis of principles and ideologies. Such disagreements could even

lead to full scale wars. Conflict does not just happen, certain conditions give rise to it.

These include, among others, differences in perception, beliefs, attitude, culture,

background, goals, unavoidable inter-dependence and communication inadequacies.

Conflict can manifest in subtle non- verbal behaviour, verbal attacks or warlike

aggression against the other person or party.

Conflict is like a coin; it has two sides, positive and negative. In considering the

positive aspect of conflict, one cannot but appreciate the change that some times

comes after a period of conflicting interest. In the process of resolving a conflict,

people usually tend to search for more constructive ways of changing how they do

things. This search may not only lead to innovation and visible change but may make

such change more acceptable (Van de vliert, 1995). Conflict can also be beneficial

when introduced intentionally into the decision making process because, it will help

the parties involved to be open to alternative solutions to the issue. Job related

conflicts can sometimes have beneficial outcomes, especially if it has to do with

competition towards achieving one or more goals. As a catalyst for change and

improved decision-making, conflict will motivate people to offer new insight and

perspectives to a matter and these emerging views are debated (Eischardt, Kahwaju

and Bourgeois III, 1997).

Conflict as a negative force can be detrimental to the general well-being of the

parties involved. It can divert efforts towards goal attainment, deplete resources,

particularly time and money and can affect the parties involved psychologically

(resentment, tension and anxiety). Conflict increases stress and in an organization it

increases job dissatisfaction, high turnover of absenteeism over an extended period

of time. Conflict may make the establishment of supportive and trusting

relationships difficult (Blake and Mouton, 1994). Conflict can also lead to thinking

and the tendency of groups to value consensus more than quality decision to resolve

the conflict. Conflict management plays an important role in organizational context

because conflict is seen as an integral part in the process of change. If managed

intelligently, conflict can be a positive rather than a negative force in the life of an

organization or institution.

With regards to the nature of conflicts, conflicts manifest in different ways and

at different levels of school organization. According to Owens-Ibe in Oboegbulem

and Onwurah (2011), these include the following: intra-personal conflicts, inter-

personal conflicts, intra-unit/section/departmental conflicts, strategic conflict,

subordinate conflicts, super-ordinate conflicts, substantive conflicts, personalized

conflicts, situational conflict, industrial and labour conflicts, overt and covert

conflicts, and community related conflicts.

An intra-personal conflict deals with crises emanating from inside the human

personality. This has to do with how the individual takes in processes and produces

communications. When an individual losses control of his intra-personal processes,

there is a sure danger of conflict interaction. Intra-personal conflict is internal to

individuals and difficult to analyze. It is individual level conflict concerned only to the

individual who is uncertain about what work he or she is expected to perform (Obi,

2004).

Inter-personal conflict is another level of conflicts. Organizations are made up

of several individuals with various background training, frames of reference, ethnic

and religious affiliation, gender and above all, with their unique idiosyncrasies. The

fact that members of this largely heterogeneous group have to work together in

pursuit of common organizational goals makes conflict inevitable. Friction arises

from contact and most frequent contact in any organization is interpersonal. This

would include non face-to-face contact such as: telephone conversation, memos and

letter (Owens-Ibe, 2000). Inter-personal conflict occurs when two people have

incompatible needs, goals, or approaches in their relationships.

Intra-unit/section/departmental conflict is a conflict interaction that involves

members of a unit, section or department in an organization and that is restricted to

those designated places. This may arise as a result of work-load problems, incentive,

spread, and lack of trust among members of the group, in socio-cultural orientation.

It can occur among unit/ section/departmental members and between members and

supervisors or heads of units (Owens-Ibe, 2000).

Inter-unit/section/departmental conflict is a conflict interaction that involves

groups that work together with organizations. In this case one group (or unit,

section, department) has a problem relating to working with another group. These

problems could be the result of a disagreement or misunderstanding in the work

process and it is often a betrayal of the inter relationship and interdependence that

exist in groups within an organization (Owens-Ibe, 2000).

A strategic conflict is a type of conflict which results from the promotion of

self interest on the part of individuals or groups. Strategic conflicts are planned and

often intentionally started. The individuals or groups that start the conflict intends to

get an advantage over the other parties. Strategic type of conflict can easily become

unfair and results in severe negative outcomes. For example, managers within the

school or organization often engage in strategic conflict to gain control over a project

in an organization (Obi, 2004).

Subordinate conflict is a type of conflict due to hierarchy of positions. This

type of conflict arises between the boss and a person or groups of persons over

whom he has authority or responsibility on. For example, conflict between the

principal and the teachers, the teacher and the students, the principal and the bursar

(Ejiogu, 1994).

Super-ordinate conflict arises between the administrator and a person or

groups of persons who has authority over him. For instance, conflict between the

principal and the chief inspector of education in his local government area (Ejiogu,

1990).

Substantive conflict can occur on just about any issue, but its moving force is

that the two parties simply disagree about an issue. This can be over good things or

bad things. Handled effectively parties in conflict can create for themselves and

those around them the ability to resolve an issue with something creative, something

better than either party’s original position (Bacal, 2006).

Personalized conflict is caused by emotions, usually anger, frustration and

perceptions about someone else’s personality e.g. character or motives. When

conflict is personalized and extreme, each party acts as if the other is a suspect.

Hence personalized conflict is about emotions and not issue. This type of problem is

very difficult in solving or handling (Bacal 2006). For example, once conflicts starts

some people tend to get emotionally cut up and end up handling it badly. This type

of conflict occurs in ethnic, religious or tribal bias (Obi, 2004).

Conflict can either be overt (manifested publicly) or covert (hidden or not yet

in the open). In overt conflict, basic conditions for conflict are recognized by both

parties. An overt conflict is indicated when there is official refusal of one staff group

to accept the validity of another group’s work whether or not it has merit and value

for organization’s goals. This happens when one group commands more power than

the other. In such a position, it is able to get back at the other groups by rejecting or

ridiculing their ideas and contributions. In covert conflict the underlying condition of

conflict is not yet open. Covert conflict is indicated when one staff group refuses to

provide another with information required for its work. Evidence of conflict is no

where indicated, but the groups or individuals bear grudges on the basis of which

they do not give valuables and needed information to the other groups (Adimorah in

Obi 2004).

Industrial and Labour conflict is a very common feature of organizational

function. It is also the best example in the description of manifested conflict. It is

caused by several factors, including work conditions, failed promises, threat to job

security, breakdown in collective bargaining, measures and policies perceived as

unfavorable or other unexpected events. It is a severe conflict because it paralyzes

activities in an organization (Owens-Ibe, 2000)

Community related conflict refers to interaction between an organization and

its host community. It could involve a section of the interest groups in the

community (youths, women and fishermen) who precipitate this type of conflict

situation as a result of the unmet expectations of the community on job placement

for members of the community, environmental problems created in the community

as a result of the organization’s activities. This includes, noise, emission of affluent

and dangerous gasses, degradation of the ecological system. Conflict could occur as a

result of the host community’s perception of marginalization and neglect by the

organization, an organization’s insensitivity to corporate social responsibility or

violation of social cultural values (Owens-Ibe, 2000).

According to Neal (2003), conflicts come in three types or forms-

intrapersonal, interpersonal, inter-group and ethnocentric conflict.

Intrapersonal conflict is that which occurs within an individual academic, non-

academic staff, students and university management. Neal (2003) noted that when

one is torn between choices to be made, when a person is at odds within

himself/herself, when one is frustrated with his/her goal or accomplishments, then

intrapersonal conflict is the conflict from at work. Neal remarks that conflict within

oneself often gives way to conflict with others.

Interpersonal conflict occurs between two or more individuals. When one gets

into a heated debate in a meeting or gets into an argument with a co-worker or have

a bad encounter with their management or boss, interpersonal conflict is being

manifested. Neal argues that this is the most commonly occurring conflict at the

place of work.

Inter-group conflict occurs between groups. This is exemplified by

interdepartmental, academic group versus non- academic staff group, student group

versus the school management. They equally include school versus school etc.

Ethnocentric conflicts exist where conflicts are of ethnic origin. In Nigeria, this

is commonly experienced in the discrimination between indigenes and non-indigenes

in the place of work such as the public universities. In Nigeria, ethnic conflict or the

ethnic coloration of conflict spotlights the ethnocentric type of conflict. Ethnocentric

conflict is not lacking in public institutions of learning, as indeed other sectors of the

economy. The type of conflict brought about by the move to entrench, execute or

promote ethnic agenda in school’s administrative structure can be referred to as

ethnocentric conflict. Cases abound in the Nigeria nation where institutional

administrators pay more attention to what Denga (1990) regards as “particularism”.

He expresses the view that “….no government (in Nigeria) has so far succeeded in

purging ethnicity and particularism from her organization” (p. 65).

Dreu and Vliert (2002) observed three types of conflicts found in formal

organizations, including the public universities, as task conflicts, relationship

conflicts, and process conflicts.

Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work in a school system.

Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships among those who work

in the school system. Process conflict involves how academic and non-academic staff

get the work done. Rahim (1999) observes that studies demonstrate the proneness

of conflict in the area of inter-human relationships in organizations to becoming

almost always dysfunctional. This is based on the fact that friction and interpersonal

hostilities are inherent in relationship conflicts. As a result of personality clashes,

decreased mutual understanding are on the rise. In the circumstance, the completion

of organizational or school tasks is hindered.

Low levels of process conflict and low to moderate level of task conflict are

regarded as functional. In the light of this, Putnam and Poole (1997) observed that

for process conflict to be productive, it must be kept low. Intense arguments about

who should do what create dysfunctionalism when they create uncertainty about

task roles, increase the time to complete tasks, and lead to members working at

cross-purposes. A low-to-moderate level of task conflict consistently demonstrates a

positive effect on group performance because it stimulates discussion of ideas that

help groups perform better.

The sources of conflicts in educational organizations have also been

highlighted. Conflict involves a situation in which incompatibility of interests leads to

opposing outcomes. The fact here is that wherever there are human beings, there is

bound to be differences in perception. Man by nature has a physiological and

psychological make-up that introduces some level of individuality into his existence.

Thus, because the society and the institutions in it are handled by human beings,

there will always be divergent views on issues. In essence, conflict is an integral part

of human existence. Conflict, according to Walton and Dutton (2005), can arise as a

result of the following:

(a) Goal Incompatibility: This occurs when people have goals that interfere with

each other. This form of conflict can take place at any level. At the

intrapersonal level, for instance, a person’s decision to make a certain choice

excluding other alternatives will result in interplay of positive and negative

outcomes. Goal incompatibility also explains why at the interpersonal, inter-

group, intra-group or intra organizational levels, one party’s attempt to

achieve the best outcome at the expense of the other is met sometimes with

very stiff opposition (Walton and Dutton, 2005).

(b) Differentiation: As it was mentioned earlier if there are things human beings

have in abundance it should be differences. People hold divergent beliefs and

attitudes due to their unique backgrounds, experiences or training. This

predisposes them to see issues or problems in a particular way and have

difficulty in understanding each other’s perspectives (Walton and Dutton,

2005).

(c) Interdependence: Generally in life, people are dependent on each others to

an extent, to get things accomplished. The poor needs the rich, the strong

needs the weak, government needs the people, students need teachers,

academics need non-academic staff and vice versa. Interdependence makes it

difficult for one group to proceed in its duties without inputs from the other

groups. Without this need, to interact by the mutual performance of their

roles, the desired outcomes may not be attained, besides when such input is

delayed or delivered in an unsatisfactory form, strong conflict may result from

it. The idea of interdependence may not be as conflict prone as the events

stemming from it. Because when individuals are faced with a situation in

which their accomplishing a certain goal depends on the input from another

quarter and they perceive that the quarter is blocking or interfering with such

a goal the tendency is to fight back (Walton and Dutton, 2005).

(d) Communication Gap: Conflict can occur due to lack of opportunity, ability or

motivation to communicate effectively. People sometimes communicate with

others in a way that angers or annoys them even when it is not their intention

to do so. This often stems from a lack of necessary communication skill,

clarity, not being diplomatic or non confrontational and to criticize in a

destructive rather than constructive manner. People may also resort to the

use of stereotypes or faulty attributions to explain past behaviour and

anticipate future ones. When people are wronged or find out that their

interest have been thwarted by another person, they naturally try to see or

know why the person did that. More often than not, that action is judged

based on some past behaviour the individual has put up or some utterances

he made in the past (Walton and Dutton, 2005).

(e) Ambiguity, over Responsibility or Jurisdiction: When people are uncertain or

when no defined boundaries exist as to what duties people are carrying out,

there is bound to be a clash of interests and roles. One party will likely

interfere with the other party’s goal or disclaim responsibility. Conflict can

develop over such issues but where there are rules and defined limits, people

will tend to abide by them (Walton and Dutton, 2005).

(f) Scare Resources: No institution or groups of persons have unlimited

resources. When people realize that resources are scare, it motivates them to

compete with others who are also in need of the resources to achieve their

goals. Conflicts often arise on how to share these resources between the

competing parties. Each party will bring out all sorts of claim only to lay hands

on a sizeable chunk of the resources. The moment an interested party realizes

it has been “outsmarted” by others, there will certainly be trouble (Walton

and Dutton, 2005).

(g) Poor Performance: When individuals within a work unit are not performing

well or working up to potential, and if these issues are not well addressed, it

could lead to conflict (Walton and Dutton, 2005).

(h) Personality Clashes: All work environments are made up of differing

personalities. Unless colleagues understand and accept each other’s approach

to work and problem-solving, conflict will always occur (Walton and Dutton,

2005).

The causes of conflict are inexhaustible due to varied human needs, interests

and motivates. Several causes of conflict have been identified in an organization.

Many writers categorized causes of conflict into two groups namely, structural-

based conflict and behavioural/personal/non structural-based conflict (Oboegbulem

and Onwurah 2011).

A structural-based conflict is a disagreement which stems from the way an

organization is designed in terms of size, characteristics and nature of environment.

Such causes include task interdependence, differences in status, inadequate facilities

and equipment, inadequate evaluation mechanism, differences in performance

criteria reward system, role dissatisfaction, disagreement over needs, and

jurisdictional ambiguities and competition.

Task/Work Interdependence: Work interdependence exists when two or more

subunits depend on each other to complete their respective tasks. Divisions of labour

and task specialization in this case are the potential for high degree of conflict or co-

operation that exist, depending on how the situation is managed (Obi, 2004;

Olagunju, 1999). For instance, in the university setting, the non- academic staff

cannot compute results of students without the academic staff submitting scores of

the students. Hence if the academic staff fail to submit the scores to the non-

academic staff for computation, the scores of results will be delayed and it may

generate to conflict among them.

Differences in Status: People in low status units may not always recognize the

greater importance of higher status units. Therefore status inconsistencies may lead

to dissatisfaction and hence conflict. Some people may feel that a particular

department must be accorded higher recognition than the others. When such an

expectation is not met, conflict may develop (Olagunju, 1999). For example, the

academic staff may want more recognition than the non-academic staff, whereas in

non-academic staff we have the administrative units, personnel service etc. while

academics are basically teaching staff. This may make the academic staff hostile to

non-academic staff or vice versa and such hostility may lead to conflict.

Inadequate Facilities and Equipment: Mutual dependence on limited resources is one

of the causes of conflict. It is evident that most organizations lack adequate supply of

resources or equipment/facilities needed for effective functioning of various

components of the organization. These resources can be materials equipment, fund

and space. The result is that more than one department or unit use a particular

resource. When two departments use common but scarce resources conflict results

(Itedjire, 1998). For example, in a school where there is only one printing machine

and five departments, each wanting to produce question papers for its students,

conflict may develop in the struggle to use the only one machine.

Inadequate Evaluation Mechanism: This is another cause of conflict in an

organization or university. Evaluation mechanisms that are faulty or that are easily

manipulated to favour tribal affiliations and other special interests have always

caused conflict in an organization. This is because those so favoured begin to show

disdain for others. In extreme cases they develop “we- own- here attitude” just like

the academic staff think they own the university more than the non-academic staff,

this may lead those disfavoured to use several means in fighting back. This may

include petitions, sabotage of organizational goals and policy, which will finally lead

to conflict (Obi, 2004).

Differences in Performance Criteria and Reward System: Differences in unit

orientation and goals can result to organizational conflict. The subunits or

departments tend to become specialized or differentiated as they develop dissimilar

goals, task and personnel. Such differentiation frequently leads to conflict of interest

or priorities even when the overall goals of the organization are clear (Obi, 2004). For

instance, the agricultural master may want low prizes to attract more customers in

the agricultural output while the school management may want higher prizes to

cover the cost of production. More so, the purchasing department might want to

order in large quantities to lower the unit cost, while the finance department might

want to maintain low inventories to have more capital left for investment. Hence,

when members of each department develop different goals and point of view, they

often find it difficult to agree on programmes of action.

Role Dissatisfaction and Disagreement over Needs: Role dissatisfaction normally

occurs when certain groups or organization feel that they are not accorded enough

recognition. This negative feeling can generate conflict. An example is the situation

where the non academic staff always feel humiliated or relegated to the background

by the academic staff or the school authority. Thus they can show their

dissatisfaction through grudges, forming cliques or even name calling etc. (Onwurah

in Mgbodile, 2004).

Jurisdictional Ambiguities and Competition: These occur when roles of members of

an organization are not clearly defined. Conflict can occur due to misinterpretations

of roles. Ambiguities can occur because of the poor description of a particular job.

The delineation of it’s boundary from other often lead to structural conflict because

it is not always possible to define boundaries between units in sufficient detail.

Ambiguity can also arise when the credit or blame for the success or failures of a

particular assignment cannot be determined between one department or groups and

the other (Itedjere 1998; Obi, 2004).

Non structural-based conflicts can be attributed to the personal behaviour of

individuals as they relate to themselves. It includes differences in personal traits,

differences in background, differences in values, differences in perception, poor

communication skills, style of management, incompetence, poor attitude to work,

issues of generation gap, anti-authority and prejudice (Olangunju 1999).

Difference in Personal Traits: Difference in personal trait/behavior shows how people

differ in terms of authoritarianism, mannerism, aggressiveness, hostility, self esteem,

reaction to provocation and predisposition to distrust and suspicion. The individual

differences in people can lead to conflict. Those that are aggressive, hostile and who

over-react to provocation find themselves in conflict more frequently with others

than those without these traits (Obi, 2004).

Differences in Background: Differences in people’s background with respect to age,

educational level attained, work experience, religion, ethnic group, social status and

cultural orientation predispose them to conflict with one another. Differences in

background can cause social, interpersonal and inter group conflict among members

of an organization (Obi, 2004, Itedjere, 1998). According to Fisher (2000), inter-group

conflict occurs between collection of people such as ethnic or racial groups,

department or levels of decision making in the same organization, union and

management.

Differences in Values: Divergence in value and interest held by individuals and groups

within the school organization affect their thoughts and actions. It also leads to

incompatibility in ways of life, ideologies, principles and practices that people believe

in. For instance, some people may pursue ambitious goals, while other may pursue

less ambitious ones, and to achieve their goals they may have to clash with the less

ambitious ones and this may results to conflict (Obi, 2004).

Differences in Perception: Differences in perception can lead to disagreement. It

hinders interpersonal and inter group cooperation and joint decision making.

Consequently this makes achievement of organizational goal very difficult (Olagunju,

1999).

Communication Barrier: Poor communication, communication overload, total

absence of information or feedback mechanism, poor perception pernicious,

ambiguity in communication and ignorance can degenerate into either conflict or

crises. Thus, the basic problem of interpersonal communication could play up and

lead to conflict. Communication conflict usually arises from misunderstanding in the

communication process- transmission of messages and meaning from one person to

another. This is usually due to lack of well-defined communication network in a

school organization. Inadequate systems of communication on educational

institution policies, changes in working practices and the introduction of new policies

affecting the lives of staff lead to disputes, feeling of insecurity, confusion and

resentment among staff lead to dispute, feelings of insecurity, confusion and

resentment among staff. Adeyemi and Ademilua (2012) identified communication

gap between management and workers as the leading cause of conflict in the

university. Also, Adegun (2002) identified communication lapses as a problem to

administrative effectiveness in Nigerian institutions of learning. This suggests that

communication gap between academic and non-academic staff might cause conflict

and adversary affect administrative effectiveness in the universities.

Management Style: Management style can lead to conflict in tertiary institutions. It

can promote or discourage conflict. The university management style can constitute

a barrier to communication. A university management which is work-centered and

authoritarian may encourage limited communication or development of rumors and

gossips. Onwurah (2004) pointed out that failure to encourage staff and students’

participation in decision making on issues affecting them, makes them either lose

interest in university affairs or sabotage operations in the university.

Poor Attitude to Work: This is another cause of conflict in an organization or

university. Some people are by nature lazy and usually exhibit passive attitude to

work, while some people may be other wise. Where a worker or group of workers

have passive attitude to work, they may regard active workers as threats or enemies.

Such may lead to constant clash between the two groups (Olagunju, 1999). The

university management attitude can cause conflict when they fail to show interest in

the welfare of their staff. For instances, hiding useful circulars such as circulars of

conferences, workshops and seminars (Oboegbulem in Mgbodile, 2004).

Anti-authority and Prejudice: Anti-authority may result to conflict in an organization.

In every organization there are some people who are chronically anti-authority. They

always complain and feel oppressed by the establishment. Any impersonal

bureaucratic behaviours is perceived negatively and subsequently highly resented.

For example, some staff will frown at any little demand such as signing the time book

as repressive. Such chronic deviants easily become the convenient rally point for

growing dissatisfaction in the other (Obi, 2004).

Potentials for conflicts, according to Sanda (1992), are multifarious within the

university system. Some of these are enumerated below:

Competition for Scare Resources: Research, teaching, student amenities, staff pay

and other welfare services all have their claims on the limited resources at the

disposal of the university. Hence, there is deprivation (relative or absolute) of the

needs of all the groups within the system. The consequences of inadequate provision

of financial resources to the university system are the decay of structures and the

decline in services and functions. According to Sanda (1992), there is direct

connection between deprivation which leads to frustration, and aggression.

The conflicts which result from the frustrated are often directed against the defined

aggressors or perpetrators of the undesirable state of affairs. Gross mismanagement

of available resources could also result in conflicts. These conflicts could take the

form of strikes, demonstration, boycott of lectures and violent riots.

Perceived Goal Incompatibility: The potential for conflict is likely to be high where

groups or individuals perceive and interpret the same phenomenon differently. In

the university system, attention needs to be focused on the critical point of contact

between the teacher and the learner. The psychology of learning suggests that

students will not learn well unless they are actively involved in the process, and so

accept responsibility for their learning activities. So, if students do

really feel that they are learning, much else will be forgiven. If not, they need to be

listened to; otherwise, as posited by Geoffery (1997), they are going to find some

other way to attract attention to themselves.

Drives for Autonomy and Academic Freedom: Autonomy drives occur when one

group either seeks to exercise control over some activity that another party regards

as its own domain or seeks to insulate itself from such control (Idowu, 1995).

Academic freedom, according to Sanda (1992);

Connotes freedom to organize the university, design and teach courses, associate with others, project, imbibe, exchange and hold ideas without any fear of harassment or victimization, and challenge established orthodoxies without any fear of contradiction, all in the pursuit of truth (p.43).

However, events such as outright ban of university staff and students'

associations, fear of premature retirement, or rationalization of programmes as a

result of government overregulation all result in decreasing autonomy, decline in

morale, goal displacement and ultimately, conflicts.

Management Style of Universities: Though a university is an academic enterprise, a

lot of academic effectiveness rests on administrative support machinery. Hence, the

management competencies of university managers determine, to a large extent, the

severity of conflicts within the university, irrespective of the origin of the conflict

(internal or external). Managers who have tendencies to authoritarianism and

dogmatism are particularly conflict-prone. Equally prone to conflicts, according to

Miner (1993), are those with low self-esteem and a disposition to distrust and

suspicion. In university administration, eight spheres are identified for the goal of

quality education to be attained (Sanda, 1992). These spheres are finances, students,

academic programme, committee system, personnel, welfare, reward system and

physical facilities. Any significant lapse(s) in any of these areas might lead to a revolt.

Role Ambiguity/Role Dissatisfaction: Conflicts occur when the role prescriptions are

vague and uncertain. This is usually characterized by loose-lying power where various

groups and individuals seek to grasp the power. Also, employees dissatisfied with

their roles as defined by the organization are likely to be involved in conflicts. For

instance, the non-academic staff are the relatively low-income group who might find

it difficult to get direct financial and psychological rewards from working harder or

better (since the productivity of the university workers is not easily quantified, as in

other enterprises) (Sanda,1992).

Difference in Values and Lifestyles: Probably because of the concentration of young

adolescents, possibly experiencing freedom and independence for the first time, the

university campuses are filled with and threatened by, noise, aggressive styles of

dress, sexual behaviours, aesthetics and secret peer associations (e.g. cultism). The

older members - academic and administrators - impose rules and regulations. The

young may answer back by demanding for, and claiming, their democratic rights,

culminating in minor conflicts or even ghastly skirmishes between the students and

the university authority (Sanda ,1992).

Politics and National Issues: In addition to conflicts arising from situations intrinsic to

the university, some arise due to political objectives outside the university. According

to Sanda (1992), political control of education in terms of financial and

administrative policies bring about conflicts between the university and the

government. The Federal Government, through the Federal Ministry of Education

and National Universities Commission (NUC), controls the structure, curriculum,

budget and calendar of the universities. Also through Joint Admissions and

Matriculation Board (JAMB), all admissions to the universities are controlled and

manipulated (Quota system). A new dimension to this control is the appointment of

sole administrators (Military and Civilian) to run the universities (Major General

Mamman Kotangora (rtd) for Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, and Professor Gomwalk

for University of Nigeria, Nzukka, in 1995.

In terms of the consequences of university conflicts, the net effects of school

conflict illustrate the functionality or dysfunctionalism theories of conflict. As will be

seen, the consequences are neither good nor bad. Rather, it is how conflict is

managed in an organization or in the university system that matters most. The effect

of conflict is illustrated in Figure 2.

Fig. 1: The influence of conflict on performance

Source: George and Jones (1996:583). Understanding and Managing Organizational Behaviour

The explanation of this illustration is that at first conflict increases

organizational decision-making and design, prompts the organization to make

changes. Managers, therefore, realign the organization’s power structure and shift

the balance of power in favour of the group that can best meet the organization’s

needs. At some point (that is point A in figure 1), an increase in conflict leads to a

Leve

l of

per

form

ance

Low Level of conflict High

A High

Low

decline in performance. Conflict gets out of control and the organization fragment

into competing interest groups. The job of university management is to prevent

conflict going beyond point A. The university management ought to properly channel

conflict toward organizational performance as manageable (or mild) conflict tend to

lead to high performance (George and Jones, 1996). From the researcher’s point of

view, using conflict to promote performance is unethical. Although it is normal for

conflicts to arise naturally in the university system, it is not the place of the university

management to encourage it to rise with an intention to increase performance. The

university management should try to maintain a balance so that it does not cross the

boundary, as lives may be endangered in the university.

Ajayi (1996) remarked that the positive effects of conflicts in a school include

the: production of better ideas, the search for new approaches, availability of tension

which stimulates interest and creativity, surfacing of long-standing problems which

are solved, emergence of opportunities for people to air their views, and emergence

of opportunities for the leader to test his/her competence.

One effect of conflict is its capability of wreaking havoc in an organization or

society. Pruitt and Rubin (1998) contend that although it may seem paradoxical to

expect conflict to have both harmful and beneficial consequences, this paradox is

more imagined than real. What obtains, according to Pruitt and Rubin (1998), is that

the positive functions of conflict are overwhelmed by the detrimental outcomes

arising from the use of contentious tactics. In the midst of insults, threats,

incompatibilities and even physical assault, it is difficult to savour the positive

functions of conflict. Pruitt and Ruben (1998) argue that when people deal with

conflict by contending-each trying to do well at the other’s expense-a set of moves

and counter-moves tend to result from this increase in intensity and escalation. The

escalation of conflict, they observed, is accompanied by a number of

transformations, each of which is difficult (though not impossible) to reverse.

The first transformation, observed Pruitt and Ruben (1998), is that conflict is

relatively light, friendly and inoffensive. Then it begins to become contentious and

offensive. Again, the number of issues in conflict tends to increase-shifting to more

global, all-encompassing concerns. Furthermore, motivation in escalating conflict

shifts from an initial interest in doing oneself well to beating the other party and

eventually ensuring that the other is hurt more than oneself. Finally, the parties to

the conflict increase. Therefore, once conflict begins and escalates, the preceding

transformations make it increasingly knotty for de-escalation to occur. This support

how potentially harmful conflict can be to a formal organization such as the

university system.

At times, conflict in the school system is viewed as helpful or expedient. But

Moorhead and Griffin (1995:17) raise the question, “if conflict unites, what tears

apart?.’In saying that conflict have the potentials of holding social organizations

together and conferring benefits, one is surely not denying the capability of conflict

to predispose such organizations to dismemberment, disintegration or even a

distortion of its goal attainment. Moorhead and Griffin (1995) then declare that

conflict destroys stability and endangers structure.

Conflict can have negative consequences in the society just as in the

universities in South East, Nigeria. Shaw (1995) argues that conflict can increase the

level of bitterness resulting in hatred among persons or groups in the university

system. It disrupts channels of wholesome co-operation and competition. Shaw

(1995) observed that conflict frequently uses up unproductively the strength that

might well be used for constructive ends.

There is a limit to the amount of conflict that society can tolerate even if it is

conflict of the mildest and most productive sort. Conflict takes time and energy away

from the other pursuits. Imagine if a university is planning for her convocation for

her first graduate and post-graduate students and spends two months out of the

three months that it has for that programme to resolve conflict between academic

and non-academic staff. Imagine the loss of almost half the planning period as a

result of conflict. It is in the light of this that Cole (1995) sees the negative side of

conflict. Cole emphasized that conflict within a close-knit group often grows beyond

the extent justified by its cause and by the interest of the group that made it to be.

Studies on conflict management in academic institutions which explored

various schools of thought on the subject matter have been carried out. The studies

confirm that conflict is a means to healthy growth and change in such organizations

(Darling and Brownlee jr. 1998). This viewpoint tallies with the functionalist or

interactionist approach to conflict which advocates the beneficial impact of conflict

(Obi, 2004). Adimora (1999) favours the functionslist or interactionalist approach

which holds that conflict is inevitable. In addition, he states that owing to its

inevitability, conflict should be encouraged and stimulated for the development of an

educational institution.

The basic proposition of the functionalist school of thought is the

consideration of conflict as performing a group preserving function by ridding the air

of tension. In this way, according to Obi (2004), there will be the elimination of

accumulated, blocked and repressed dispositions by allowing free expression. If a

school is characterized by lethargic group of teachers, non-teaching staff and

students, the generation of conflict over goals means or performances may be

energizing and may provide the necessary stimulus for change (Obi, 2004).

While hinting that conflict, when properly managed, has beneficial

consequence, Obi (2004) advances the thought that conflict prevents stagnation.

This, he declared has to do with superior decision outweighing earlier alternatives

under conditions of conflict. Secondly, conflict increases cohesion. He explained that

conflict provides a means of coming into an active relationship of parties with which

a person may previously have had little or no contact. Thirdly, conflict can bring

about progress in an organization. Here, conflict represents the aggressive pursuit of

goal by individuals or groups who are motivated to achieve (organizational) goals.

Other useful fall-outs of conflict as identified by Obi (2004), include: the fact that

conflict is innovative and that conflict activates people. Conflict maybe educational

and the aftermath of conflict can produce a stronger and better working

environment. Conflict provides a group with a sense of its own identity.

On the negative side, Obi (2004) contends that the existence of conflict within

an organization, such as the university system, implies a breakdown of social co-

operation. It represents attempted or actual damage to the capacity of a rival group

to make its normal contribution. Other perceivable ill-effects of conflict are typified

by the efficacy of extreme conflict to reduce reliance. Conflicts can result in

instability and chaos. Conflict leads to both sides engaging in negative stereotyping.

Continuous conflict can cause one or more employees to leave the organization.

Conflict causes stress tensions, reduces the performance and effectiveness of staff. It

can make a leader to shift from democratic to autocratic leadership style.

From a psychological angle, with applicability to university system

administration, Pruitt and Ruben (1998) consider the effects of conflict to be both

constructive and disruptive. On the constructive side, they affirm that as frustration

or conflict begins to build tension (in an individual) goal attainment may be

facilitated. They further expounded on the constructive effect of conflict in the areas

of intensified striving, changing the means to goals, substitution of goals and

redefining the situation.

In intensified striving, within limits, the greater the blockage, the greater the

mobilization of effort to overcome the barrier. This is beneficial if it relates to a good

goal. With a bad goal in view, this could be destructive. Secondly, in the reckoning of

Pruitt and Ruben (1998), a conflict-possessed person may change the means to goals.

The person in conflict may take a new look at the whole situation and reconsider

whether or not his previous goal directed action was the most appropriate for

attaining the goal. The enhanced tension may highlight features of the situation that

he had not seen, particularly if he is forced to search more widely for alternative

pathways to the goal.

The third constructive effect of conflict can be seen in its instrumentality in

making a person search more widely for an alternative goal in the heart of increased

conflict caused tension. The point, according to Pruitt and Ruben (1998), is the fact

that one obvious way of removing conflict is to make choices among alternatives.

Increased tension helps to force a choice, and choice in conflict situations is an

adaptive behaviour. Tension associated with conflict brings about a redefining of the

situation, so that it is eliminated. The redefinition of the situation may introduce a

situation where things that were separate and opposing are now harmonious and

consolidated. For instance, a teacher’s separate and conflicting desires to be self-

assertive and retain the love of other teachers are synthesized in an effort to make

him/her head a unit.

The disruptive effects of conflict include frustration, aggression and escape

(Pruitt and Ruben, 1998). Precisely, if the constructive effects of frustration and

conflict fail to bring about goal attainment, the conflict continues to increase.

Eventually, it will reach levels at which its effects are no longer facilitative but are

disruptive of the goal-directed activity of the organization. Pruitt and Ruben (1998)

then insist that this is visible in aggression and escape. In aggression, there is attack

on the object of blockage, while in escape one runs away from the source of conflict.

Both ways, the effects of conflict can be seen.

Concept of Management

The concept of management has been viewed in two broad ways by different

authors. For instance, Okeke (2007) presented two broad views on the meaning of

management, thus: (1) as a process which involves the effective utilization and co-

ordination of the resources of an organization which include capital, plant, material

and labour to achieve defined objectives with the management efficiency, and (2) in

personal terms, as people responsible for directing and running an organization.

Management, as a people, refers to individuals or a group of individuals that

are responsible for running an organization. They managers plan, organize, direct

and control all the activities of the organization. Managers do not do the work

themselves rather they motivate others to do the work and also co-ordinate the

work of others in order to achieve the objectives of the organization (Okeke, 2007).

Management brings together all six Ms, these are men and women, money,

machines, materials, methods and markets. They use these resources for achieving

the objectives of the organization. Management, according to Hartzell (2011), is

making the most effective use of available resources, whether in forms of machines,

money or people. Managers are responsible for the management of an organization,

that is, for directing, planning and running of its operations for the implementations

of its policies and the attainment of its objectives. Hartzell further defines

management as the process of organizing, using, and controlling human activities

and other resources towards specific ends; and or the group of persons responsible

for running an organization or directing human activity towards specific end.

Brech (1995:3) postulated that a combination of two sets of skills involving

“thinking and doing” are what management itself is all about. The thinking aspect

comprises of ‘mental skills of deliberation, judgment and decision, the determination

of objectives and goals and the ways and means of effectively attaining them. The

other set includes skills of attitude and behaviour, and the capacity to motivate

fellow human beings to give off their debt in the team’s effort towards the

accomplishment of those objectives and goals”.

However, in this study, management is seen as a process which involves the

performance of specific tasks that will lead to the realization of specified

organizational goals and objectives. Thus, UNESCO in Ogunu (2000) defined

management as a social process which is designed to ensure co-operation,

participation, intervention and involvement in the effective achievement of a given

or a predetermined objective. Nwachukwu (1998) described management as “getting

things done through others”. Adesina in Oboegbulam and Onwurah (2011) defines

management as a process which involves the organization and mobilization of all

human and material resources in a particular system for the achievement of

identified objectives. He argued that management is the co-ordination of the

resources of an organization through the process of planning, organizing, directing

and controlling activities in the organization in order to attain organizational goals. It

is the supervising, controlling and co-ordinating of activity to achieve optimum

results with organizational resources. From these definitions, it implies that

management is the effective organization and utilization of human and material

resources in a particular system for the achievement of identified objectives. It can

be deduced that management involves people looking beyond themselves and

exercising formal authority over the activities and performance of other people.

To Adesina (1990), management is the organization and mobilization of

human and material resources in a particular system for the achievement of

identified objectives in the system. Management is the process of mobilizing the

available human and material resources in an organization to realize stated goals and

planned mission. Kinard (1998) defined management as the process directed

towards maximizing the potentials of people and coordination of their efforts to

attain some pre-determined goals. In effect, management is the means of

harnessing, mobilizing and organizing organizational resources to achieve the stated

objectives of the organization. Thus, management is inevitable in the effort to

resolve or control organizational conflict.

Management is concerned with developing people, working with them and

reacting objectively towards them and achieving result (Laurie, 2002). It is also a

process by which human and non human resources are co-ordained to accomplish a

given set of objectives. In corroborating the view of Laurie (2002), Obi (2003) stated

that management is a process of planning, and organizing operations in order to

achieve a co-ordination of human and material resources essential for the effective

and efficient attainment of set objectives. Management, according to Njoku and

Nwosu (2010), refers to the process of getting activities completed efficiently with

and through other people. It is the process of designing and maintaining an

environment in which individuals working together in groups efficiently accomplish

selected aims. The researcher sees management as the art of purposeful action of

planning, organizing, directing, communicating and controlling scarce human and

material resources to achieve organizational goals.

Peretemode (1996), an authority in educational management, sees

management as the social or interactional process involving a sequence of co-

ordinated events – planning, organizing, coordinating and controlling or leading in

order to use available resources to achieve a desired outcome in the fastest and

most efficient way. Management is defined by Nwachukwu in Mgbodile (2003) as the

coordination of all the resources of an organization through the process of planning,

organizing, directing and controlling in order to attain organizational objectives.

Sherleker in Mgbodile (2003) sees it as the guidance, leadership and control of the

efforts of people towards some common objectives. Koontz, Donnel and Weihrich in

Mgbodile (2003) present management as a set of activities which is primarily

concerned with planning, organizing, staffing, controlling, and coordinating.

From the above definitions, management is deduced or seen as a social

process which has goals to achieve. Management involves planning, organizing,

staffing, leadership, directing, controlling and coordinating of the efforts of people

towards the achievement of goals. Management is also the guidance or direction of

people towards organizational goals or objectives.

The importance of management to any organization cannot be over

emphasized. It is with efficient management that an organization or universities can

plan, organize staff, control, direct and coordinate its activities to achieve

predetermined goals. Management is the process of getting activities completed

efficiently with and through others. It is the process of designing and maintaining an

environment in which individuals, working together in groups, efficiently accomplish

selected aims.

Concept of Conflict Management

Conflict management, according to Greenhaigh (1999) is the process of

removing barrier to agreement. Conflict management in an organization involves

understanding the workers, co-operating, appreciating, offering judicious rewards,

integrating the workers, and above all, allowing industrial democracy to prevail in the

organization.

Leung and Tjosvold (1998) observed that conflict management is a successful

tool for resolving conflict over a longer period and that it creates the foundation for

effective conflict resolution. This, according to Swanstrom and Weisman (2005),

contrast from a more western argument that the importance of conflicts

management lies in its ability to solve short-term conflict. Most of conflict

management theories argue that conflicts are ineradicable consequences of

differences in values and interests with and between communities. The propensity

for violence, according to them, arises from existing institutions and historical

relationship as well as from the established distribution of power.

Conflict management refers to any situation where a conflict continues but

the excesses are avoided or mitigated. Conflict management would in particular,

seek to avoid or terminate violence between parties (Evans and Newham, 1992).

Conflict management techniques often focus on changing structure, changing

process or both, depending on the situation (Mhehe, 2007). Mhehe also asserted

that the term conflict management refers to programs that teach individuals concept

and skills for preventing, managing and peacefully resolving conflicts. Imhabekhai

and Oyitso (2001) explained that conflict management includes the efforts made to

enthrone or foster industrial democracy, that is, the recognition of the rights of

workers through their unions to participate in decision-making on matters that affect

working conditions and total wellbeing in the organization.

According to Evans and Newham (1992), conflict management depends on

four approaches, depending on whether or not violence has erupted and its

intensity, pattern and consequences. These approaches are conflict prevention,

conflict avoidance, conflict settlement and conflict resolution. Conflict prevention

involves measures which contribute to prevention of conflicts, once the situation

involving goal incompatibility has arisen. Conflict can also be prevented when those

who occupy management position or perform management functions, and

supervisors maintain good human relations in handling matters that affect their

subordinates. Conflict avoidance refers to efforts to avoid the development of

contentious issues and the incompatibility of goals within actions while conflict

settlement has been described as a means for ending or termination of conflict.

Conflict management is very important in any organization or institution,

because if conflict is not well managed in an institution it disrupts well ordered

efforts towards coordinating activities that lead towards goal achievement.

Therefore conflict management confronts conflict situation and use it as a creative

force for positive change. A well managed conflict leads to conflict resolution.

Concept of Conflict Management Strategies

Conflict management strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a specific

goal. Strategy is about gaining or being prepared to gain an advantage over

adversaries or best ways of exploiting emerging possibilities. As there is always an

element of uncertainty about the future, strategy is more about determining and

prioritizing a set of options (strategic choices) rather than about crafting a fixed plan

(Rothaermel, 2012). Conflict management strategy can be used to determine

mission, vision, values, goals, objectives, responsibilities, timelines etc. Conflict

management strategy provides tools for implementing strategy at the tactical and

operational level (Blatstain, 2012).

Conflict management strategies are the art of fashioning an appropriate

intervention to achieve political settlements, particularly by those powerful actors

having the power and resources to bring pressure on the conflicting parties in order

to settle. It is also the art of designing appropriate institutions to guide the inevitable

conflict into appropriate channels. According to Bloomfield and Reilly in Miall (2001),

conflict management strategies are the positive and constructive ways of handling

differences and divergence. Rather than advocating methods of removing conflicts, it

addresses the more realistic question of managing conflict; how to deal with it in a

constructive way, how to bring opposing sides together in a cooperative process,

how to design a practical and achievable cooperative system for the constructive

management of differences (Bloomfield and Reilly, 1998:18). Miall (2001) however,

admitted that both of these views are accurate and compatible though there might

be a cultural difference in focus.

According to Johnson and Scholes (2008), conflict management strategy

entails specifying the organizational mission, vision and objectives, developing

policies and plans and allocating resources to implement these policies and plan.

Conflict management strategy also analyzes the major initiatives taken by the

organization’s top management, usually involving resources and performance in

external environments. According to David (2009), conflict management strategy is a

continuous process of strategic analysis, strategy creation, implementation and

monitoring, used by organizations with the purpose of achieving and maintaining a

competitive advantage. From the above definitions, the objective of conflict

management strategy is to achieve better alignment of corporate policies and

strategic priorities.

Conflict management strategies are necessary in managing conflicts in

universities. In Nigeria’s university system, conflict management strategies refer to

internal mechanisms used by various authorities in managing conflict in the Nigerian

university system. There have been chains of conflict which have led to gradual but

steady disruption of academic activities. Many scholars have identified different

conflict management strategies that can be used in the universities or organizations

such as: dialogue, arbitration, negotiation, mediation, problem solving,

confrontation, creation of budget committee, effective communication, separation

device, neglect or silence, clarification of inter dependencies, avoiding, consultation,

super ordinate, boxing the problem, adjudication, culture civility and prayer.

Dialogue is a system whereby individuals or people in conflict are brought

together to expose and discuss the issues and problems causing the conflicts in the

university. The university management takes the initiative to bring the combatants

into a meaningful dialogue, face to face to examine and discuss the factors, issues

and problems. It gives those in conflict the opportunity to express their views on the

matter. A healthy dialogue frees the mind of grudges and bitterness to burry the

hatchet and settle the conflict (Ezegbe, 1997).

Arbitration is the process in which a third party, neutral in the matter, after

reviewing evidence and listening to arguments from both sides, issues a decision to

settle the case. It is also the process by which a peace maker, arbitrator or a peace

panel settles the conflict through appealing to the conscience of those in conflict.

Members of the panel are usually impartial individuals acceptable to those in

conflict. Sometimes those in conflict are given the option to choose or appoint the

arbiter or arbitrators. (Amoh, 2007).

Negotiation is a discussion among two or more people with the goal of

reaching an agreement (Obi, 2004). It is an official discussion between the

representatives of opposing groups trying to reach agreement. Vamey (1992)

proposed that negotiation is the most effective response to conflict when parties

stand to gain something.

Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which a neutral third

party facilitator helps people to discuss difficult issues and negotiate agreement.

Basic steps in the process include gathering of information, trailing the issues,

developing options, negotiating and formalizing agreements. Parties in mediation

create their own solution and the mediator does not have any decision-making

power over the out come (Obi, 2004).

Problem solving by confrontation is another conflict management strategy. In

problem solving by confrontation, the parties confront the conflict and try to resolve

it through collaborative problem solving. There are no questions of who is right or

wrong. By confrontation, the issue or problem can be subjected to a debate between

those in conflict or neutral groups in order to expose the problem and convince the

combatants on its emptiness (Onoyase, 1998).

Creation of standing committee is necessary in resolving conflicts concerning

allocation of limited resources. The members are made up of representatives from

each unit or department or union (Onoyase, 1993).

Effective Communication is a strong conflict management strategy. Many

problems that would have engulfed organization could easily be avoided by effective

communication. Organization must at all times conduct meeting with all different

cadres of their employees. By so doing they would be able to explain organizational

policy and also listen to complaints and problems of members of staff. In addition,

university management should not fold their arms to rumors. Each time a rumor

emanates, it must be confronted with relevant facts clearly communicated to all

levels of units, departments and organizations (Obi, 2004).

Separation device can be used when further human relationships cause more

harm than good. The separation device can be in form of transfer of staff in conflict

to another unit as an intervening or modifying measure to change the environment

of conflict (Ezegbe, 1997). This is used to reduce tension until a lasting solution is

found.

Neglect or Silence can be used occasionally by the university management to

prove to those in conflict that the conflicts are not important to merit the attention

of the university management. Neglect or Silence involves delay tactics which can

disarm the combatants emotionally as they wait for days or months on end, without

any practical actions from the university management (Ezegbe, 1997). Moreso, Bacel

(2006) suggested ‘non-action’ as doing nothing. The decision to do nothing should be

well thought out and on the analysis of the situation. Most of the time people ‘do

nothing’ about conflict situations for other reasons such as fear of bringing the

conflict into view or discomfort with anger.

Clarification of Interdependencies is one way to avoid conflict. It has been said

before that one of the causes of structural-based conflict is interdependence

between or among individuals or groups. It is crucial to identify and clarify

interdependencies that seem to be the source of ambiguity and consequently the

cause of conflict. Interdependencies that are responsible for specific role activities

should be clarified in order to reduce role conflict (Onoyase, 1998). Role conflict is

common in secondary schools between agricultural master and labour master. The

clarification of the roles between them by the principal becomes necessary.

Avoidance is sometimes referred to as “withdrawing”. This means personal

withdrawing from the conflict situation and leaving solution to fate and choice. For

example, the university management has to do internal transfer when the conflict

between staff becomes so serious (Onoyase, 1998).

Consultation is another effective way of managing conflicts. In consultation,

when the university management gets information that academic staff are planning

to have misunderstanding over certain issue, the management have to identify and

discuss with those staff concerned. This could be done through an informant. This

will help the university management to find out the grievances and lasting solution

to their problems (Obi, 2004).

Boxing the problem is another way of managing conflicts. In boxing the

problem, the factors responsible for conflict are identified by the group or

organization. The problem is examined carefully through a critical evaluation aimed

at destroying the problem or problems. The problem can be subjected to a public

debate aimed at destroying the problems and achieving goals through constructive

criticisms and exposition of trivialities or emptiness (Ezegbe, 1997).

Adjudication is an external mechanism of resolving conflict in the law court.

When all methods as discussed fail, the disputants may decide to go to a law court to

seek legal settlement. Individuals who feel injured in the university or organization

may seek redress legally. What ever the court says is expected to be binding on the

parties in dispute (Fadipe and Ojadele, 2000).

Culture of civility demands tolerance and accommodation for different

behaviors by others. The university management should endeavour through lectures

or preaching educate those in conflict that they are unique individuals to

compliment and serve one another through inter-personal or inter-human

acceptance, recognition and co-operation for achievement of that organizational or

university goals (Ezegbe 1997).

Appeal to God or prayer. Ezegbe in Ndu, Ocho, and Okeke (Eds) (1997)

opined, that prayer is an indispensable strategy in the management of conflict.

Through prayer, the conflict is taken to God who is in charge of every human

situation. God is always there to effect a lasting solution to any conflict, however,

this requires faith.

It is unrealistic and infact impossible to completely eliminate conflicts within

the universities, especially since conflicts have both positive and negative

dimensions. The real managerial challenge therefore, is to find some methods of

managing them from becoming debilitating, while still retaining the full positive

potentials of competition, creativity, growth and improved job satisfaction and

morale. Experts on conflicts suggest a number of conditions that promote effective

conflict management. These conditions as submitted by Putnam and Poole (1997),

include a focus on the problem rather than personal or emotional issues,

consideration of a wide range of alternative solutions, a cooperative climate, an

organized and orderly process, and avoidance of artificial conflict-reducing devices

such as voting or relying on a leader to make the final decision. Thus, conflict

management does not connote a rigid approach that suits all situations, rather, it

involves a series of concerted efforts to prevent and or arrest a seemingly serious

crisis. Putnam and Poole (1997) included the following procedures for managing

conflicts in Nigerian universities:

Clarification of Goals and Objectives: The clarification and continual refinement of

goals and objectives, role definitions and performance standards will help to avoid

misunderstanding and conflicts. Focusing attention on super-ordinate goals that are

shared by parties in conflicts may also help to defuse hostility and lead to more

cooperative behaviour. Providing valid information and avenue for expression of

views/ information is needed to avoid blocking of communication flow that may lead

to differences in perceptions. Effective management information system (MIS) is

essential to provide requisite information which minimizes delays and ensures

maximum utilization of resources. Most Nigerian universities lack effective

computerized management information system for capturing, processing, storing,

retrieving and disseminating relevant information (Alabi, 2000). This information

system is a necessity for all Nigerian universities if valid, reliable and timely

information is to be provided for all the groups within the system. This is to ensure

that effective decisions are made based on information about the universities given

to the end-users and received by the universities from the outside world. Legitimate

avenues for the expression of

views and of seeking redress must be known by all and kept open at all times.

Institutionalized mechanisms for expression of dissent or discontent within the

university campuses should include unionism and representation of staff’s and

students' interests in committees. This mechanism will yield better results than the

current practices of proscribing unions, closure of universities and drafting of armed

policemen to the campuses, all of which escalate conflicts into violence. (Putnam and

Poole 1997).

Leadership and Administrative Expertise: A more participatory and supportive style

of leadership and management behaviour is likely to assist in conflict management.

For example, showing an attitude of respect and trust; encouraging personal self-

development; and creating a working environment in which staff can work

cooperatively together. The university manager, Vice Chancellor (VC), must be

experienced at crisis management. The VC must have the necessary administrative

and organizational capacity to enable the university attain its goal. He must ensure

effective coordination of the various conflicting interests of people, complex

processes and structure which are internal to the university. Moreover, the

resources from both internal and external environments must be successfully

harnessed, prudently used and rationally distributed. Vice Chancellors of universities

are supposedly experienced administrators who had held many administrative posts

within the university system. However, the need for specialized training in conflict

management for VCs is imperative, in view of the increasing conflict potentials within

the system.

Providing for Autonomy and Academic Freedom: It is not practical to leave the

universities completely on their own without any guidance about philosophy, goals

and directions of university education. However, the coordination through NUC

should be without undue interference. To ensure autonomy and academic freedom,

the mandate of universities should include that the academic body is fully

responsible for the following:

i. the admission, teaching and examination of students;

ii. the appointment, promotion and tenure of staff;

iii. the internal budgetary allocation and control;

iv. the responsibility of choosing or electing their managers

(VCs) from within the system — no external impositors.

The new democratization process of electing deans of faculties and heads of

departments and units is a welcome development. Unlike the previous method of

selecting the most senior members in these units, the democratic process would

ensure co-operation and better performance, thereby minimizing conflict situations

among the people. In addition, the university council, senate and people should

ensure the maintenance of academic freedom and its preservation from external

authorities (Putnam and Poole 1997).

Cooperation between universities and state: There is a need for better

understanding between the university system as a whole and the government. The

decision-makers and their advisers need to be better informed on how the

universities operate, while the university community needs to acquaint itself with

the ways of the government, generally. Invariably, the universities will neither

develop attitudes of hostility or servility towards the government, nor the

government intolerant of the universities (Putnam and Poole, 1997).

Conflict potentials in the universities are varied. Hence, the need for all the

groups within the system to recognize these potentials and deliberately make

concerted efforts to curtail the negative consequences of conflicts. This curtailment

could be achieved through meaningful interactions and effective communication;

resourcefulness and resource management; and cooperation between the

universities and the state. All these measures would culminate in drastic reduction in

negative conflict potentials and consequent high goal attainment potential.

It is pertinent to note at this juncture that conflict and conflict management

strategies in universities comprise different concepts which are mutually inter-

related. These mutually inter-related concepts include the concepts of conflict,

management, conflict management, and conflict management strategies. The inter-

relationship between these concepts is represented in the schematic diagram in

figure 1below:

CONFLICTS BETWEEN ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC STAFF

SOURCES

CONSEQUENCES

MANAGEMENT

NATURE

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Fig 2: A Schematic Diagram of the Inter-Relationship between the Concepts of Conflict, Management, Conflict Management and Conflict Management Strategies in the University System.

The schema represents the relationship among the variables in the study. The

schema shows that in the university system, conflicts occur between academic and

non-academic staff. These conflicts have nature, sources and consequences which

require management. The management of these conflicts will lead to conflict

management which will be carried out using conflict management strategies that will

ultimately lead to the resolution of the conflicts between the academic and non-

academic staff of the university. Hence, the need for this study to empirically

determine, among others, the management strategies of conflict between academic

and non-academic staff of federal universities.

Theoretical Framework

The researcher considered it imperative to review some theories which would

assist immensely in giving this study a theoretical focus. These theories include: Karl

Marx Theory of conflict, Marx Weber Theory of conflict, and Human Relations

Theories.

Karl Marx Theory of Conflict

Karl Marx (1818-1883) is the most influential socialist thinker from the 19th

century. Marx can be considered a great German Philosopher, social scientist

historian or revolutionary. Marx proposed what is known as the conflict theory. The

conflict theory looks at how certain social interactions occur through conflict as

people engage in conflict every day to gain more power than others in the society.

The conflict theory has three components: the first component is that conflict

is a common and ongoing feature of society. In fact, conflict is the most basic feature

of social life. The second component is that society is made-up of various social

groups who have conflicting values and interests. The third component states that all

societal conflicts occur between dominant and subordinate social groups who are in

competition over resources.

Karl Marx used two groups in the conflict theory. The capitalist class; they own

and control the means of production and also the distribution of the goods and

services. The capitalist class is also known as the dominant group. His second class

was the working class; they are the people who provide the labour necessary to

produce the goods and services. The dominant group is known as the capitalist class

and the subordinate group is the working class.

The theory relates to the present study in the sense that the academic staff

see themselves as the capitalist class who own and control the means of production

and also the distribution of goods and services in the university. The means of

production could mean planning or taking control of the university, being in charge

of the administration of the university. The academic staff as the capitalist class

believe that authority lies in their own hands and protects only their own interest. In

an environment where there are two groups and one group seems to protect its

members alone there will be no equity, no agreement, there is bound to be conflict

of interest.

On the other hand, the non academic staff can be seen as the working class

and this working class, according to Karl Marx theory, provide labour necessary to

produce goods and services. And one of the characteristics of non academic staff in

the university is the running of the day-to-day activities of the university. They are

also the subordinate groups.

Max Weber’s Theory of Conflict

Max Weber (1864-1920) was a German Sociologist. Weber had a major

influence on the conflict theory. Max Weber asserted that society is an arena of

conflict and struggle over resources between dominant and subordinate groups.

Weber argues that there are many status and groups in a society which possess

varying degrees of social power. Weber believed that power played a role in politics,

ethnicity, gender and religion.

Max Weber recognized the importance of economic conditions in producing

inequality and conflict in society but added power and prestige as other sources of

inequality. Weber defined power as the ability of a person within a social relationship

to carry out his or her own will despite resistance from others and prestige as a

positive or negative social estimation of honor.

Max Weber’s theory of conflict relates to the present study in the sense that,

as society is an arena of conflict and struggle over resources, the university as a social

system is made up of groups, the academic and non academic staff. These groups are

bound to struggle over resources in the university. They struggle over who will

dominate the other. This could lead to social power.

Human Relations Theories

The Human Relations Theory was pioneered by Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933.

Others who contributed to the theory include; Elton Mayo (1945), Felix

Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939), Lewin, Lippit and White (1938) and Yauch (1949).

Follet is always regarded as the proponent of Human Relations Theory. As a social

philosopher, she was concerned with the problems workers encounter in some

organizations, and therefore concluded that such problems can only be minimized

when there is co-operation among the workers. Therefore she emphasized co-

operation as the basis of organizational effectiveness.

The central idea in this theory is that human factor is important in the

achievement of organizational goals thus it was assumed that workers will achieve

better if personal welfare was taken into consideration. This theory also assumed

that it is only when individuals are treated humanely that they can have the

motivation to participate actively in the achievement of organizational goals. With

the human relations theory, the focus is on people and how they interact. It is

believed that the basic problem of any organization, whether it is an educational

system or even a family is building and maintenance of good relationship among

various groups of people within the organization. Also good human relations

promotes healthy organizational environment and enhances workers’ productivity.

This theory relates to the present study because human factor is important in

the achievement of any organizational goals. The academic and non academic staff in

the university will achieve better if their personal welfare is taken into consideration.

Human relations theory can be used to minimize conflict in the universities, if there is

co-operation among the staff. Also conflict can be reduced if there is coordination

among academic and non academic staff because this theory emphasizes that

coordination is the basis of any organizational effectiveness following the theory’s

principles on coordination. Any staff who causes conflict in the university should be

dealt with individually without any delay. This has to be a continuous process and not

a seasonal or temporary affair as it will help to reduce conflict in the universities.

The human relations theory also relates to the present study because it will

help the academic and non-academic staff to build a dynamic inter-personal

relationship as this will promote healthy university environment and workers

productivity and minimize conflict among the members of staff.

Review of Related Empirical Studies

This section of the review of literature deals with empirical studies relating to

conflict and its management strategies.

Studies on Nature of Conflict between Academic and Non-Academic Staff

Bankole (2010) carried out a study on the nature of conflicts between

academic and non-academic staff of tertiary institutions in Bornu State. The general

purpose of the study was to determine the nature of conflicts between academic and

non-academic staff of tertiary institutions in Bornu State. The study was guided by

three research questions and it adopted a descriptive survey research design. The

population of the study consisted of 10,108 academic and non-academic staff of the

four tertiary institutions in Bornu State. Using a multi-stage sampling technique, 50%

of the population was selected as sample for the study which gave a total sample of

5,054 respondents. The instrument for data collection was a researcher-developed

questionnaire that was validated by two experts and tested for reliability using

Cronbach’s Alpha method of reliability estimate. Data for the study were collected by

the researcher and six research assistants, while mean and standard deviation were

used to answer the research questions that guided the study. The findings of the

study showed, among others, that the nature of conflicts between academic and

non-academic staff of tertiary institutions include: inter-personal conflicts, intra-

personal conflicts, intra-departmental conflicts, situational conflicts, and industrial

and labour conflicts. Bankole’s study is related to the present study because both

studies were descriptive survey studies. They are also related by using the same

sampling technique to select their study sample and they also used the same

instrument for data collection which was a questionnaire. These studies are also

related by using the same method of reliability estimate which was Cronbach’s Alpha

method, and the methods of data collection and analysis which were adopted by

Bankole’s study were also adopted by the present study. In addition to these facts,

Bankole’s study investigated the nature of conflicts between academic and non-

academic staff which was of interest to the present study as one of its specific

purposes hence, the relationship of both studies.

Aluko (2008) carried out a study on analysis of the nature of conflicts in

secondary schools in Plateau State. The general purpose of the study was to analyze

the nature of conflicts in secondary schools in Plateau State. Two research questions

and two null hypotheses guided the study which adopted a descriptive survey design.

The population of the study consisted of 5,371 respondents, comprising 213

principals and 5,158 teachers in the 213 secondary schools in plateau State. The

sample for the study was 1200 subjects that were selected through proportionate

stratified random sampling technique. The instrument for data collection was a

questionnaire that underwent validity and reliability tests and Cronbach’s Alpha

method was used to determine its reliability. The questionnaire was administered to

the respondents by the researcher and five research assistants. Mean and standard

deviation were used to answer the research questions, while t-test statistic was used

to test the null hypotheses and each was tested at 0.05 level of significance. The

findings of the study showed that the nature of conflicts in secondary schools

include: inter-personal conflicts, strategic conflicts, subordinate conflicts,

superordinate conflicts, and substantive conflicts, among others. Aluko’s study is

related to the present study because both studies used the same research design,

they used the same instrument for data collection which under went the same

validity and reliability tests, and they also used the same methods of data collection

and analysis. Above all, both studies are related by being concerned, among others,

with the nature of conflicts in educational institutions.

Melford (2011) conducted an investigation into the dimensions of conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff of universities. This was a case study

carried out with the purpose of determining the dimensions of conflicts between

academic and non-academic staff of Niger Delta University, Amasoma. The study

which was guided by three research questions and three corresponding null

hypotheses adopted a descriptive survey design. The population of the study was

4,117 respondents, comprising 650 academic staff and 3,467 non-academic staff.

Simple random sampling technique was used to select a sample of 600 subjects for

the study. A researcher-developed questionnaire was the instrument for data

collection and it was subjected to validity and reliability tests. Its reliability was

ascertained using Cronbach’s Alpha method and the researcher and four research

assistants administered the questionnaire to the target respondents. Mean and

standard deviation were used to answer the research questions while t-test statistic

was used to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. The findings of the

study showed that the dimensions of conflicts between academic and non-academic

staff of universities are intra-personal conflicts, inter-personal conflicts, intra-

unit/section/departmental conflicts, personalized conflicts, overt and covert

conflicts, and community related conflicts, among others. Melford’s study is related

to this study in the sense that both studies were descriptive survey studies and they

used the same instrument for data collection which was a questionnaire. Both

studies are also related by adopting the same methods of reliability estimate, data

collection and data analysis. In addition to these facts, both studies were concerned,

among others, with the dimensions (nature) of conflicts between academic and non-

academic staff of universities. They are, therefore, related studies.

Studies on Sources of Conflict between Academic and Non-Academic Staff

Harvey (2013) carried out a study on the sources of conflicts between

academic and non-academic staff of colleges in Greater Manchester. The general

purpose of the study was to determine the sources of conflicts between academic

and non-academic staff of colleges in Greater Manchester. The study adopted a

descriptive survey design and was guided by two research questions. The population

of the study consisted of the 43 college principals in the 43 Colleges in Greater

Manchester. The entire population was used for the study due to its manageable

size, while a questionnaire was the instrument used for data collection. The

researcher personally administered the questionnaire to the respondents through

the post and mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research

questions. The results of the study indicated that the sources of conflicts between

academic and non-academic staff of the colleges are goal incompatibility which

occurs as a result of people having goals that interfere with each other, differences in

people’s perception, communication gap due to ineffective communication,

ambiguity over responsibilities or jurisdiction, among others. Although Harvey’s

study was carried out in colleges, it is nevertheless related to the present study in the

sense that both studies were descriptive survey studies that used the same

instrument for data collection and also adopted the same descriptive statistics of

mean and standard deviation in answering their research questions. Moreso, both

studies were concerned, among others, with the sources of conflict between

academic and non-academic staff of educational institutions. Thus, they are related

studies.

In a study by Echeruo (2007), the sources of conflicts in universities in Abia

State were investigated. The purpose of the study was to ascertain the sources of

conflicts in universities in Abia State. The study adopted a descriptive survey design

and it was guided by three research questions and one null hypotheses. The

population of the study consisted of 277 subjects, comprising 150 and 127 senior

staff of the two universities in Abia State respectively. A sample of 100 subjects was

selected for the study using simple random sampling technique. The instrument for

data collection was a questionnaire developed by the researcher and tested for

validity and reliability. Its reliability was ascertained using Cronbach’s Alpha method.

The researcher and eight research assistants administered the questionnaire to the

respondents. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research

question while the null hypotheses were tested with t-test statistic. The results of the

study revealed that the sources of conflicts in universities in Abia State include:

breach of communication between academic and non-academic staff, poor human

relationship between the academic and non-academic staff, unclearly defined staff

roles, inadequate representation of the groups in decision-making, scarcity of school

resources and personality clashes, among others. Echeruo’s study is related to the

present study in the sense that both studies used a descriptive survey design and

they also used the same instrument for data collection which was a questionnaire.

Cronbach’s Alpha method of reliability estimate was used to determine the reliability

of the instrument for both studies and they also used the same methods of data

collection and analysis. They are, therefore, related studies. Above all, both studies

were concerned, among others, with the sources of conflicts in universities hence,

the relationship of both studies.

Ilusanya (2005) conducted an investigation on the causes of conflict in Nigeria

universities. Olabisi Onabanjo University was used as the case study. The purpose of

the study was to find out the perception of staff of the institution on the predictors

of industrial conflict. Descriptive survey was the design of the study which was

guided by three research questions and three null hypotheses. The population for

the study was 150 subjects, made up of teaching and non teaching staff with

variation in length of service. The study made use of multi-stage sampling technique

in selecting its study sample. A self developed questionnaire titled “Industrial Conflict

Predictor Questionnaire (ICPQ)” was the instrument for data collection. The three

null hypotheses were tested with t- test statistic and multiple regression analysis was

used to analyze the data. The results of the study showed through regression

analysis the predictors of industrial conflict dimension in university. All the factors

investigated namely: leadership style, conditions of service and welfare,

characteristics of groups and individuals, union-management relations, funding and

ancillary factors, job content and related factors and communication and information

were found to be significant contributors to the explanation of industrial conflict in

the university. Ilusanya and Gboyage’s study is related to the present study by virtue

of the fact that both studies were descriptive survey studies that used the same

sampling technique to select their study sample and also used the same statistical

tool to test their null hypotheses. The former study is also related to the present

study because those predictors of industrial conflict can also be encountered among

academic and non academic staff of federal universities in South East Nigeria.

Studies on Consequences of Conflict

McNulty (2010) carried out a study on the consequences of conflicts in

colleges in Texas. The purpose of the study was to determine the consequences of

conflicts in colleges in Texas. The study adopted a descriptive survey design and was

guided by two research questions. The population of the study consisted of 93

college principals in the 93 colleges in Texas and they were all used for the study. A

researcher-developed questionnaire validated by two experts was the instrument

used for data collection. The instrument was tested for reliability using Cronbach’s

Alpha method. The data collected from the respondents were analyzed with

percentage distributions. The findings of the study showed that the consequences of

conflict in schools include: conflict increases the level of bitterness resulting in hatred

among persons or groups of persons in the school system, disrupts channels of

wholesome co-operation and competition, decreases productivity of staff, increases

communication gap between the various categories of staff, and leads to destruction

of inter-personal relationship of staff. McNulty’s study is related to the present study

by the fact that both studies were descriptive survey studies that used the same

instrument for data collection which also underwent the same validity and reliability

tests. In addition to these facts, both studies were, among others, concerned with

the consequences of conflict in educational institutions. Thus, they are related

studies.

Edem (2002) carried out a study on Personnel Conflicts and Administrative

Behaviour of Secondary School Principals in Calabar Education Zone, Cross River

State. The purpose of the study was to determine the influence of personnel conflicts

on administrative behaviour of secondary school principals in Calabar Education

Zone. The design of the study was descriptive survey design. The population of the

study was 32 schools. Simple random sampling technique was used to draw 450

teachers from 20 schools (out of 32 schools) in the Calabar Education Zone.

Questionnaire formed the instrument for data collection. For data analysis, Pearson

Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to test each of the five hypotheses

at 0.05 level of significance. The result of Edems’s study indicated that: personnel

conflicts influenced principals’ leadership style, personnel conflict is significantly

negatively related to principals’ relationship with teachers and that personnel

conflict significantly influences principals’ relationship with students. This work has

relevance to the present study especially on the consequences of conflict.

Abiodun (2002) did a study on organizational conflict and staff efficiency in

Owo Local Government of Ondo State. The purpose of the study was to examine the

influence of school organizational conflict on teachers’ efficiency with respect to

teachers’ attitude to work, knowledge of subject matter, evaluation of instruction

and relationship with students. The design of the study was ex post facto. The

population of the study was 850 teachers. The sample for the study was 280

teachers. Questionnaire formed the instrument for data collection. In analyzing the

data, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation (r) Analysis was used. The hypotheses

were tested using t-test statistic at 0.05 probability level with 278 degrees of

freedom. The results of the study show that there is a significant negative

relationship between school conflict and teacher overall efficiency. That is the higher

the level of school conflicts the lower the level of teacher’s efficiency and vice versa.

This work has relevance to the present study on the consequence of conflict on

school and staff.

Studies on Management Strategies of Conflict

Olaleye (2003) did a study on conflict management strategies of university

administrators in South-West Nigeria. The purpose of the study was to find out the

types, causes of conflict and management techniques for resolving conflict by

university administrators. The design of the study was a descriptive survey design.

The population of the study was two hundred (200) professional administrators and

two hundred (200) academic administrators. Stratified sampling technique was used

to select these universities in the South-West Nigeria. Questionnaire formed the

instrument for data collection. In analyzing the data, frequency count, mean score

and percentages were used to answer the research questions. The results of the

study show that the common types of conflict were interpersonal conflict among

staff, conflict between non-teaching staff and government, students and non

academic staff, academic staff and professional administrators. The findings of the

study also showed that major causes of conflict in the universities are: Non-payment

of salaries as at and when due, sudden change in university policies, imposition of

decisions on employees by professional administrators, inadequate provision of

physical amenities such as electricity and water, denial of rights and privileges, non-

implementation of government circular on staff welfare, allegation of corruption

against university professional administrators, communication gap between

professional administrators and academics, improper power assignment, refusal of

university management to honour agreement reached with workers’ unions,

miscomprehension of duties and discriminatory application of university rules and

regulations. The results of the study also showed that the management strategies of

conflicts in the universities include: separation device, neglect or silence, boxing the

problem, adjudication, effective communication, dialogue and negotiation. This

work has relevance to the present study especially on the nature, sources and

management strategies of conflict in the universities.

Osuji (2005) carried out an investigation of conflict management strategies of

secondary school principals and teachers in Owerri Education zone. The research

design was descriptive survey design. The purpose of this study was to find out

conflict management strategies that should be applied in managing conflict between

principals and teachers in secondary schools. The population of this study comprised

of three hundred and eight (308) principals and four thousand, two hundred and

seventeen (4,217) teachers. A proportionate stratified random sampling technique

was used to select the sample for the study. Questionnaire formed the instrument

for data collection. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research

questions while t-test statistics was used to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of

significance. The findings of this study were that; conflicts that are prevalent among

principals and teachers include: inter-personal conflict, strategic conflict, intra-

personal conflict, subordinate conflict and situational conflict, among others. Based

on the findings of the study, the management strategies that should be applied for

managing conflicts between the principals and teachers include: separation by

transferring the erring teacher, using dialogue to resolve their differences, the use of

arbitrator or peace panel to settle the conflict, the use of neglect or silence to disarm

combatants and taking the problem to God through prayers, among others. The

above study is related to the present study because both discussed conflict and

conflict management but differed from each on the scope of the study.

Another related study was by Adeoji (2002) on strategies for conflict

resolution in Nigerian universities: 1999 and 2000 University of Ilorin crises. The

purpose of this study was to examine the remote and immediate causes of industrial

disharmony at the University of Ilorin, to provide strategies for conflict management

in Nigeria universities in the nearest future, and how industrial harmony can be

achieved within the system. Descriptive survey design was used for the study. The

population of the study was 300 heads of units and senior administrative staff. The

sample for the study consisted of 100 respondents selected through simple random

sampling technique. The instrument used for data collection was the ‘strategies for

conflict resolution questionnaire’. Simple percentage, average and chi-square

distributions were employed in the analysis. The results of the study show that the

reasons for conflict between ASUU and the administrators, among others, are non-

payment of salaries, irregular promotion, inadequate office accommodation,

inadequate funding, improper recruitment procedure, union check-off Due and

municipal services deterioration. The results showed that the procedures for

resolving industrial conflicts in University of Ilorin are: grievance procedure,

negotiation, collective bargaining and confrontation. Adeoji’s study is related to the

present study because both studies, among others, discussed causes of conflict in

Nigerian universities and the strategies for conflict management in Nigerian

universities. The former study is on general conflicts in the universities, while the

present study is on a particular group in the university that is conflict and conflict

management strategies among academic and non academic staff of federal

universities South East Nigeria.

Summary of Literature Review

The literature review centered on conceptual framework, theoretical

framework and review of empirical studies. The conceptual framework looked at the

definitions of the concept of conflict, causes and consequences of conflict, and

conflict management strategies. Conflict is defined as the result of interaction among

people, an unavoidable concomitant of choices and decisions and expression of the

fact of human interdependence. Some of the things that cause conflict include: lack

of effective communication network, management style, disagreement over goals,

promotion style, unequal representation of staff in decision making, among others.

There are also structural and non structural-based causes of conflict. Some of the

consequences of conflict are: it increases disunity between staff of an organization

or university, conflicts between staff of a university damages university reputation, it

increases differences between staff and also helps staff to voice out their

dissatisfaction and complaints, among others. Equally, the study unveiled the types

of conflict and sources of conflict. Some sources of conflict mentioned include: goal

incompatibility, differentiation, interdependence, communication gap, ambiguity

over responsibility or jurisdiction, scare resources, poor performance and personality

clashes, among others.

Conflict management strategies, on the other hand, involve designing

effective strategies to minimize conflict and enhance effectiveness in an organization

or university setting. The literature reviewed showed that conflict management

strategies include: effective communication networks, dialogue, arbitration,

negotiation, mediation, among others.

Also, some theories on conflict were reviewed which include: Karl Marx theory

of conflict, Max Weber’s theory of conflict and Human Relations theory. In this case,

the proponents of these theories, their fundamental assumptions and relationships

to this study were highlighted.

Some related empirical studies conducted by some researchers were also

reviewed and they were organized and presented under the content dimension of

this study. From the studies reviewed, it was discovered that no study known to the

researcher has been carried out on the management strategies of conflict between

academic and non academic staff of federal universities in South East Nigeria. Also,

all the studies on conflict were carried out outside South East Nigeria. Consequently,

there was need for this study to cover South East Nigeria so as to fill this knowledge

gap by empirically investigating the management strategies of conflict between

academic non-academic staff of federal universities in South East Nigeria.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter describes the general method and procedure that was adopted

by the researcher to carry out this study. The areas covered include: the design of

the study, area of the study, population of the study, sample and sampling

technique, instrument for data collection, validation of the instrument, reliability of

the instrument, method of data collection and method of data analysis.

Design of the Study

This study adopted descriptive survey design. Descriptive survey design,

according to Ali (2006), is a study mainly concerned with documenting, describing

and explaining events in its natural phenomena without any manipulation of what is

being observed. Any study which seeks merely to find out what is and describes it, is

a descriptive study. The rationale for choosing this design as the appropriate one is

because a representative opinion of the academic and non-academic staff was used

to find out the management strategies of conflict between academic and non

academic staff in Federal Universities in South East Nigeria and a generalization was

made based on the opinions of the selected representatives.

Area of the study

This study was carried out in South East Nigeria. South East Nigeria consists of

five states, namely: Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo States. The area is

bounded by Kogi and Benue States in the North, Cross River and Akwa Ibom States in

the East, Rivers and Bayelsa State in the South and Delta State in the West. There are

five federal universities in the five states. These are: University of Nigeria, Nsukka

(UNN) in Enugu State; Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka (UNIZIK) in Anambra State;

Federal University of Technology, Owerri (FUTO) in Imo State; Michael Okpala

University of Agriculture, Umudike (MOUAU) in Abia State and Federal University,

Ndufu Alike Ikwo, (FUNAI) in Ebonyi State.

These universities are owned and managed by the federal government and

conflicts between the academic and non academic staff of these universities have

been a common occurrence. Regrettably, no study known to the researcher has

been carried out on this problem confronting the federal universities in this area.

This, therefore, necessitated the use of this area for the study with a view to

ascertaining the management strategies of conflict between academic and non-

academic staff of these federal universities for a harmonious working environment.

Population of the Study

The population of the study consists of all the 16,387 junior and senior

academic and non-academic staff of the five federal universities in South-East

Nigeria. Available statistics show that this population comprises 3,698 academic staff

and 12,689 junior and senior non-academic staff. (Source: Personnel Services Units

71

97

of Federal Universities in South-East Nigeria, 2012/2013 Session). (See Appendix A, p.

171)

The choice of population for this study was justified by the views of Onoyase

(1998) and Adeyemi and Ademilua (2012) that academic and non-academic staff

mostly experience conflicts in universities. One of such that is still current is the issue

of earned allowances of university staff. Universities in South East are not excluded

from this. Academic and non-academic staff are well informed about the nature and

dynamics of these conflicts. Therefore, they are in a better position to provide

needed data for this study.

Sample and Sampling Technique

The sample size for the study was 1,025 respondents, comprising 527

academic staff, 488 junior and senior non-academic staff and 10 respondents for

focus group discussion (FGD). A multi-stage sampling technique was adopted in

selecting the sample for the study. Ali (2006) observed that a multi-stage sampling

technique is a sampling technique that involves two or more stages of sample

selection in a study.

Thus, the first stage of the sampling process of this study was the systematic

stratification of the five federal universities in South-East Nigeria using the variable of

location. In this case, these federal universities were stratified into the states where

they are located and then simple random sampling technique was used to select

three universities for the study. This was to ensure that each university had equal

and independent chance of being included in the study. The three universities

selected for the study were University of Nigeria, Nsukka; Nnamdi Azikiwe University,

Awka; and Federal University of Technology, Owerri.

In the second stage of the sampling process of this study, simple random

sampling technique was also adopted in selecting the sample for academic and non-

academic staff from their total population of 12,388 in the three sampled universities

for the study. In doing this, serial numbers were assigned to each element of the

population of academic and non-academic staff of the three sampled universities and

a table of random numbers was used to draw 20% of academic staff and 5% of non-

academic staff from their population of 2,633 and 9,755 respectively. The selection

of 20% and 5% of the population of academic and non- academic staff of the

sampled universities respectively as the sample for the study was based on the

recommendation of Ali (2006) that a sample size of 20% and 5% of the population

are representative samples for a population of few thousands and several thousands

respectively. Thus, this gave a sample of 1,015 subjects made up of 527 academic

staff and 488 junior and senior non-academic staff.

In the third and final stage of the sampling process of this study, the

researcher purposively selected 10 respondents for the Focus Group Discussion

(FGD). The reason for this purposive sampling was to avoid repetition of the

respondents that answered the questionnaire. This comprised 5 academic and 5 non-

academic staff of the sampled universities for the study. This, therefore, generated a

total sample of 1,025 respondents for the study (See Appendix B, p. 172).

Instruments for Data Collection

The instruments for data collection were questionnaire and focus group

discussion guide. The questionnaire was designed and developed by the researcher

from the literature reviewed. The questionnaire was titled “Management Strategies

of Conflict Questionnaire (MSCQ)”. The researcher developed the items through the

information got from the literature reviewed. The questionnaire was divided into

two sections: Section A and Section B. Section A contained the personal data of the

respondents such as: Name of the university, gender and categories of staff while

Section B elicited information on conflict and conflict management strategies in

federal universities. It had nine clusters and 67 items which were generated based on

the nine research questions. Cluster A sought information on the nature of conflicts

between academic and non academic of federal universities in South East Nigeria.

Cluster B elicited information on the sources of conflicts between academic and non

academic staff of federal universities in South East Nigeria, while Cluster C dealt with

the consequences of conflicts on academic and non academic staff of federal

universities in South East Nigeria. The response pattern for Clusters A-C was ‘Strongly

Agree’ (SA), ‘Agree’ (A), ‘Disagree’ (D), and ‘Strongly Disagree’ (SD). Cluster D sought

information on the extent to which mediation is an effective strategy for managing

conflicts. Cluster E sought information on the extent to which negotiation is an

effective strategy for managing conflicts. Cluster F sought information on the extent

to which dialogue is an effective strategy for managing conflicts. Cluster G sought

information on the extent to which effective communication is an effective strategy

for managing conflicts. Cluster H sought information on the extent to which

clarification of goals and objectives is an effective strategy for managing conflicts.

Cluster I sought information on the extent to which confrontation is an effective

strategy for managing conflicts. The response format for Clusters D-I was Very High

Extent (VHE), High Extent (HE), Little Extent (LE), and Very Little Extent (VLE) (See

Appendix C, p. 173). The response format of the research instrument which was

based on a four-point Likert-type scale was to enable the researcher indicate the

degree and intensity of feelings. In other words, the higher the aggregate scores in

the Likert type scale, the more positive the responses of the subjects and the lower

the scores the more negative the responses of the subjects.

The Focus Group Discussion Guide (FGDG) had fifteen items and were meant

for both academic and non-academic staff. The FGDG was also used to elicit

information from the respondents. The discussions were tape-recorded and the tape

recordings were transcribed verbatim after the discussions for adequate

interpretation.

Validation of the Instrument

To ensure the validity of the instrument, the initial draft was subjected to face

validation. The instrument was given to three experts, two from Educational

Administration and Planning and one from Measurement and Evaluation, all in the

Faculty of Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. These experts were requested to

examine each of the items in the questionnaire and make comments on their

suitability, clarity of statements, wrongly conceived ideas, missing information and

other observed errors, bearing in mind the purpose of the study. The researcher was

asked to restructure some of the items and introduce focus group discussion (FGD)

to enrich the study. Modification of some items and introduction of focus group

discussion (FGD) was done and in some cases new items were incorporated. Their

comments, suggestions and corrections were used to modify and produce the final

instrument (See Appendix D, p. 180).

Reliability of the Instrument

To ensure the reliability of the instrument a trial test was conducted. The trial

test was carried out using 30 respondents comprising 15 academic and 15 non

academic staff from University of Port Harcourt. The instrument duly completed by

the respondents were collected and analyzed. Cronbach Alpha method was used to

measure the internal consistency of the items. After computation, a reliability

coefficient of cluster A (0.84), cluster B (0.78), cluster C (0.88), cluster D (0.87),

cluster E (0.86), cluster F (0.89), cluster G (0.80), cluster H (0.85), and cluster I (0.83)

were obtained. The overall reliability coefficient for the entire instrument yielded

(0.84). This high reliability index indicated that the instrument was reliable (See

Appendix F, p.).

Method of Data Collection

Direct Delivery and Retrieval Technique (DDRT) was used by the researcher.

Five research assistants helped the researcher in administering the instruments for

the study. The researcher briefed the research assistants on the procedures for

administering the questionnaire to the respondents as well as retrieving the

questionnaire after completion. The research assistants were asked to administer the

questionnaire to the target respondents in their various offices and universities and

request that they complete them on the spot for immediate retrieval. This was to

ensure prompt return of the questionnaires. However, out of the 1,015 copies of the

questionnaire that were administered to the respondents, 951 copies were duly

completed and returned and were then used for data analysis

The data collection for the focus group discussion (FGD) was carried out

immediately as the administration of the questionnaire progressed. This was done

with the involvement of a moderator, note-taker and tape-recorder. The moderator

introduced the discussion and guided the discussion to the end. This role can be

likened to that of a referee who is not to take sides in the group discussion. The note-

taker took hand-written notes during the interactions. There was an electronic

device for recording the conversations of the focus group. The details were

transcribed into a script for analysis.

Method of Data Analysis

The data collected from the respondents were analyzed using descriptive and

inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics involved the use of means and

standard deviation to answer the research questions, while t-test statistic was used

to test the null hypotheses. The researcher employed the weights attached to the

four-point scale to compute the mean scores for the items of the questionnaire. The

decision rule for clusters A-C was based on the mid-point of the scale which is 2.50.

Therefore, a criterion mean of 2.50 and above was accepted, as indicators of Agree,

while mean scores below the criterion mean were indicators of Disagree. For Clusters

D-I, the decision on the extent of adherence was based on the real limit of the

number corresponding with the obtained mean score. In this case, a mean score of

3.50-4.00 was accepted as very high extent; a mean score of 2.50-3.49 was accepted

as high extent; a mean score of 1.50-2.49 indicated little extent; while a mean score

of 0.05-1.49 indicated very little extent. Independent t-test was used to test the

corresponding null hypotheses formulated for the study and each was tested at 0.05

level of significance.

The focus group discussion (FGD) was analysed using qualitative analytical

parameter known as content analysis. The FGD were tape-recorded and the tape

recordings were transcribed verbatim after each discussion. Adequate

interpretations of the participants’ statements were ensured. The transcripts were

studied and statements that had contextual importance or connotations were

extracted and used as excerpts.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter deals with the presentation of results according to the research

questions and hypotheses that guided the study.

Research Question 1

What is the nature of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal

universities?

Table 1: Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the nature of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal universities

S/N Questionnaire Items Academic Non-academic DEC.

N

X SD N

X SD

1. Interpersonal conflicts because of

individual differences.

502 3.40 0.88 449 3.32 0.85 Agree

2. Intrapersonal conflicts emanating

from the human personality.

502 3.38 0.73 449 3.09 0.88 Agree

3. Strategic conflicts resulting from the

promotion of self interest on the

part of academic and non-academic

staff.

502 3.47 0.68 449 3.34 0.81 Agree

4. Interdependence conflicts between

staff; when staff are faced with a

situation where their accomplishing

a certain goal will depend on the

input from the other group.

502 3.31 0.70 449 3.16 0.90 Agree

5. Breakdown in communication

between academic and non-

academic staff.

502 3.41 0.73 449 3.15 0.88 Agree

6. Writing of petitions against

themselves.

502 3.15 0.84 449 3.12 0.86 Agree

7. Goal incompatibility as a result of

goals interfering with each other.

502 3.26 0.75 449 3.16 0.83 Agree

8. Subordinate conflict due to

hierarchy of position between

502 3.55 0.68 449 3.39 0.79 Agree

academic and non-academic staff.

9. Industrial conflict emanating from

breakdown of collective bargaining


academic staff.

502 3.33 0.70 449 3.16 0.86 Agree

Cluster Mean 502 3.36 0.45 449 3.22 0.50 Agree

Table 1 presents the mean ratings and standard deviations of the respondents

on the nature of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal

universities. The table shows that the mean responses for academic staff ranged

from 3.15 to 3.55 and for non academic staff the mean responses ranged from 3.09

to 3.39. All the items had mean values greater than 2.50 which is the criterion mean.

The cluster mean scores on the nature of conflicts were 3.36 and 3.22 for academic

and non academic staff respectively.

Based on the fact that the cluster mean scores were above the criterion mean

of 2.50, the respondents agree that the listed questionnaire items 1-9 are the nature

of conflicts between academic and non-academic staff of federal universities.

Hypothesis 1


non academic staff with regards to the nature of conflicts between them in


Table 2: Independent t-test of the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the nature of conflicts between them in federal universities.

Variable N

X SD df tcal Sig Decision

101

106

Academic 502 3.36 0.45 949 4.83 0.00 S

Non Academic 449 3.22 0.50

α = 0.05, S=Significant

Table 2 revealed that a t-value of 4.83 was obtained with associated probability

value of 0.00. Since the associated probability (0.00) was less than 0.05, the null

hypothesis (H01) was rejected. Thus, there is a significant difference between the mean

ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the nature of conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities.

Research Question 2

What are the sources of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal

universities?

Table 3: Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the sources of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal universities

S/N Questionnaire items Academic Non-academic

N

X SD N

X SD DEC.

10. Breach of communication


academic staff.

502 3.46 0.68 449 3.19 0.87 Agree

11. Poor human relationship

between the academic and non-

academic staff.

502 3.44 0.65 449 3.28 0.78 Agree

12. Unclearly defined goals and

objectives between academic and

non-academic staff.

502 3.31 0.80 449 3.17 0.85 Agree

13. Unequal attention to staff

welfare by university

management.

502 3.37 0.73 449 3.33 0.81 Agree

14. Differences in staff perceptions of

their duties lead to disagreement.

502 3.28 0.90 449 3.04 0.98 Agree

15. Personality differences between

academic and non-academic

staff.

502 3.37 0.75 449 3.24 0.83 Agree

16. Inadequate representation of the

groups in decision making.

502 3.32 0.76 449 3.30 0.811 Agree

17. Manipulation of students’ exam

scores.

502 3.05 1.01 449 2.94 1.04 Agree

18. Competition for scarce resources

and their allocations will bring

two groups into conflict.

502 3.33 0.76 449 3.17 0.88 Agree

19. Unclearly defined staff role leads

to conflict

502 3.25 0.81 449 3.14 0.83 Agree

20. Poor management styles causes

conflict between the two groups.

502 3.35 0.80 449 3.22 0.87 Agree

21. Unhealthy competition over

positions between academic and

non-academic staff.

502 3.29 0.84 449 3.20 0.89 Agree



on the sources of conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal

universities. The table shows that the mean responses of academic staff ranged from

3.05 to 3.46 and for non academic staff, the mean responses ranged from 2.94 to

3.33. All the items had mean values greater than 2.50 which is the criterion mean.

The cluster mean scores on the sources of conflicts were 3.32 and 3.20 for academic

and non academic staff respectively.


of 2.50, the respondents agree that the listed items are the sources of conflicts


Hypothesis 2

Ho2: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the sources of conflicts between them in federal universities.

Table 4 : Independent t-test of the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the sources of conflicts in federal universities.

Variable N


Academic 502 3.32 0.40 949 4.37 0.00 S





hypothesis (H02) was rejected. Thus, there was a significant difference between the

mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the sources of

conflicts between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities.

Research Question 3

What are the consequences of conflicts on academic and non academic staff of federal

universities?

Table 5: Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the consequences of conflicts on academic and non academic staff of federal universities

S/N Questionnaire Items Academic Non-academic

N

X SD N

X SD DEC.

22. Increases disunity between


502 3.51 0.67 449 3.39 0.86 Agree

23. Conflicts between staff damages 502 3.38 0.73 449 3.23 0.81 Agree

university reputation.

24. Increase in bitterness between


502 3.31 0.84 449 3.23 0.81 Agree

25. Poor performance of students in

academic work.

502 3.21 0.89 449 2.97 0.97 Agree

26. Helps staff to voice out their

dissatisfactions and complaints.

502 3.24 0.83 449 3.16 0.92 Agree

27. Disrupts normal channels of

cooperation between conflicting

parties.

502 3.35 0.77 449 3.28 0.83 Agree

28. Violence that may lead to loss of

life and properties.

502 3.34 0.82 449 3.03 0.95 Agree

29. Reduction of motivation between

the two groups.

502 3.37 0.72 449 3.29 0.75 Agree

30. Decrease in productivity between


502 3.38 0.75 449 3.17 0.84 Agree

31. Destruction of staff healthy

relationships.

502 3.37 0.84 449 3.24 0.77 Agree

32. Breakdown of law and order

between the conflicting parties.

502 3.32 0.78 449 3.19 0.84 Agree

33. Increase of communication gap

between the conflicting parties

502 3.44 0.85 449 3.26 0.91 Agree



on the consequences of conflicts on academic and non academic staff of federal


from 3.21 to 3.39 and for non academic staff, the mean responses ranged from 2.97


The clusters mean scores on the consequences of conflicts were 3.35 and 3.20 for

academic and non academic staff respectively.


of 2.50, the respondents agree that the listed items 22-33 are the consequences of

conflicts on academic and non academic staff of federal universities.

Hypothesis 3


non academic staff with regards to the consequences of conflicts between them


Table 6: Independent t-test of the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the consequences of conflicts between them in federal universities.

Variable N


Academic 502 3.35 0.31 949 5.33 0.00 S






mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the consequences of


Research Question 4

To what extent is mediation an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities?

Table 7: Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the extent to which mediation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities

S/N Questionnaire items Academic Non-academic

N

X SD N

X SD DEC.

34. Better understanding of what

caused the conflict between

academics and non academics staff.

502 3.67 0.67 449 3.55 0.73 VHE

35. Focusing on management strategy

that makes sense to both parties.

502 3.41 0.70 449 3.31 0.72 HE

36. The intermediary do not take side

between parties in conflicts

502 3.43 0.75 449 3.30 0.83 HE

37. Allowing parties in conflicts to find a

reasonable solution on their own.

502 3.16 0.86 449 2.94 1.00 HE

38. Resolving conflicts by ensuring that

both parties accept fair terms of

502 3.39 0.84 449 3.32 0.85 HE

settlement.

Cluster Mean 502 3.42 0.51 449 3.27 0.57 HE


on the extent to which mediation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non academic staff of federal universities. The table shows

that the mean responses for academic staff ranged from 3.16 to 3.67 and for non

academic staff, the mean responses ranged from 2.94 to 3.55. All the items had

mean values greater than 2.50 which is the criterion mean. The cluster mean scores

on the extent to which mediation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts were

3.42 and 3.27 for academic and non academic staff respectively.

The cluster mean scores were within the range of 2.50-3.49. This means that

mediation is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for managing conflicts between

academic and non academic staff of federal universities.

Hypothesis 4


non academic staff with regards to the extent to which mediation is an effective


Table 8: Independent t-test of the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the extent to which mediation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Variable N


Academic 502 3.42 0.51 949 4.11 0.00 S






mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the extent to which

mediation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non-

academic staff in federal universities.

Research Question 5

To what extent is negotiation an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities?

Table 9: Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the extent to which negotiation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities


N

X SD N

X SD DEC.

39. Takes time to study what caused the

disagreements between academic

and non academic staff.

502 3.43 0.74 449 3.30 0.87 HE

40. Promotes an atmosphere of 502 3.47 0.69 449 3.34 0.74 HE

understanding between academic

and non academic staff.

41. Allows the conflicting parties to air

their views.

502 3.41 0.74 449 3.30 0.84 HE

42. Discourages resentment and

grudges between the groups.

502 3.32 0.81 449 3.17 0.89 HE

43. Makes the conflicting parties to

avoid making derogatory comments

to each other.

502 3.35 0.77 449 3.26 0.86 HE

Cluster Mean 502 3.40 0.51 449 3.27 0.57 HE


on the extent to which negotiation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non academic staff of federal universities. The table shows

that the mean responses for academic staff ranged from 3.32 to 3.47 and for non

academic staff, the mean responses ranged from 3.17 to 3.34. All the items had


on the extent to which negotiation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts

were 3.40 and 3.27 for academic and non academic staff respectively. Based on the

fact that the cluster mean scores were within the range of 2.50-3.49, it implies that

negotiation is, to a high extent an effective strategy for managing conflicts between

academic and non academic staff in federal universities.

Hypothesis 5


non academic staff with regards to the extent to which negotiation is an

effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Table 10: Independent t-test of the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the extent to which negotiation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Variable N


Academic 502 3.40 0.51 989 3.68 0.00 S



Table 10 revealed that a t-value of 3.68 was obtained with associated

probability value of 0.00. Since the associated probability (0.00) was less than 0.05,

the null hypothesis (H05) was rejected. Thus, there was a significant difference

between the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the

extent to which negotiation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between

academic and non-academic staff in federal universities.

Research Question 6

To what extent is dialogue an effective strategy for managing conflicts between


Table 11: Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the extent to which dialogue is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities


N

X SD N

X SD DEC.

44. Allows the conflicting parties come

to terms.

502 3.34 0.97 449 3.37 0.97 HE

45. Makes the conflicting parties willing

to change by hearing from each

other.

502 3.37 0.73 449 3.27 0.82 HE


to resolve their problems.

502 3.37 0.78 449 3.30 0.78 HE

47. Makes parties in conflict willing to

share feelings and fears.

502 3.31 0.85 449 3.08 0.89 HE


to welcome new ideas as a way

forward.

502 3.41 0.71 449 3.29 0.76 HE

49. Makes parties in conflict willing to

promote peace by identifying where

they are wrong.

502 3.40 0.74 449 3.33 0.78 HE

Cluster Mean 502 3.37 0.48 449 3.27 0.52 HE

Table 11 presents the mean ratings and standard deviations of the

respondents on the extent to which dialogue is an effective strategy for managing

conflicts between academic and non academic staff of federal universities. The table

shows that the mean responses for academic staff ranged from 3.31 to 3.41 and for

non academic staff, the mean responses ranged from 3.08 to 3.37. All the items had


on the extent to which dialogue is an effective strategy for managing conflicts were

3.37 and 3.27 for academic and non academic staff respectively.

Based on the fact that the cluster mean scores were within the range of 2.50-

3.49, it implies that dialogue is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for managing

conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities.

Hypothesis 6


non academic staff with regards to the extent to which dialogue is an effective


Table 12: Independent t-test of the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the extent to which dialogue is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Variable N


Academic 502 3.37 0.48 949 2.86 0.00 S







extent to which dialogue is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between


Research Question 7

To what extent is effective communication an effective strategy for managing

conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities?

Table 13: Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the extent to which effective communication is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities


N

X SD N

X SD DEC.

50. Opens up channels for negotiation


academic staff.

502 3.55 0.69 449 3.46 0.76 HE

51. Opens up channels for dialogue


academic staff.

502 3.48 0.70 449 3.33 0.76 HE

52. Opens up channels for mediation

between the academic and non

academic staff.

502 3.50 0.73 449 3.35 0.76 HE

53. It opens the secrets of the conflicting

parties to the third party.

502 3.25 0.82 449 3.03 0.89 HE

54. Allows for promptness in delivering vital

information because delay can give

room for tensions to grow.

502 3.56 0.73 449 3.40 0.80 HE

55. Ensures the delivery of sensitive

information tactically and carefully

between groups.

502 3.35 0.71 449 3.23 0.75 HE

56. Encourages academic and non

academic staff to express positive

attitudes towards one another.

502 3.45 0.74 449 3.25 0.82 HE

57. Makes possible the holding of social

events from time to time where groups

can interact out side the workplace.

502 3.27 0.80 449 3.11 0.90 HE

Cluster Mean 502 3.42 0.45 449 3.27 0.48 HE


respondents on the extent to which effective communication is an effective strategy

for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal


from 3.25 to 3.56 and for non academic staff, the mean responses ranged from 3.03


The cluster mean scores on the extent to which effective communication is an

effective strategy for managing conflicts were 3.42 and 3.27 for academic and non-

academic staff respectively.


3.49, it implies that effective communication is, to a high extent, an effective strategy

for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal

universities.

Hypothesis 7


non academic staff with regards to the extent to which effective communication


Table 14: Independent t-test of the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the extent to which effective communication is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Variable N


Academic 502 3.42 0.45 949 4.95 0.00 S







extent to which effective communication is an effective strategy for managing


Research Question 8

To what extent is clarification of goals and objectives an effective strategy for

managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities?

Table 15: Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the extent to which clarification of goals and objectives is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities


N

X SD N

X SD DEC

58. It helps to minimize ambiguous

goals setting that may result to

escalation of conflicts.

502 3.43 0.72 449 3.36 0.84 HE

59. Parties’ sketching out their goal and

objective minimizes the cost and

harms associated with conflicts.

502 3.36 0.65 449 3.18 0.82 HE

60. It makes parties set goals that are

compatible with those of their

opponent to minimize conflicts.

502 3.30 0.73 449 3.20 0.85 HE

61. It helps in setting goals that are

clearly understood by conflicting

parties that reduces conflicts.

502 3.29 0.74 449 3.07 0.89 HE

62. Setting clear and reasonable goals

gives parties a definite destination.

502 3.24 1.00 449 3.18 1.06 HE

Cluster Mean 502 3.32 0.51 449 3.20 0.61 HE


respondents on the extent to which clarification of goals and objectives is an

effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff

in federal universities. The table shows that the mean responses for academic staff

ranged from 3.24 to 3.43 and for non academic staff, the mean responses ranged

from 3.07 to 3.36. All the items had mean values greater than 2.50 which is the

criterion mean. The cluster mean scores on the extent to which clarification of goals

and objectives is an effective strategy for managing conflicts were 3.32 and 3.20 for

academic and non academic staff respectively.


3.49, it implies that clarification of goals and objectives is, to a high extent, an

effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff


Hypothesis 8


academic staff with regards to the extent to which clarification of goals and

objectives is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Table 16: Independent t-test of the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the extent to which clarification of goals and objectives is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Variable N


Academic 502 3.32 0.51 949 3.18 0.00 S







extent to which clarification of goals and objectives is an effective strategy for

managing conflicts between academic and non-academic in federal universities.

Research Question 9

To what extent is confrontation an effective strategy for managing conflicts between


Table 17: Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents on the extent to which confrontation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities


N

X SD N

X SD DEC.

63. When confrontation is diplomatic,

clearer picture of the problem is

achieved and so reduces conflicts.

502 3.32 0.76 449 3.29 0.85 HE

64. Confrontation makes it possible to

state feelings and thoughts openly

without trying to hide or disguise

the real object of disagreement.

502 3.26 0.79 449 3.10 0.90 HE

65. Confrontation evaluates all ideas

and positions logically without

regard to rights.

502 3.20 0.82 449 3.09 0.91 HE

66. Confrontation focuses on preventing

future problems rather than placing

blames.

502 3.16 0.82 449 3.12 0.92 HE

67. Confrontation brings out the facts of

the dispute which leads to

agreement.

502 3.44 0.79 449 3.23 0.91 HE

Cluster Mean 502 3.27 0.51 449 3.17 0.67 HE


respondents on the extent to which confrontation is an effective strategy for

managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities.

The table shows that the mean responses for academic staff ranged from 3.16 to

3.44 and for non academic staff, the mean responses ranged from 3.09 to 3.29. All

the items had mean values greater than 2.50 which is the criterion mean. The cluster

mean scores on the extent to which confrontation is an effective strategy for

managing conflicts were 3.27 and 3.17 for academic and non academic staff

respectively.


3.49, it implies that confrontation is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for

managing conflicts between academic and non academic staff in federal universities.

Hypothesis 9

Ho9: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the extent to which confrontation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Table 18: Independent t-test of the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the extent to which confrontation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal universities.

Variable N


Academic 502 3.27 0.51 949 2.67 0.00 S




probability value of 0.00. Since the associated probability value (0.00) was less than

0.05, the null hypothesis (H09) was rejected. Thus, there was a significant difference


extent to which confrontation is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between


Summary of the Findings

From the data analysis and interpretation of the results, the following findings

emerged:

1. The nature of conflicts between the academic and non-academic staff include:

interpersonal conflicts, intrapersonal conflicts, strategic conflicts and

interdependence conflicts. There was a significant difference between the mean

ratings of academic and non academic staff with regards to the nature of

conflicts in federal universities.

2. The sources of conflicts between academic and non-academic staff of federal

universities include: breach of communication between them, poor human

relationship between them, unclearly defined goals and objectives between

categories of staff, and unequal attention to staff welfare by university

management. There was a significant difference between the mean ratings of

academic and non academic staff with regards to the sources of conflicts in


3. In relation to the consequences of conflicts on academic and non-academic

staff of federal universities, the findings show that conflict: increases disunity

between academic and non-academic staff, damages university reputation,

increases bitterness between academic and non-academic staff, leads to poor

academic performance of students, helps staff to voice out their dissatisfactions

and complaints, disrupts normal channels of co-operation, among others.

There was a significant difference between the mean ratings of academic and

non academic staff with regards to the consequences of conflicts in federal

universities.

4. The findings show that mediation is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for

managing conflicts between academic and non-academic staff in federal

universities because, among others, it ensures better understanding of what

caused the conflict, it focuses on management strategy that makes sense to both

parties in conflicts, and allows parties in conflicts to find a reasonable solution

on their own. There was a significant difference between the mean ratings of

academic and non academic staff with regards to the extent to which mediation


5. Negotiation is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities because it:

takes time to study what caused the disagreements, promotes an atmosphere of

understanding between academic and non-academic staff, and allows the

conflicting parties to air their views, among others. There was a significant

difference between the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff

with regards to the extent to which negotiation is an effective strategy for

managing conflicts in federal universities.

6. Dialogue is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities as it: allows

the conflicting parties come to terms, makes the conflicting parties willing to

change by hearing from each other, and makes the conflicting parties willing to

resolve their problems, among others. There was a significant difference

between the mean ratings of academic and non-academic staff with regards to

the extent to which dialogue is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in


7. Effective communication is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for


universities because it opens up channels for negotiation, dialogue, and

mediation and opens the secrets of the conflicting parties to the third party,

among others. There was a significant difference between the mean ratings of

academic and non-academic staff with regards to the extent to which effective

communication is an effective strategy for managing conflicts in federal

universities.

8. Clarification of goals and objectives is, to a high extent, an effective strategy

for managing conflict between academic and non-academic staff in federal

universities because it: helps to minimize ambiguous goals-setting that may

result to escalation of conflicts, helps parties in sketching out their goal and

objective which minimizes the cost and harms associated with conflicts, and

makes parties set goals that are compatible with those of their opponent to

minimize conflicts, among others. There was a significant difference between

the mean ratings of academic and non-academic staff with regards to the extent

to which clarification of goals and objectives is an effective strategy for

managing conflicts in federal universities.

9. Confrontation is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities because when

confrontation is diplomatic, clearer picture of the problem is achieved and so

reduces conflicts; confrontation makes it possible to state feelings and thoughts

openly, and evaluates all ideas and positions logically, among others. There

was a significant difference between the mean ratings of academic and non-

academic staff with regards to the extent to which confrontation is an effective


Results of the focus group discussions (FGDs) of the federal universities

Meaning of conflict

Majority of the responses from the FGD participants (males and females)

defined conflict as a disagreement between two parties. Conflict is a normal

outcome of interactions with fellow humans. The definition of conflict is buttressed

in the following excerpts from the FGD participants.

“Conflict is a clash between perceptions, ideas, interests or needs. It may involve a person or two or more persons, groups or states who are pursuing mutually incompatible goals.

(FGD Academic Staff)

“Conflict can be seen as a disagreement between two or more people working in an organization or institution. It is a sort of misunderstanding between one another.

(FGD Non-Academic Staff)

“Conflict is a kind of unrest between two parties or two different groups which results to violence, misunderstanding. Conflict is a kind of difference in opinion that could result to disagreement


The finding also revealed other perceptions and examples of conflict in the following

excerpts.

“Conflict is a force that can tear relationship apart but can also act as a force that binds relationship thereby giving it a dual nature. For example, when two or more interdependent parties interact and pursue incompatible goals, then a conflict exists.

(FGD Non-Academic Staff)

“Conflict is when you don’t understand each other. It is a disagreement, like conflict of opinion or issues. For example, when people are experiencing conflict, it is common for each of the parties to focus on their individual positions, needs and fears and be unable to see a solution that will enable everyone to get what they want.


In other words, the participants indicated that conflict is a disagreement between

one another.

Nature of Conflict in Federal Universities

The views of the FGD participants (academic and non-academic staff) were

sought on the nature of conflict in federal universities. The excerpts illustrate their

responses with examples as indicated below:

Conflict arises when there is problem of salary and incentives. That is, when salaries of staff are not paid. Or staff are not getting what they are due for. For example, in the issue of incentives the non-academic staff refused to accept their status as they tend to compare themselves with the academic staff. For example, lecturers are paid for supervision of exams and the non-academic staff are saying that they too should be paid because they type the question papers that are used for the exams.


Communication gap, can result to conflict. If there is information that, staff are supposed to receive from the administration and that information is not available, people tend to react.


Conflict can also manifest when there is disparity in the salary structure between the academic and non-academic staff.

( FGD Non- Academic Staff)

In terms of salary, pay package or earned allowances. Academic and non-academic staff usually disagrees. The non-academic staff receive higher pay than the academic staff of which the academic staff are not happy..

( FGD Academic Staff)

There is also the issue of subordinate conflict because of hierarchy of positions. When subordinate conflict occurs, it may result to disagreement, quarrelling and bitterness among the staff. For example, sometime ago, a the head of a department quarreled with a non-academic staff as a result of lack of seriousness with his job and constant absent from duty.( FGD Academic Staff). Subordinate conflict also manifest as a result of superiority complex between the academic and non-academic staff. The academic staff see themselves as higher than the non-academic staff. For example, during strike by non-academic staff, the academic staff did not recognize them. This showed Ego conflict.


Conflicts also occur during allocation of offices. The non-academic staff complain that the offices allocated to academic staff are better furnished, while they the non-academic staff share offices.


The nature of conflict also lies in the working hours of the academic and non-academic staff. The non-academic staff tend to see themselves putting in more hours than the academic staff. The non-academic staff stated that they come to work at 8am and close at 4pm or at times 5pm. While the academic staff come any time they like and leave the office any time they want, so why should they be paid better?

(FGD Non- Academic Staff)

Majority of the FGD participants acknowledged the nature of conflict experienced

between the academic and non-academic staff of federal universities.

Sources of Conflict in Federal Universities

The sources of conflicts identified by the FGD participants (academic and non-

academic staff) include the following:

1. Poor communication: For example, when there is a memo to be sent out to staff,

may be for a meeting or instructions on what to do or what not to do, any delay

in delivering such a message could result to conflict between staff.

2. In terms of staff welfare: The gap between the welfare of the academic staff and

that of the non-academic staff is too much and this is caused by the institution.

That is, it is institutionalized. For example, when the academic staff go on

sabbatical leave, they would receive their monthly salary there, while their

university would also pay them.

3. In terms of position: The highest position in any university, which is the vice

chancellor and other most sensitive positions are occupied by academic staff.

Other less sensitive positions are given to non-academic staff.

4. The issue of promotion: The promotion of non-academic staff is easier while the

academic staff have to be promoted based on their publications with their hard

earned money and such publications have to be Impact Factor-based which is not

favourable to many of them and this has been affecting their promotions .

5. Universities have yellow papers and sometimes these yellow papers do not strike

a balance. Non-academic staff fail to understand that they are not doing so much

work like the academic staff who do the brain work.

6. Inadequate funding: Like during exams, the computers may not be functioning

well and there may not be enough papers to work with and an academic staff will

be saying that he/she needs question papers for the exams and a non-academic

staff will react by asking: am I to turn myself into computer or papers?

7. Inability of some members of staff to do their work: refusal of staff to do their

assigned jobs can cause conflict in an institution. Just like the head of department

failure to do his work or the cleaner refusing to clean the offices of the academic

staff.

Other identified sources of conflict include:

8. Jealousy among staff (Academic and Non-Academic staff).

9. The issue of university policy guidelines.

10. Sources of conflict emanating from unfulfilled promises by the government

which may result into strike action.

Consequences of Conflict in federal universities

The FGD participants indicated the following as the consequences of conflict

in federal universities. The participants also indicated that conflict affects the staff,

students and the country at large.

….because they said that if a doctor makes a mistake, it is on one person but if the teacher makes a mistake, it affects everybody because that person picks that information and carries it across.

The adverse effect of conflict in federal universities is corroborated in the

following excerpts:

“……in my department, it happens that there was this clean form the secretary received that is for the external examiner, I do not know what the secretary was having with the departmental postgraduate representative (PG rep). The secretary received the form and locked it up in her cupboard. And when the pg rep was asking for the form, the secretary said she did not see it. The pg rep was shouting that this person is my witness, I gave you the form. The secretary said not me, you did not give me any form. Fine, open your cupboard lets check, the secretary refused that what is in her cupboard were her personal things and that she has searched the cupboard before. The pg rep was so furious and eventually, the secretary was transferred to another department and a new secretary came and opened the cupboard behold, the forms were there.

In other words, the consequences of conflict in federal universities are:

Conflict helps staff to voice out their grievances.

Conflict affects the work output of staff.

Conflict affects every aspect of the institution especially the students because

it will lead to poor academic performance. This is captured in this excerpts from the

FGD...

……… in my class, I was supposed to teach but when I came into the class room, the students were well seated but the class room was not clean meaning that the cleaners have not swept it. I said I cannot teach in this kind of environment and then I left. When the cleaners came and swept the class, I was no where to be found.

The above excerpts clearly indicate that: conflict affects motivation of workers

because there must be peace for motivation to take place.

Conflict has negative impact on the job performance of staff. This is because

where there is lack of peace and harmony, nothing will be achieved.

It also brings disunity in the offices, it may even cause staff in the offices to split

into factions when there is conflict.

Conflict has educational implication because the goal of an institution is to

impart knowledge and when there is conflict, this goal will not be achieved.

Conflict brings bitterness and quarrel among staff and it also brings hatred and

in-fighting between staff.

Strategies for Managing Conflicts in Federal Universities

The findings from the Focus Group Discussion with regard to the strategies for

managing conflicts between academic and non-academic staff of federal universities

can be summarized as follows:

Dialogue is one of the effective strategies for managing conflict in an institution,

because dialogue is a discussion between two or more people which aims at

settling problems among them. Dialogue enables both parties to come together,

sit down and discuss the issue.

Mediation is also important in settling conflict. It involves a neutral body

coming in to investigate the matter. Without mediation, it will be difficult to

manage conflict because even dialogue needs a mediator.

Negotiation can also be used to manage conflict because through negotiation, the

issue will be resolved, by striking a balance between the conflicting parties.

Effective communication is another conflict management strategy. This is

because without effective communication, people cannot make their grievances

known to one another and there won’t be effective interaction.

Where there are no clarified goals or objectives, conflict is bound to occur.

Therefore, clarification of goals and objectives helps in reducing conflict.

Confrontation is still part of communication. Confrontation is part of the

strategies one will use to bring the problem to limelight. Therefore, it is a very

important conflict management strategy because it is the first step one takes to

notify people of the problem and to know how to solve it.

The FGD participants also proffered the following as ways of managing conflict

in the federal universities in South East Nigeria:

The academic and non-academic staff of universities seeing themselves as

partners in progress who are working to achieve the same goals.

Transfer of workers from one department to another in the case of non-academic

staff.

Arbitration (setting up a committee or panel to look into the problem).

Being fair to both conflicting parties

Equal jurisdiction (both parties in conflict being represented equally).

Maintenance of cordial relationship between the academic and non-academic

staff

Compromise is also a good strategy for managing conflict between academic and

non-academic staff of federal universities.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS,

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY

This chapter deals with the discussion of the findings of this study, the

implications of the research findings, recommendations, limitations of the study,

suggestions for further research and summary.

Discussion of Findings:

Nature of Conflicts between Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Federal Universities in South East Nigeria.

With reference to the nature of conflict between academic and non-academic

staff in federal universities, the research findings showed that the respondents

agreed that: interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts, interdependence conflicts

between staff, breakdown in communication, subordinate conflicts, goal

incompatibility, breakdown of collective bargaining, writing of petitions and conflicts

resulting from promotion of self interest are some of the conflicts between the


The above findings are in agreement with Owens-Ibe (2000) that inter-

personal conflict occurs when two people have incompatible needs, goals or

approaches in their relationship. The findings are also consistent with the view of Obi

(2004) that when an individual loses his/her intra-personal processes, there is a sure

danger of conflict interaction.

It is noteworthy that the findings of this study as they relate to the nature of

conflict between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities have

actually shown that Walton and Dutton (2005) were right when they pointed out

that conflict occurs as a result of the inability of people to communicate effectively.

The authors further reported that people sometimes communicate with one another

in a way that angers or annoys them even when it is not their intention to do so. This

often stems from lack of necessary communication skill and clarity. The responses

from the Focus Group Discussion participants also buttressed the findings from

survey study concerning the nature of conflict between academic and non-academic

staff in federal universities.

The t-test analysis of hypothesis one revealed that there was a significant


with regards to the nature of conflicts in federal universities. Thus, hypothesis one

was rejected. This findings is not surprising, given the fact that the mean ratings of

the respondents provided on table 1 show that the two categories of respondents

differed significantly in their opinions relating to the nature of conflicts between

academic and non-academic staff of federal universities. This significant difference in

their opinions can be explained by the fact that the academic and non-academic staff

perform different functions and also have different personality dimensions in the

university system which probably influenced their perceptions of the nature of

conflicts between them.

Sources of Conflict between Academic and Non-Academic Staff of Federal Universities in South East Nigeria.

With reference to the sources of conflicts between academic and non-

academic staff in federal universities, the research findings showed that the

respondents agreed that: breach of communication, poor human relationship,

unclearly defined goals and objectives, unequal attention to staff welfare, differences

in staff perceptions of their duties, personality differences, inadequate

representation of the groups in decision making, competition for scarce resources

and their allocations and unhealthy competition over positions, among others, are

the sources of conflicts between academic and non-academic staff in federal

universities in South East, Nigeria.

The above findings are in agreement with the view of Folarin (2000) who

observed, among others, that over loading of information as well as absence of

enough meaningful information may lead to conflict. This means that a person’s

inability to communicate what he/she really means results in confusion, hurt and

anger, all of which feed conflict process. This could further be substantiated by the

view of Fisher (2000) who observed that ambiguity in line of communication can

cause conflict. The above findings are also consistent with the view of Olagunju

(1999) that inadequate representation of different groups in decision making and

role dissatisfaction can promote conflict. This is equally in consonance with Mgbodile

(2004) that role dissatisfaction and conflict normally occur when certain groups or

organizational members feel that they are not accorded enough recognition.

The research findings also show among others, that conflict exists between

academic and non-academic staff as a result of unhealthy competition over positions

and competition for scarce resources and their allocations. These findings agree with

Rahim (2000) who observed that that mutual dependence on limited resources is

one of the sources of conflict in educational institutions. It is evident that most

universities have inadequate supply of the factor resources needed for their smooth

running. This ugly situation leads to unhealthy competition over the scarce resources

of the university by the various units and sectors in the university system. This in turn

leads to conflict between members of the constituting units of the university and in

this case, the academic and non-academic staff of the university. The Focus Group

Discussion participants were also in support of the above findings as the sources of

conflicts between academic and non-academic staff of federal universities.

The t-test analysis of hypothesis 2 indicated that there was a significant

difference between the mean ratings of academic and non academic staff with

regards to the sources of conflicts in federal universities. Thus, hypothesis 2 was

rejected. This means that the academic and non-academic staff of federal

universities differed significantly in their opinions concerning the sources of conflict

in federal universities. The significant difference in the opinions of these two groups

of respondents can be attributed to the fact that they are not vested with the same

responsibilities in their universities. Therefore, they are bound to have different

ideas and experience of all that transpires in the university including conflict and

conflict management strategies, hence, the significant difference in their opinions.

Consequences of Conflicts on Academic and Non-Academic Staff of Federal Universities in South East Nigeria.

With regard to the consequences of conflicts on academic and non-academic

staff of federal universities, the respondents agreed that: conflict increases disunity,

damages university reputation, increases bitterness, helps staff to voice out their

dissatisfactions, disrupts normal channels of cooperation, brings about violence,

reduces staff motivation, decreases staff productivity, destroys healthy relationship,

and increases communication gap between the conflicting parties.

The above findings are in line with the views of George and Jones (1996) that

conflict brings about a decline in staff performance and also increases disunity

between groups. The findings are also in agreement with the view of Shaw (1995)

that conflict can increase the level of bitterness and hatred among persons or groups

in the university system and that it can also disrupt channels of wholesome

cooperation and competition.

These consequences of conflict constitute very serious problems between

academic and non-academic staff. The reason being that when the mind is not

stable, the individual suffers. The FGD excerpts also provide support for the survey

findings on the consequences of conflict on academic and non-academic staff of


The t-test analysis of hypotheses 3 indicated that there was a significant

difference between the mean rating of academic and non-academic staff with

regards to the consequences of conflicts in federal universities. Thus, hypothesis 3

was rejected. This means that the academic and non-academic staff of federal

universities differed significantly in their opinions with regards to the consequences

of conflicts in federal universities.

The Extent to which Mediation is Effective for Managing Conflicts between Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Federal Universities in South East Nigeria

The findings of the study show that it were the opinions of the respondents

that mediation is to a high extent an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities. The respondents

to a very high extent agreed that better understanding of what causes conflict

between academic and non-academic staff, focusing on the management strategy

that will best address the problem between both parties in conflict, avoiding an

intermediary taking side between parties in conflicts, allowing parties in conflicts to

find solution on their own and resolve the conflicts by ensuring that both parties

accept fair terms of settlement, are effective ways of managing conflicts.

The findings of the study are in agreement with the view of Obi (2004) that

mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which a neutral third party

facilitator helps people to discuss difficult issues and negotiate agreement. Obi

further stated that basic steps in the mediation process include gathering of

information, developing options, negotiating and formalizing agreements. It can be

concluded that parties in mediation create their own solution and the mediator does

not have any decision making power over the outcome. The FGD excerpts provide

support for the survey findings on the use of this strategy to address conflict in


The t-test analysis of hypothesis 4 revealed that there was a significant


with regards to the extent to which mediation is effective for managing conflicts

between the academic and non-academic staff in federal universities. The FGD

participants were in agreement with the findings from the survey respondents on the

extent to which mediation is effective for managing conflicts between the academic

and non-academic staff in federal universities.

The Extent to which Negotiation is Effective for Managing Conflict Between Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Federal Universities in South East Nigeria.


that negotiation is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities. The respondents,

to a very high extent, agreed that taking time to study what caused the disagreement

between academic and non-academic staff, promoting an atmosphere of

understanding between both parties, allowing the conflicting parties to air their

views, discouraging resentment and grudges between the groups and making the

conflicting parties to avoid derogatory comments to each other are effective in

managing conflict between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities

in South East Nigeria.

The findings of the study are in line with Obi (2004) and Nye (2004) that

negotiation is a discussion between two or more people with the aim of reaching an

agreement. The authors observed that negotiation also allows both parties involved

in conflict to air their views on their differences and reach an agreement. This, they

observed, will result in a successful resolution of the conflict. The overall perception

given by the respondents to research question 5 is that negotiation is effective for

managing conflicts in federal universities. The corresponding hypothesis was rejected

as the calculated t-value was greater than the critical t-value. This means that the

two groups of respondents differed significantly on their opinions concerning the

extent to which negotiation is effective for addressing conflicts between academic

and non-academic staff in federal universities. The excerpts from FGD participants

were also in support of the survey findings on negotiation as an effective strategy to

address conflicts between academic and non-academic staff of federal universities.

The Extent to which Dialogue is Effective for Managing Conflicts between Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Federal Universities in South East, Nigeria


that dialogue is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities in South East

Nigeria. The respondents, to a very high extent, agreed that allowing the conflicting

parties come to terms, making the conflicting parties willing to change by hearing

from each other, making the parties willing to resolve their problems, making parties

in conflict willing to share feeling and fears, making the conflicting parties willing to

welcome new ideas as a way forward and making parties in conflict willing to

promote peace by identifying where they are wrong, are means of managing conflict


Nigeria.

The findings of this study are in agreement with the view of Ogunu (1993) that

management strategies that should be applied in managing conflict between

teachers and principals include: separation devices, using dialogue to resolve their

differences, using arbitrator/peace panel to settle disputes, use of silence to disarm

combatants, among others. The findings of the study are also in line with Ezegbe

(1997) and Oboegbulem and Onwurah (2011) who opined that dialogue as a

strategy is a process in which parties in conflicts engage in deep and meaningful

discussion with their opponents for the purpose of developing a better

understanding of the people on the other side. The authors further noted that

dialogue is also a discussion (face to face) where the conflicting parties share their

feelings and fears, are open in listening to the other parties’ needs, understanding of

the conflict and issues on all sides, and are willing to be changed than being

vulnerable.

The overall perception given by the respondents to research question 6 is that

dialogue is considered an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic

and non-academic staff in federal universities. The null hypothesis was rejected as

the calculated t-value was greater than the critical t-value. This means that the two

groups of respondents differed significantly in their opinions concerning the extent

to which dialogue is an effective strategy for managing conflicts between academic

and non-academic staff in federal universities. The FGD excerpts provide support for

the survey findings on dialogue as a strategy that will help to combat conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities.

The Extent to which Effective Communication is Effective for Managing Conflict between Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Federal Universities in South East Nigeria


that effective communication is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for managing

conflicts between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities because

effective communication opens up channels for negotiation between groups in

conflicts, effective communication opens up channels for mediation between

conflicting parties, it opens up channels for dialogue between the academic and

non-academic staff, ensures promptness in delivering vital information and sensitive

information tactically and carefully between groups, encourages parties to express

positive attitudes towards one another, among others. All these are very effective

means of resolving conflict in federal universities.

The findings of the study support the views of Pace (2003) and Obi (2004)

that effective communication is a very effective strategy for managing conflicts. The

authors noted that it is a process where all the necessary information needed by

groups are communicated to them in due time for precision and clarity to avoid

conflicts.

The overall perception given by the respondents to research question 7 is that

effective communication is an effective management strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities. The null

hypothesis was rejected as the calculated t-value was greater than the critical t-

value. This means that the opinions of the two groups of respondents on the extent

to which effective communication is effective for managing conflicts between

academic and non-academic staff in federal universities differed significantly. The

FGD participants confirmed the survey findings on the effectiveness of

communication in managing conflict between academic and non-academic staff in


The Extent to which Clarification of Goals and Objectives is Effective for Managing Conflicts between Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Federal Universities in South East Nigeria


that, to a high extent, clarification of goals and objectives is an effective strategy for

managing conflicts between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities.

This is because it helps to minimize ambiguous goals setting that may result in

escalation of conflicts, makes parties set goals that are compatible with those of their

opponent to minimize conflicts, helps in setting goals that are clearly understood by

conflicting parties, help parties in sketching out their goals and objectives to

minimize cost and problems associated with conflicts.

The findings are in line with Alabi (2000) and Oboegbulem and Onwurah

(2011) who stated that the clarification and continual refinement of goals and

objectives, role definitions and performance standards will help to avoid

misunderstanding and conflicts. Alabi (2000) further observed that focusing

attention on super-ordinate goals that are shared by parties in conflicts may also

help to defuse hostility and lead to more cooperative behaviour. The author also

stated that clarification of goals and objectives gives one party a definite destination

from the other party.

The overall perception given by the respondents to research question 8 is

that, to a high extent, clarification of goals and objectives is effective for managing

conflicts between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities. The null

hypothesis was rejected as the calculated t-value was greater than the critical t-

value. This shows that the two categories of respondents differed significantly in

their opinions concerning the extent to which clarification of goals and objectives is

effective for managing conflicts in federal universities. The FGD participants

confirmed the survey findings as one of the strategies that are effective for managing

conflict between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities in South

East Nigeria.

The Extent to which Confrontation is Effective for Managing Conflicts between Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Federal Universities in South East Nigeria


that confrontation is, to a high extent, an effective strategy for managing conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities. This finding shows

that when confrontation is diplomatic, clearer picture of the problem is achieved and

so reduces conflicts; confrontation makes it possible to state feelings and thoughts

openly without trying to hide or disguise the real object of disagreement;

confrontation evaluates all ideas and positions logically without regard to rights; it

focuses on preventing future problems rather than placing blames; and brings out

the facts of the dispute which leads to agreement.

The findings are in agreement with the findings of Adeyemi and Ademilua

(2012) which reported that the procedures for resolving conflict in Nigeria

Universities are: grievance procedure, negotiation, collective bargaining and

confrontation. This is further substantiated by Onoyase (1998) who stated that

confrontation strategy is direct expression of one’s view (thoughts and feelings) on

the conflict situation and an invitation for the other party to express his or her views

on the conflict. This means that confrontation is where the problem is subjected to

debate between those in conflicts in order to expose the problem and convince the

disputants on its emptiness. Therefore, in confrontation, one is indirectly trying to

say, let’s exchange ideas pleasantly and comfortably. Confrontation can, therefore,

be seen as a matter of achieving understanding for behaviour change rather than a

contest for superiority.

The overall perception given by the respondents to research question 9 is

that confrontation is an effective strategy for managing conflict between academic

and non- academic staff in federal universities. The null hypothesis is rejected as the

calculated t-value was greater than the critical t-value. This means that the two

categories of respondents for this study differed significantly in their opinions

regarding the extent to which confrontation is effective for managing conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities. FGD participants

also acknowledged that confrontation is effective for managing conflicts in federal

universities. The FGD excerpts support the findings of the study.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The nature of conflicts between academic and non-academic staff in federal

universities in South East Nigeria include: interpersonal conflicts, intrapersonal

conflicts, conflicts resulting from the promotion of self interest, and

interdependence conflict, among others.

2. The sources of conflict between academic and non-academic staff in federal

universities in South East Nigeria include: breach of communication, poor human

relationship, unequal attention, personality differences, and inadequate

representation of staff in meetings, among others.

3. The consequences of conflicts between academic and non-academic staff in

federal universities in South East Nigeria include: increase in disunity, damaging

of university reputation, increase in bitterness, and disruption of normal

channels of cooperation, among others.

4. Mediation, negotiation, dialogue, effective communication, clarification of goals

and objectives and confrontation are, to a high extent, effective strategies for


universities in South East Nigeria.

5. There is a significant difference between the mean ratings of academic and non-

academic staff with regard to the nature of conflicts, sources of conflicts and

consequences of conflicts in federal universities.

6. The mean ratings of academic and non-academic staff show significant

difference on the extent to which mediation, negotiation, dialogue, effective

communication, clarification of goals and objectives, and confrontation are

effective strategies for managing conflicts between academic and non-academic

staff in federal universities.

Educational Implications of the Findings

From the findings of this study one can deduce some important educational

implications for academic and non-academic staff, policy makers, university

management and students.

The study provides empirical information on the sources and consequences of

conflict on academic and non-academic staff which implies that conflict in the

universities if not addressed will bring disunity and stress, thereby causing decrease

in the productivity among both staff as well as hinder cordial relationship among

them.

The findings of this study also imply that conflict if not addressed could lead to

the disruption of normal channels of communication, breakdown of law and order,

increase in bitterness and stress disorder which can disorganize the parties in conflict

and also affect their daily activities.

Moreover, the findings of the study have positive implications in the sense

that the knowledge gained from the findings will assist the policy makers to

formulate policy that will be used in resolving and preventing conflicts in the

universities. This will help to expose the negative impact of conflict and thus

promote peace and understanding in the university system.

Further more, the findings of the study show that unequal attention to staff

welfare, breach of communication, personality differences, among others, are some

of the sources of conflicts in the universities. This implies that the university

management has to know the appropriate strategies to apply when conflicts of any

type arises as this will help to achieve academic excellence, peaceful atmosphere and

order in the university. The university management also has to find a way of taking

disciplinary action against any staff or group found guilty of disorganizing the system

or causing conflict in the university.

In addition, the findings of this study have exposed some conflict

management strategies that can be adopted in universities. The implication of this is

that if the conflict management strategies are not applied, the students will have less

peaceful academic environment conducive for effective learning.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made:

1. University conflict management committee should adopt the identified

conflict management strategies to help tackle conflicts between academic and

non-academic staff in universities to promote peaceful co-existence and

teamwork among them for effective and efficient achievement of the

university goals.

2. University management should organize conferences, workshops and seminars to

create awareness on the negative effects of conflicts in the universities on its

staff and students. This will encourage peaceful co-existence and team spirit for

the smooth running of the university.

3. University management should provide communication and participation

framework in which both academic and non-academic staff will have

opportunities and freedom to express their views, opinions and participate in any

kind of administrative decision making.

4. The government should provide modern and adequate physical facilities,

equipment and other resources required for the smooth running of universities

so as to avoid conflicts emanating from their inadequacies.

Limitations of the Study

A study of this nature would not have been accomplished without some

limitations. Some of the limitations encountered in this study include:

1. Some of the respondents were not interested in the study and as such, they

filled the questionnaire haphazardly. This implies that their responses may not

be the true position of things in the federal universities in South East, Nigeria.

2. During the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) sessions, several appointments

booked failed as a result of the participants’ inability to meet up with the dates

scheduled. Even during the eventual sessions, the participants were not open in

discussing the topics raised.

3. The study was geographically de-limited to only the federal universities in South

East Nigeria and this may affect the generalizability of its findings to other

states and private universities in other zones of the country.

Suggestions for Further Research

In the light of the findings of the present study, the following areas were

suggested for further research.

1. The present study was restricted to federal universities in South East Nigeria.

Further studies can improve on this by using both federal and state

universities.

2. Further research could be conducted in private universities to ascertain the

prevalence of conflict there, its impact on the academic and non-academic

staff, and the management strategies.

3. Gender perception of conflict and its management strategies among academic

and non-academic staff of universities in South East, Nigeria.

4. Influence of gender on conflict and management strategies in federal and

state universities in South East, Nigeria.

5. Effects of conflict on the job performance of staff in universities in South East,

Nigeria.

Summary of the Study

The general purpose of the study was to investigate conflict and conflict

management strategies between academic and non-academic staff of federal

universities in South East Nigeria. The study was guided by nine research questions

and nine corresponding null hypotheses. The population of the study consisted of all

the 16, 387 academic and junior and senior non-academic staff of the five federal

universities in South East Nigeria. The study sample consisted of 1,025 respondents

which were selected through a multi-stage sampling technique. The research

instruments used to collect data for the study were a 67-item structured

questionnaire and Focus Group Discussion Guide that were developed by the

researcher and tested for validity and reliability.

The researcher and five research assistants administered the questionnaire

instrument to the respondents whereas the Focus Group Discussion was carried out

by the researcher and two research assistants. Mean and standard deviation were

used to answer the research questions while the null hypotheses were tested with t-

test statistic at 0.05 level of significance. Conversely, qualitative analytical parameter

known as content analysis was used to analyze the Focus Group Discussion and its

results were used to authenticate the data from the questionnaire instrument. The

findings of the study were:

The nature of conflicts between academic and non-academic staff in federal

universities are inter-personal conflicts, intra-personal conflicts, and conflicts

resulting from the promotion of self interest, among others. The sources of conflicts

between academic and non-academic staff in federal universities are breach of

communication, poor human relationship, unequal attention, and personality

differences, among others. The consequences of conflicts between academic and

non-academic staff in federal universities are increase in disunity, damaging of

university reputation, increase in bitterness, and disruption of normal channels of co-

operation, among others. Other findings of the study were: mediation, negotiation,

dialogue, effective communication, clarification of goals and objectives, and

confrontation were, to a high extent, effective strategies for managing conflicts


Nigeria.

The null hypotheses tested indicated that there was a significant difference

between the mean ratings of academic and non-academic staff with regards to the

nature of conflicts, sources of conflicts and consequences of conflicts in federal

universities. There was also a significant difference between the mean ratings of

academic and non-academic staff on the extent to which mediation, negotiation,

dialogue, effective communication, clarification of goals and objectives, and

confrontation are effective strategies for managing conflicts in federal universities in

South East Nigeria.

On the basis of the research findings, some recommendations were made,

among which are: University management should adopt some conflict management

strategies that will tackle conflict between academic and non-academic staff in

universities so as to allow them work together in peace and harmony for the

effective and efficient achievement of the university goals, the government should

provide adequate physical facilities, equipment and other resources required for the

smooth running of universities so as to avoid conflicts emanating from their

inadequacies, and that the university management should set up conflict

management committee that will help to prevent and resolve any form of conflict in

the university and also promote peaceful co-existence and team work among

university staff in order to achieve the university goals and objectives effectively and

efficiently.

REFERENCES

Abiodun (2002). Organizational conflict and staff efficiency in Owo Local Government of Ondo State. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Adegbesan, A. A. (2012). Causes of conflicts in universities in Nigeria. Available on-line at: http://www.wordpress.com. Retrieved on 23rd November, 2013.

Adegun, O. A. (2002). Communication as a correlate of administrative effectiveness in secondary schools in South-West Nigerian. Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Faculty of Education, University of Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria.

Adejuwon, K. D. & Okewale, R.A. (2009). Ethnic militancy, insurrections and democracy in Africa: The case of Nigeria. Journal of Social and Policy Issues 6(4).

Adelue, G.W. & Komolafe, C.T. (2000). A frame work for the study of relationships between organizational characteristics and organization innovation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 4(20), 43-45.

Adelue, G.W. & Komolafe, C.T. (2000). Crisis management in educational system. (Unpublished Manuscript).

Adenokun, A.A. (Ed.). (2005). Aspects in educational administration for colleges and universities: Ogun: Samroll ventures and printing.

Adeoji, S.N. (2002). Strategies for conflict resolution in Nigeria Universities: 1999 and 2000 University of Ilorin Crises. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Ilorin, Ilorin.

http://www.wordpress.com/

Adesina, S. (1990). Some aspects of school management in Nigeria (2nd ed.). Ibadan: Educational Industries Limited.

Adeyemi, T. O. & Ademilua, S. O. (2012). Conflict management strategies and administrative effectiveness in Nigerian universities. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(3), 368-375.

Adimora, E.N. (1999), Conflict management in organizations. Public Service Management Journal. 3(1), 20-28.

Ajayi, A.O. & Agalele, (2004). Management theories, techniques and practice: Basic concepts in economics, planning and administration of education. Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press.

Ajayi, K.K. (1996). Approaches to the management of school conflict. In J.E. Adeboye (Ed.), Essentials of educational management. Lagos: Longman.

Akinlaiya, O. (2001). Educational administration. Onitsha: Lincel Books.

Akinwonmi, O. O. (2005). Conflict and conflict resolution in schools: Implications for educational administration, In A. A. Adenokun, (Ed.). Aspects in education administration for colleges and universities. Ogun: Sam Role Ventures.

Alabi, A. T. (2000). Management information system and decision-making in Nigerian universities. An unpublished doctoral thesis, university of llorin, llorin.

Ali, A. (2006). Conducting research in education and the social sciences. Enugu: Tashiwa Network Publishers.

Aluko, E. B. (2008). Analysis of the nature of conflicts in secondary schools in Plateau State. Plateau Journal of Education Studies. 2 (1), 38-49.

Amoh, G. & Bacal, R. (2007). Managing organizational behaviour: Lagos: Melthouse Press Limited.

Amoh, G. (2007). What is conflict resolution? Retrieved February 14, 2007 from http://www.grde.org/upgov/what-is-conflict-resolution?html

Armstrong, M. (2005). A Handbook of human resource management practice. London and Sterling: Kogan page.

Arnold, J.D. (1998). When the sparks fly. New York: McGraw Hill Inc.

Bacal, R. (2006). Conflict and cooperation in the work place. Retrieved, March 13, 2013 from http://www.work911.com/articles/orgconflict.

Bacel, R. (2006). Organizational conflicts-The good, the bad and the ugly Retrieved, February 14, 2007 from http://www.work911.com/articles/org conflict.htm

Bankole, F. T. (2010). Nature of conflicts between academic and non-academic staff of tertiary institutions in Bornu State. Educational Research and Review. 4 (4), 89-98.

Best, S. G. (2006). Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books.

http://www.grde.org/upgov/what-is-conflict-resolution?html

http://www.work911.com/articles/orgconflict

Blake, C. & Mouton, H.A. (1994). Conflict in schools: Issues and consequences. London: George Allen and Urnwin.

Blatstain, I. M. (2012). Strategic planning: predicting or shaping the future/ Organization. Developmental Journal, 30(2), 32.

Block, R. & Mouton, J. (1994). The Managerial Grid Huston TX. Publishing Curmeroun and Whethes (1985), being a paper presented at the orientation workshop for member of the new Government councils for Nigeria federal universities “Crises management in Nigeria universities” university system.

Bloisi, W. (2007). An introduction to human resource management. London: McGraw Hill Publishing Co.

Bloomfield, A.T & Reilly, W. (1998). Managing industrial conflict. Liverpool: Atlanta Press, Inc.

Brech, J. (1995). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: NY: Per & Row.

Cassey, M. & Cassey, P. (1997). Self esteem training as aid to acquiring conflict management skills. Australian Journal of Adult and Community Education 37(3), 160-166.

Cole, G.A. (1995). Management: Theory and practice. London: DP Publications.

Daniel, H. (2011). The impact of organizational and innovator variables on instructional innovation in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education. 53(4), 567-588.

Darling, J. R. & Brownlee, L. (Jr.) (1998). Conflict management in the academic institution. Journal of Education. 11(3), 243-257.

David, F. K. (2009), Strategy management: Concepts and cases (12th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Denga, D.I. (1990), Managerial psychology in business and educational administration. Calabar: Rapid Educational Publishers.

Dreu, C. D. & Vliert, E. V (2002). (Eds.). Using conflict in organizations. London: Sage Publications.

Drucker, P. (2002). The practice of management (5th ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers.

Echeruo, S. M. (2007). Sources of conflicts in universities in Abia State. Nigerian Journal of Educational Assessment. 1 (2), 63-78.

Edem (2002). Personnel conflicts and administrative behaviour of secondary school principals in Calabar Education Zone. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Eischardt, Kahwaju & Bourgeors 111 (1997). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Sciences 71(1), 51-53.

Ejiogu, A. (1994). Issues in the management of public service institution Lagos: Bookmark

Ejiogu, A.M. (1998). Educational management: A system Approach. Lagos: Lanterm Books.

Enyi, D. (2001). Students’ perception of sources and the management strategies for resolving student related conflict in universities: A study of University of Nigeria, Nsukka . In A. U. Akubue, & D. Enyi (Eds.), Crises and challenges in Higher Education in Developing Countries. Ibadan: Wisdom Publishers.

Evans, G. & Newham, J. (1992). The dictionary of world politics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Ezegbe, C. (1997). Management of conflict in Nigeria educational system. In A.N. Ndu, L. O. Ocho & B.S. Okeke (Eds.) Dynamics of Educational Administration and Management: The Nigerian Perspective. Awka: Meks Publishers.

Ezeocha, D.A. (2000). Educational Administration and planning. Nsukka: Optimal Computer solution

Fadipe, J. O. & Ojedele, P. K. (Ed). (2000). Management of education in Nigeria. Ibadan: Daily Graphics Nig.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National Policy on Education. Lagos: NERDC press.

Fisher, R..J. (2000). Sources of conflict and methods of conflicts resolution. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://www.aupeace.org/files/fisher-sources of conflict and methods of resolution.pdf.

Folarin, F. C. (2000). Imperatives of effective communication in school organization and management.African Journal of Educational Development. 2 (3), 81-92.

Galadima, S. (2002). “Basics of conflict reporting” In P. Umuaru (Ed.), Introduction to conflict reporting in Nigeria. Lagos: Frankad publishers.

Geoffrey, C. (1997). Conflicts within the university community. Studies in Higher Education 2 (1), 3-8.

George, J. M. & Jones, G.R. (1996), Understanding and managing organizational behaviour. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Greenhaigh, J. (1999). Self –efficacy: Implication for organizational behavior and human resource management, Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 473-486).

Gronkjare, M., Curtis, T., de Crespigny, C. & Delrnar, C. (2011). Analysing group interactions in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of moderator. Qualitative Studies, 2(1),16-30.

Harks, C.T. (2001). Dimensions of conflict in organizations. London: Bath Press Ltd.

Harvey, B. (2013). Sources of conflicts between academic and non-academic staff of colleges in Greater Manchester. Available on-line at:

www.res.org/education/quality.htm. Retrieved on 13th October, 2014.

Heimann, K. (2000). Management in modern organizations New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.

http://www.res.org/education/quality.htm

Hellriegal, T. Slocum, J. & Richard, W. (1999). Perceived organizational support for innovation in the high technology sector. International Review of Modern Sociology. 18(5), 58-60.

Hertzell, B.T. (2011). Principles of management. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hills, P., & Jones, M. (1999). Organizational support for innovation: Perceptions and perspectives. Journal of Applied Social Sciences 17, 222-225.

Holton, S.A. (1998). Academic Mortar to mend the cracks: The Holton Model for Conflict Management In the Ivory Tower: Strategies for conflict management in Higher Education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Inc.

Horowitz, A.I. & Borden, K. S. (1995). Social psychology. Toronto: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Idowu, A. (1995). Managing conflicts in university: A group dynamics approach. Ilorin Journal of Education. 5, 36-46.

Ikejiani-Clark, M. (2009). Re-evaluation of peace, social and political instability. In O.A. Butward & B. E. Onyekwelu (Eds.), Igbo women in politics: Issues of national development, empowerment and initiatives in Africa. CWDEI/ UNMC. 1(1).

Ilusanya, A.P. (2005). Causes of conflicts in Nigerian universities. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Imhabekhai, C. I. & Oyitso, F.S. (2001). ‘Conflict dimension in higher education personnel management’. A Paper presented at the Conference of National Association of Education Administration And Planning, Oct-29-Nov I

Imhabekhai, C.I. (2000). “Management of Industrial conflicts in educational institutions for enhanced personal productivity”. International Journal of Education Planning and Administration, (IJEPA) 1(1), 82-92.

Imobighe, T. A. (1997). ‘Conflict management in Nigeria’. In I. B. Bello-Imam (Ed.), Government in Nigeria: Economy, politics and society in the Adjustment years, 1985-1995. Ibadan: Stirling Hardal Ed.

Itedjire, P. O. (1998). Current issues in Nigerian education system. Benin City: Osasu.

Johnson, G, & Scholes, K. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy 8th Ed. London: F.T. Prentice Hall.

Kareen, J. (2000). Basic needs, conflicts and dynamics in groups. Journal of Individual Psychology 56(4), 419-434.

Kinard, J.K. (1998). Perspectives in management. Brighton: University of Brighton Press.

Laurie, E.O. (2002). Educational planning in contemporary Nigeria. Enugu: Computer edge Publishers.

Leung, A.B. & Tjosvold, M.D. (1998). Conflict management behaviour. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Louis, J.M. & Coser, S. (1996). Organizational conflict. Minneapolis : West Publishing Co.

McNulty, C. (2010). Consequences of conflicts in colleges in Texas. Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Available on-line at:

www.chea.org/international/education.html. Retrieved on 6th November, 2013.

Melford, T, F. (2011). An investigation into the dimensions of conflict between academic and non-academic staff of universities: A case study of Niger Delta university, Amasoma. Journal of Faculty of Education, Niger Delta University, Amasoma, Bayelsa State. 2 (2), 30-45.

Mgbodile, T. O. (1986). Educational administration and management, Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books.

Mgbodile, T.O. (Ed.) (2004). Fundamentals in educational administration and planning. Enugu: Management Business Enterprises.

Mhehe, R.J. (2007). Conflict management strategies of secondary school principals in Rivers State. The Nigerian Principal-Journal of ANCOPSS. 5(2), 62-71.

Miall, P.R. (2001). Industrial psychology: Elements and processes. Texas: Gulf Publishing Company:

Miner, J. B. (1993). The management process theory, research and practice. New York: Macmillan.

Moorhead, G & Griffin, R. W. (1995), Organizational behavior 4th Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Morreale, M. Spitzberg, C. & Barge, T.N. (2001). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20(4), 708-724.

Mullions, L. J. (1999). Management and organizational behaviour (5th Edition). London: Pearson Education Ltd.

Neal, J.D. (2003). Conflict: why it’s necessary. http:// scarecroworkshop.conflictmanagement.html. Accessed 7th August, 2006.

Njoku, B.C. (2000). The role of teachers in the resolution of conflict in secondary schools. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis), University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Njoku, C. U. & Nwosu, A. N. (2010). Principles of management: A fundamental Approach. Owerri: Ambix Printers. Nig.

Njoku, D.A. (2004). Educationists and politics in higher educational institutions: The Nigerian experience. In Ogum, G.E.O., Anene, N. r & Muogillim, S.J (Eds.), Education for the Reconstruction of Nigerian Society. Awka: Mekslink Publishers Ltd.pp.118-121.

Nwachukwu, S.N. (1998). A handbook of school management in Nigeria. Owerri: Apex Publishers Ltd.

Nwaji, S. (2003). The Administration of higher education in Nigeria. Abeokuta: Gbemi book.

Nwana, O. C. (1981). Introduction to educational research. Ibadan: Heinemann Plc.

Nye, R. (2001). Conflict among humans. New York: Springer’s Publishing Company Inc.

Obi, E. (2003). Educational management: Theory and practice. Enugu: Jamoe Enterprises (Nig).

Obi, E. (2004). Issues in educational administration. Enugu: Empathy International.

Oboegbulam, A. & Onwurah, C. (2011). Organization and management of education: A Nigerian perspective. Nsukka: Great A. P. Express Publishers’ Ltd.

Ogunu, M. (2000). Essential of personnel management. Ijebu-ode: Pius Debo Press.

Ogunu, U. C. (1993). Conflict in secondary school administration as perceived by teachers and students in Enugu State (Unpublished master’s thesis), Department of Educational Foundations, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Okeke, B.S. (2007). Administrative policy making in education. In A. N. Ndu, L.O. Ocho and B.S. Okeke, (2nd ed), Dynamics of educational administration and management: The Nigeria perspective. Awka: Meks Publishers Limited.

Okolo, A. N. (2005). Effective conflict resolution in school organization as perceived by parents, teachers, and members of the Board of Governors. Review of Education-Institute of Education Journal 16 (2), 80-86.

Okolo. A. N. (1999). Sources of conflicting roles. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Department of Educational Foundations, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Olagungu, Y.A. & Obi, E. (2003). Educational planning in contemporary Nigeria. Enugu: Computer Edge Publishers.

Olagunju, Y. A. (1999). Role of managers in managing conflict. The Nigerian Accountant, 32(4), 61-67.

Olaleye, P. (2003). Conflict management strategies of university administrators in South-West Nigeria. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Onoyase, D. (1993). Interpersonal skill for effective personnel administration. Lagos: Uitaman Educational Books.

Onoyase, D. (1998). Conflict management in our educational institutions. In P. O. Itedjere. (Ed.) Current issues in Nigerian educational system. Benin City: Osasue Publishers.

Onwurah, C. U. (2004). Discipline and discipline control in schools. In T.O. Mgbodile (Ed.). Fundamentals in educational administration and planning. Enugu: Magnet Computer services.

Oputa, U.N. (2003). Sociology of education. Onitsha: Feb Publishers Ltd.

Osang, M. (2002). Personality, context and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 16(1), 78-83.

Osuji, O.E (2005). Conflict management strategies of secondary school principals and teachers in Owerri Education Zone. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Owens, M.B. (1995).“Conflict within a university. Information Adequacy, Encouragement for Expression of Divergent view point and perceptive of Hierarchy” (communication) UMI dissertation abstracts complied by Bill waters of campus medication resources 17th May 2012

Owens-Ibe, N. (2000). ‘Work place disputes: The Role of Organization Culture in Organizational Conflict Resolution’ Uni Dissertation Abstract.

Owens-Ibe, N. (2000). Conflict in organization. In E.S Soola (Ed.), Organizational communication: A Book of Readings. Ibadan: Delby Concepts.

Owens–Ibe, N. (2000). Introduction to educational management: Benin City: Mabogun Publishers.

Oyibo, E.E. (1995). Human resource management in the health industry. Benin City: Osasu.

Oyitso, F.J. (2004). An appraisal of the causes of and solution to students crisis in institutions of higher learning in Nigeria. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Department of Educational Management and Planning, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Pace, R. W. (2003). Organizational communication. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Peretomode, V. F. (1996). Educational administration: Applied concepts and theoretical perspectives. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd.

Pruitt, D. G & Ruben, J. C. (1998), Social conflict escalation: Stalemate and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Putnam, L. L. & Poole, M. S. (1997), conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts and L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication. California: Sage Publishers.

Rahim, M. A. (2002), Towards a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of conflict Management.13, 206-235.

Rahim, M.A. (1999), Managing conflict: An integrative approach. New York: Praeger.

Rothaermel, F.T. (2012). Strategic management: Concepts and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Sanda, O. A. (1992). Managing Nigerian universities. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.

Seaman, S. (1995). Social status and leadership. The case of school executive administrators. Columbus: Educational Research Monograph.

Shaw, M. E. (1995). Group dynamics- The psychology of small group behaviour (4th

ed. ). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Smerek, R. & Peterson, M. (2007). Examining Herzberg’s theory: Improving job satisfaction among non –academic employees at a university. Research in Higher Education, 48 (2), 229-250.

Sotubo, J. (2013, September 29). ASUU strike: lecturers are only fighting for their allowances, not better education - FG. Retrieved on 10th January, 2014 from www.ynaija.com.

Swanstrom, S.M. & Weisman, I.J. (2005). Managing people in organizations. London: Balk Pres Ltd.

http://www.ynaija.com/

Tossi, H.L, Rizzo, J.R. & Carrol S.J. (1990). Managing organizational behaviour. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Uan de Vuert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behaviour. London: Psychology Press.

Udoh, S.U. & Akpa, G.O. (2001). Educational administration in Nigeria: Theory and practice. Enugu: Ichejum Publications Nigeria.

UMUOTHO Development, (2000). Conflict management and negotiation skills training. South Africa : Umuotho Development.

Unoh, S.O. (1990). Argumentation and persuation as communication strategies for human conflict resolution. In S. Unoh (Ed.), Tropical issues in communication arts. 3. Uyo: Modern Business Press Ltd.

Vamey, W. (1992). Industrial conflict resolution. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.

Van de vlliert, E. (1995). Escalative intervention in small group conflicts” Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. No 21, PP. 19-36.

Wall, B. & Callister, C.P. (1995). Predicting innovation in team at work: A test of theory of group innovation. Unpublished manuscript. Memo No.1306. MRC/ES RC Social and Applied Psychology Unit, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Wallace, J. (1992), Control in conflict. Nashville: Broad Man Press.

Walton, R. E. and Dutton, P. (2005). The management of interdepartmental conflict: A model and review. In Houghton, V, Mc Hugh, R. and Morgan, C. (eds.), Management of organization and individuals. Wardlorck: Open University Press.

APPENDIX A

Table: Distribution of academic and non academic staff strength of federal

universities in South East Nigeria.

S/N Names of federal Universities in South East

Nigeria

Academic

Staff

Non -

Academic

Staff

Total

No of

Staff

1. University of Nigeria, Nsukka [UNN]. 972 4,476 5448

2. Nnamdi Azikwe University, Awka [UNIZIK]. 898 3,102 4000

3. Federal University of Technology, Owerri [FUTO]. 763 2,177 2940

4. Michael Okpala University of Agriculture, Umudike

[MOUAU].

737 2017 2754

5. Federal university Ndufu Alike Ikwo, Abakilika

[FUNAI].

328 917 1245

Total 3698 12689 16387

Source: (Personnel service unit of federal universities in South East Nigeria,

2012/2013 session).

APPENDIX B

Distribution of the Study Population

S/N Name of Sampled Federal Universities in South East Nigeria

Academic Staff

Non-Academic Staff

Total population

Sample

1. University of Nigeria, Nsukka. 972 4,476 5,448 422

2. Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. 898 3,102 4,000 338

3. Federal university of Technology,

Owerri.

763 2,177 2,940 265

Total 2,633 9,755 12,388 1,025

APPENDIX C

University of Nigeria, Nsukka

School of postgraduate studies

Faculty of Education

16th June, 2014.

Dear Respondents,

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES TO A QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a Ph.D student of the above named university currently carrying out

research on Conflict and Conflict Management Strategies between Academic and

Non -Academic staff of Federal Universities in South East Nigeria’.

The attached questionnaire is aimed at obtaining relevant information for the

study. You are kindly requested to assist in filling in the questionnaire. You are

assured that your responses will be treated very confidential and will be use for it

purpose only.

Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.

Yours faithfully,

Ihuarulam Maryjane

(Researcher)

QUESTIONNAIRE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF CONFLICT QUESTIONNAIRE (MSCQ)

SECTION A:

Personal data of respondent

Kindly fill in the answer appropriately and tick [ ] in the right place provided.

(1) Name of university ……………………………………

(2) Gender: male [ ] female [ ]

(3) Academic staff [ ]

(4) Non -Academic staff [ ]

SECTION B:

Instructions

Below are some items designed to help find information on Conflict and

Conflict Management Strategies between Academic and Non- Academic staff of

Federal Universities in South East, Nigeria

Please indicate your opinion by ticking [ ] the appropriate place.

SA - Strongly Agree [4 points] VHE -Very High Extent [4 points]

A - Agree [3 points] HE- High Extent [3 points]

D - Disagree [2 points] LE -Little Extent [2 points]

SD - Strongly Disagree [1 point] VLE -Very Little Extent [1 point]

S/N CLUSTER A

ITEMS

Nature of conflicts between academic and non-academic

staff in federal universities. The following are the nature of

conflicts between academic and non academic staff includes:

SA

A

D

SD

1. Interpersonal conflicts because of individual differences.

2. Intrapersonal conflicts emanating from human personality.

3. Conflicts resulting from the promotion of self interest

between the academic and non-academic staff.

4. Interdependence conflicts between staff; when staff are

faced with situations where their accomplishing a certain goal

will depend on the input from the other group.

5. Breakdown in communication between academic and non-

academic staff.

6. Writing of petitions against themselves.

7. Goal incompatibility as a result of goals interfering with each

other.

8. Subordinate conflict due to hierarchy of position between


9. Conflicts emanating from breakdown of collective bargaining

between academic and non-academic staff.

CLUSTER B

Sources of conflicts between academic and non academic

staff in federal universities. The following are the sources of

conflicts between the academic and non-academic staff

includes:

SA A D SD

10. Breach of communication between academic and non-

academic staff.

11. Poor human relationship between the academic and non-

academic staff.

12. Unclearly defined goals and objectives between academic and

non-academic staff.

13. Unequal attention to staff welfare by university management.

14. Differences in staff perceptions of their duties lead to

disagreement.

15. Personality differences due to poor acceptance of each others

approach to problem-solving between academic and non-

academic staff.

16. Inadequate representation of the groups in decision making.

17. Manipulation of students’ exam scores.

18. Competition for scarce resources and their allocations will

bring two groups into conflict.

19. Unclearly defined staff role leads to conflict

20. Poor management styles causes conflict between the two

groups.

21. Unhealthy competition over positions between academic and

non-academic staff.

CLUSTER C

Consequences of conflicts between academic and non

academic staff in federal universities. The following are the

consequences of conflicts between academic and non-

academic staff includes:

SA A D SD

22. Increases disunity between academic and non-academic

staff.

23. Conflicts between staff damages university reputation.

24. Increase in bitterness between academic and non-academic

staff.

25. It is innovative and provides groups with a sense of its own

identity.

26. Helps staff to voice out their dissatisfactions and complaints.

27. Disrupts normal channels of cooperation between conflicting

parties.

28. It increases violence that may lead to loss of life and

properties of the conflicting parties.

29. It reduces motivation between the conflicting groups.

30. It decreases productivity between academic and non-

academic staff.

31. Destruction of staff healthy relationships.

32. Breakdown of law and order between the conflicting parties.

33. Increases communication gap between the academic and

non-academic staff.

CLUSTER D

Extent to which mediation is effective for managing

conflicts in federal universities. The following is the extent

to which mediation is suitable for managing conflicts

includes:

VHE HE LE VLE

34. Better understanding of what caused the conflict between

academics and non academics staff.

35. Focusing on the management strategy that best address the

problem between both parties.

36. The intermediary do not take side between parties in

conflicts

37. Allowing parties in conflicts to find a reasonable solution on

their own.

38. Resolving conflicts by ensuring that both parties accept fair

terms of settlement.

CLUSTER E

Extent to which negotiation is effective for managing

conflicts in federal universities. The following is the extent

to which negotiation is suitable for managing conflicts

includes:

VHE HE LE VLE

39. Takes time to study what caused the disagreements

between academic and non academic staff.

40. Promotes an atmosphere of understanding between

academic and non academic staff.

41. Allows the conflicting parties to air their views.

42. Discourages resentment and grudges between the groups.

43. Makes the conflicting parties to avoid making derogatory

comments to each other.

CLUSTER F

Extent to which dialogue is effective for managing conflicts

in federal universities. The following is the extent to which

dialogue is suitable for managing conflicts includes:

VHE HE LE VLE

44. Allows the conflicting parties come to terms.

45. Makes the conflicting parties willing to change by hearing from each

other.

46. Makes the conflicting parties willing to resolve their problems.

47. Makes parties in conflict willing to share feelings and fears.

48. Makes the conflicting parties willing to welcome new ideas as a way

forward.

49. Makes parties in conflict willing to promote peace by identifying where

they are wrong.

CLUSTER G

Extent to which effective communication is effective for managing

conflicts in federal universities. The following is the extent to which

effective communication is suitable for managing conflicts includes:

VHE HE LE VLE

50. Opens up channels for negotiation between the academic and non-

academic staff.

51. Opens up channels for dialogue between the academic and non-

academic staff.

52. Opens up channels for mediation between the academic and non

academic staff.

53. It opens the secrets of the conflicting parties to the third party.

54. Allows for promptness in delivering vital information because delay can

give room for tensions to grow.

55. Ensures the delivery of sensitive information tactically and carefully

between groups.

56. Encourages academic and non academic staff to express positive

attitudes towards one another.

57. Makes possible the holding of social events from time to time where

groups can interact out side the workplace.

CLUSTER H

Extent to which clarification of goals and objectives is effective for

managing conflicts in federal universities. The following is the extent

to which clarification of goals and objectives is suitable for managing

conflicts includes:

VHE HE LE VLE

58. It helps to minimize ambiguous goals setting that may result to

escalation of conflicts.

59. Parties’ sketching out their goal and objective minimizes the cost and

harms associated with conflicts.

60. It makes parties set goals that are compatible with those of their

opponent minimize conflicts.

61. It helps in setting goals that are clearly understood by conflicting parties

that reduces conflicts.

62. Setting clear and reasonable goals gives parties a definite destination.

CLUSTER I

Extent to which confrontation is effective for managing conflicts in

federal universities. The following is the extent to which confrontation

is suitable for managing conflicts includes:

VHE HE LE VLE

63. When confrontation is diplomatic, clearer picture of the problem is

achieved and so reduces conflicts.

64. Confrontation makes it possible to state feelings and thoughts openly

without trying to hide or disguise the real object of disagreement.

65. Confrontation evaluates all ideas and positions logically without regard

to rights.

66. Confrontation focuses on preventing future problems rather than

placing blames.

67. Confrontation brings out the facts of the dispute which leads to

agreement.

APPENDIX D

Focus Group Discussion Schedule for Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Federal Universities in South East, Nigeria

Introduction: (Name of moderator, note taker, topic, modality of conducting the

FGDs including rules for participants).

Topic: Conflict and Conflict Management Strategies between Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Federal Universities in South East, Nigeria.

7. Probe for what is conflict?

8. Probe for the nature of conflict between academic and non-academic

staff

9. Probe for the sources of conflict of conflict between academic and non-

academic staff

10. Probe for the consequences of conflict?

11. No academic staff.

12. Non-academic staff.

13. Probe for educational consequences.

14. Probe for the management strategies for conflicts?

15. Probe for dialogue.

16. Probe for negotiation.

17. Probe for mediation.

18. Probe for effective communication.

19. Probe for confrontation.

20. Probe for clarification of goals and objectives.

21. Probe for the most effective strategies for managing conflict between

the academic and non-academic staff in the universities.

APPENDIX E

COMPUTATION OF RELIABILITY COEFFICIENT USING CRONBACH ALPH

CLUSTER A: Nature of conflict

Reliability

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 30 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.837 9

CLUSTER B: Sources of conflict

Reliability



N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.784 12

CLUSTER C: Consequences of conflict

Reliability



N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.884 12

CLUSTER D: Extent to which mediation is suitable for managing conflict

Reliability



N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.871 5

CLUSTER E: Extent to which negotiation is suitable for managing conflict

Reliability



N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.856 5

CLUSTER F: Extent to which dialogue is suitable for managing conflict

Reliability



N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.892 5

CLUSTER G: Extent to which effective communication is suitable for managing conflict

Reliability



N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items


N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0

.796 8

CLUSTER H: Extent to which clarification of goals and objectives is suitable for managing conflict

Reliability



N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.854 5

CLUSTER I: Extent to which confrontation is suitable for managing conflict

Reliability



N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.825 5

Overall Reliability



N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 30 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.843 67

APPENDIX F

T-Test

Nature of conflict

Group Statistics

Status N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Item1 Academic 502 3.3984 .88265 .03939

Non academic 449 3.3163 .85447 .04032

Item2 Academic 502 3.3825 .72669 .03243

Non academic 449 3.0869 .87578 .04133

Item3 Academic 502 3.4701 .67616 .03018

Non academic 449 3.3385 .81359 .03840

Item4 Academic 502 3.3167 .70448 .03144

Non academic 449 3.1648 .90362 .04264

Item5 Academic 502 3.4084 .72767 .03248

Non academic 449 3.1492 .88009 .04153

Item6 Academic 502 3.1534 .83962 .03747

Non academic 449 3.1225 .86378 .04076

Item7 Academic 502 3.2550 .75206 .03357

Non academic 449 3.1559 .82523 .03894

Item8 Academic 502 3.5458 .67821 .03027

Non academic 449 3.3898 .78886 .03723

Item9 Academic 502 3.3347 .69755 .03113

Non academic 449 3.1648 .86319 .04074

OverallA Academic 502 3.3597 .41936 .01872

Non academic 449 3.2158 .49863 .02353

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference Lower Upper

Item1 Equal

variances

assumed

.076 .783 1.455 949 .146 .08215 .05648 -.02868 .19298

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.457 943.069 .145 .08215 .05637 -.02849 .19278

Item2 Equal

variances

assumed

.048 .826 5.685 949 .000 .29561 .05200 .19356 .39766

Equal

variances not

assumed

5.627 873.463 .000 .29561 .05254 .19250 .39872

Item3 Equal

variances

assumed

7.716 .006 2.722 949 .007 .13159 .04834 .03672 .22646

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.695 874.172 .007 .13159 .04884 .03574 .22744

Item4 Equal

variances

assumed

10.582 .001 2.907 949 .004 .15192 .05227 .04935 .25449

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.867 844.355 .004 .15192 .05298 .04793 .25592

Item5 Equal

variances

assumed

8.672 .003 4.967 949 .000 .25915 .05217 .15675 .36154

Equal

variances not

assumed

4.915 871.871 .000 .25915 .05272 .15566 .36263

Item6 Equal

variances

assumed

.229 .632 .559 949 .576 .03089 .05528 -.07760 .13939

Equal

variances not

assumed

.558 930.751 .577 .03089 .05537 -.07778 .13956

Item7 Equal

variances

assumed

.160 .689 1.937 949 .053 .09908 .05115 -.00130 .19946

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.927 911.187 .054 .09908 .05141 -.00183 .19998

Item8 Equal

variances

assumed

11.869 .001 3.280 949 .001 .15606 .04758 .06268 .24944

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.253 888.792 .001 .15606 .04798 .06189 .25023

Item9 Equal

variances

assumed

4.450 .035 3.352 949 .001 .16985 .05067 .07040 .26930

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.313 861.400 .001 .16985 .05127 .06922 .27048

Overall

A

Equal

variances

assumed

23.612 .000 4.831 949 .000 .14388 .02978 .08544 .20233

Equal

variances not

assumed

4.785 879.415 .000 .14388 .03007 .08487 .20290

T-Test

Sources of conflict

Group Statistics


Item10 Academic 502 3.4562 .68420 .03054

Non academic 449 3.1938 .87391 .04124

item11 Academic 502 3.4382 .64679 .02887

Non academic 449 3.2784 .78234 .03692

Item12 Academic 502 3.3068 .80264 .03582

Non academic 449 3.1693 .84665 .03996

Item13 Academic 502 3.3725 .73322 .03273

Non academic 449 3.3274 .80577 .03803

Item14 Academic 502 3.2789 .89683 .04003

Non academic 449 3.0445 .97641 .04608

Item15 Academic 502 3.3705 .75169 .03355

Non academic 449 3.2428 .82988 .03916

Item16 Academic 502 3.3187 .75951 .03390

Non academic 449 3.2962 .80678 .03807

Item17 Academic 502 3.0458 1.01087 .04512

Non academic 449 2.9399 1.03873 .04902

Item18 Academic 502 3.3327 .76271 .03404

Non academic 449 3.1715 .88362 .04170

Item19 Academic 502 3.2490 .80897 .03611

Non academic 449 3.1381 .83377 .03935

Item20 Academic 502 3.3546 .79530 .03550

Non academic 449 3.2227 .86825 .04098

Item21 Academic 502 3.2948 .83626 .03732

Non academic 449 3.1982 .88811 .04191

OverallB Academic 502 3.3171 .39662 .01770

Group Statistics


Item10 Academic 502 3.4562 .68420 .03054

Non academic 449 3.1938 .87391 .04124

item11 Academic 502 3.4382 .64679 .02887

Non academic 449 3.2784 .78234 .03692

Item12 Academic 502 3.3068 .80264 .03582

Non academic 449 3.1693 .84665 .03996

Item13 Academic 502 3.3725 .73322 .03273

Non academic 449 3.3274 .80577 .03803

Item14 Academic 502 3.2789 .89683 .04003

Non academic 449 3.0445 .97641 .04608

Item15 Academic 502 3.3705 .75169 .03355

Non academic 449 3.2428 .82988 .03916

Item16 Academic 502 3.3187 .75951 .03390

Non academic 449 3.2962 .80678 .03807

Item17 Academic 502 3.0458 1.01087 .04512

Non academic 449 2.9399 1.03873 .04902

Item18 Academic 502 3.3327 .76271 .03404

Non academic 449 3.1715 .88362 .04170

Item19 Academic 502 3.2490 .80897 .03611

Non academic 449 3.1381 .83377 .03935

Item20 Academic 502 3.3546 .79530 .03550

Non academic 449 3.2227 .86825 .04098

Item21 Academic 502 3.2948 .83626 .03732

Non academic 449 3.1982 .88811 .04191

OverallB Academic 502 3.3171 .39662 .01770

Non academic 449 3.1958 .45908 .02167


Levene's Test for

Equality of


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error


Item10 Equal

variances

assumed

9.589 .002 5.182 949 .000 .26241 .05063 .16304 .36178

Equal

variances not

assumed

5.114 846.400 .000 .26241 .05132 .16169 .36314

item11 Equal

variances

assumed

6.004 .014 3.447 949 .001 .15985 .04638 .06884 .25087

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.411 871.826 .001 .15985 .04687 .06787 .25184

Item12 Equal

variances

assumed

.170 .680 2.570 949 .010 .13751 .05350 .03251 .24251

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.562 923.892 .011 .13751 .05366 .03219 .24282

Item13 Equal

variances

assumed

1.830 .176 .904 949 .366 .04512 .04991 -.05282 .14306

Equal

variances not

assumed

.899 910.655 .369 .04512 .05017 -.05335 .14358

Item14 Equal

variances

assumed

.486 .486 3.858 949 .000 .23434 .06075 .11512 .35356

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.839 913.881 .000 .23434 .06104 .11455 .35413

Item15 Equal

variances

assumed

1.495 .222 2.491 949 .013 .12776 .05129 .02711 .22840

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.477 909.026 .013 .12776 .05157 .02655 .22897

Item16 Equal

variances

assumed

1.547 .214 .443 949 .658 .02251 .05081 -.07720 .12222

Equal

variances not

assumed

.442 921.803 .659 .02251 .05098 -.07754 .12256

Item17 Equal

variances

assumed

3.466 .063 1.593 949 .112 .10595 .06652 -.02460 .23650

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.590 931.048 .112 .10595 .06662 -.02480 .23670

Item18 Equal

variances

assumed

1.243 .265 3.019 949 .003 .16118 .05339 .05639 .26596

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.994 890.438 .003 .16118 .05383 .05553 .26683

Item19 Equal

variances

assumed

.605 .437 2.081 949 .038 .11092 .05331 .00629 .21555

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.077 930.284 .038 .11092 .05340 .00611 .21572

Item20 Equal

variances

assumed

.036 .849 2.444 949 .015 .13186 .05395 .02599 .23774

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.432 912.945 .015 .13186 .05421 .02547 .23826

Item21 Equal

variances

assumed

.618 .432 1.727 949 .084 .09660 .05594 -.01317 .20637

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.721 921.871 .086 .09660 .05612 -.01354 .20675

OverallB Equal

variances

assumed

1.542E1 .000 4.369 949 .000 .12126 .02775 .06680 .17572

Equal

variances not

assumed

4.334 890.815 .000 .12126 .02798 .06635 .17617

T-Test

Consequences of Conflict

Group Statistics


Item22 Academic 502 3.5100 .67379 .03007

Non academic 449 3.3898 .85669 .04043

Item23 Academic 502 3.3805 .73184 .03266

Non academic 449 3.2294 .77542 .03659

Item24 Academic 502 3.3127 .84047 .03751

Non academic 449 3.2339 .80795 .03813

Item25 Academic 502 3.2052 .89115 .03977

Non academic 449 2.9733 .96788 .04568

Item26 Academic 502 3.2430 .83146 .03711

Non academic 449 3.1648 .91832 .04334

Item27 Academic 502 3.3546 .77496 .03459

Non academic 449 3.2806 .83002 .03917

Item28 Academic 502 3.3367 .82150 .03667

Non academic 449 3.0267 .95160 .04491

Item29 Academic 502 3.3685 .72429 .03233

Non academic 449 3.2940 .74880 .03534

Item30 Academic 502 3.3825 .75100 .03352

Non academic 449 3.1715 .84488 .03987

Item31 Academic 502 3.3665 .84362 .03765

Non academic 449 3.2361 .76616 .03616

Item32 Academic 502 3.3167 .78489 .03503

Non academic 449 3.1938 .84270 .03977

Item33 Academic 502 3.4442 .84996 .03794

Non academic 449 3.2584 .91372 .04312

OverallC Academic 502 3.3542 .41552 .01855

Non academic 449 3.2047 .44889 .02118


Levene's Test for

Equality of


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error


Item22 Equal

variances

assumed

11.232 .001 2.417 949 .016 .12021 .04973 .02261 .21780

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.386 848.592 .017 .12021 .05039 .02131 .21910

Item23 Equal

variances

assumed

.081 .776 3.090 949 .002 .15108 .04889 .05513 .24703

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.080 922.569 .002 .15108 .04905 .05481 .24734

Item24 Equal

variances

assumed

1.700 .193 1.472 949 .141 .07890 .05361 -.02630 .18410

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.475 944.067 .141 .07890 .05349 -.02607 .18387

Item25 Equal

variances

assumed

.005 .944 3.847 949 .000 .23191 .06029 .11359 .35022

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.829 914.696 .000 .23191 .06057 .11304 .35077

Item26 Equal

variances

assumed

1.302 .254 1.378 949 .168 .07822 .05674 -.03314 .18957

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.371 908.880 .171 .07822 .05706 -.03376 .19019

Item27 Equal

variances

assumed

.472 .492 1.421 949 .156 .07396 .05206 -.02820 .17612

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.415 919.245 .157 .07396 .05226 -.02860 .17651

Item28 Equal

variances

assumed

1.548 .214 5.390 949 .000 .30993 .05751 .19708 .42278

Equal

variances not

assumed

5.346 890.499 .000 .30993 .05798 .19614 .42371

Item29 Equal

variances

assumed

.285 .593 1.559 949 .119 .07454 .04780 -.01928 .16835

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.556 929.483 .120 .07454 .04789 -.01945 .16853

Item30 Equal

variances

assumed

1.140 .286 4.077 949 .000 .21098 .05175 .10942 .31254

Equal

variances not

assumed

4.050 902.081 .000 .21098 .05209 .10875 .31321

Item31 Equal

variances

assumed

3.096 .079 2.486 949 .013 .13045 .05248 .02746 .23345

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.499 948.776 .013 .13045 .05220 .02801 .23290

Item32 Equal

variances

assumed

1.062 .303 2.329 949 .020 .12297 .05279 .01937 .22657

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.320 918.471 .021 .12297 .05300 .01896 .22698

Item33 Equal

variances

assumed

1.756 .185 3.249 949 .001 .18587 .05720 .07361 .29813

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.236 918.064 .001 .18587 .05743 .07316 .29859

OverallC Equal

variances

assumed

13.749 .000 5.334 949 .000 .14954 .02803 .09452 .20455

Equal

variances not

assumed

5.311 916.472 .000 .14954 .02816 .09428 .20479

T-Test

Extent to which mediation is suitable for managing conflict

Group Statistics


Item34 Academic 502 3.6673 .67378 .03007

Non academic 449 3.5457 .72782 .03435

Item35 Academic 502 3.4064 .70229 .03134

Non academic 449 3.3118 .72325 .03413

Item36 Academic 502 3.4303 .74900 .03343

Non academic 449 3.2984 .83186 .03926

Item37 Academic 502 3.1594 .85618 .03821

Non academic 449 2.9376 1.00474 .04742

Item38 Academic 502 3.3924 .83546 .03729

Non academic 449 3.3185 .85494 .04035

OverallD Academic 502 3.4179 .51399 .02294

Non academic 449 3.2739 .56684 .02675


Levene's Test for

Equality of


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error


Item34 Equal

variances

assumed

10.789 .001 2.677 949 .008 .12167 .04546 .03247 .21088

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.665 916.504 .008 .12167 .04565 .03208 .21127

Item35 Equal

variances

assumed

.000 .988 2.044 949 .041 .09457 .04627 .00378 .18536

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.041 930.484 .042 .09457 .04634 .00362 .18552

Item36 Equal

variances

assumed

4.587 .032 2.572 949 .010 .13184 .05126 .03124 .23244

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.557 906.874 .011 .13184 .05156 .03064 .23303

Item37 Equal

variances

assumed

5.056 .025 3.673 949 .000 .22172 .06036 .10327 .34018

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.641 885.064 .000 .22172 .06090 .10220 .34124

Item38 Equal

variances

assumed

.616 .433 1.348 949 .178 .07394 .05487 -.03373 .18162

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.346 932.077 .179 .07394 .05494 -.03387 .18176

OverallD Equal

variances

assumed

9.435 .002 4.108 949 .000 .14399 .03505 .07520 .21277

Equal

variances not

assumed

4.086 909.417 .000 .14399 .03524 .07482 .21315

T-Test

Extent to which negotiation is suitable for managing conflict

Group Statistics


Item39 Academic 502 3.4263 .74057 .03305

Non academic 449 3.2984 .87118 .04111

Item40 Academic 502 3.4741 .68803 .03071

Non academic 449 3.3430 .73978 .03491

Item41 Academic 502 3.4104 .73610 .03285

Non academic 449 3.3029 .84358 .03981

Item42 Academic 502 3.3167 .80745 .03604

Non academic 449 3.1715 .89117 .04206

Item43 Academic 502 3.3506 .77162 .03444

Non academic 449 3.2606 .85892 .04054

OverallE Academic 502 3.3960 .50592 .02258

Non academic 449 3.2673 .57276 .02703


Levene's Test for

Equality of


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error


Item39 Equal

variances

assumed

5.994 .015 2.446 949 .015 .12785 .05228 .02525 .23045

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.424 884.037 .016 .12785 .05275 .02432 .23139

Item40 Equal

variances

assumed

.825 .364 2.831 949 .005 .13112 .04631 .04024 .22200

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.820 918.003 .005 .13112 .04650 .03987 .22237

Item41 Equal

variances

assumed

4.849 .028 2.098 949 .036 .10746 .05123 .00693 .20800

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.082 894.859 .038 .10746 .05162 .00616 .20877

Item42 Equal

variances

assumed

1.745 .187 2.637 949 .009 .14524 .05508 .03714 .25334

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.622 909.135 .009 .14524 .05539 .03654 .25394

Item43 Equal

variances

assumed

3.259 .071 1.703 949 .089 .09002 .05287 -

1.37446E

-2

.19378

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.692 906.045 .091 .09002 .05319 -

1.43709E

-2

.19441

OverallE Equal

variances

assumed

1.698E1 .000 3.681 949 .000 .12876 .03498 .06011 .19740

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.656 899.661 .000 .12876 .03522 .05963 .19788

T-Test

Extent to which dialogue is suitable for managing conflict

Group Statistics


Item44 Academic 502 3.3446 .97204 .04338

Non academic 449 3.3719 .97157 .04585

Item45 Academic 502 3.3665 .72668 .03243

Non academic 449 3.2717 .82491 .03893

Item46 Academic 502 3.3725 .78068 .03484

Non academic 449 3.2962 .78434 .03702

Item47 Academic 502 3.3088 .85137 .03800

Non academic 449 3.0846 .88990 .04200

Item48 Academic 502 3.4143 .71457 .03189

Non academic 449 3.2851 .76109 .03592

Item49 Academic 502 3.3984 .74265 .03315

Non academic 449 3.3274 .78330 .03697

OverallF Academic 502 3.3662 .48104 .02147

Non academic 449 3.2728 .52444 .02475


Levene's Test for

Equality of


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error


Item44 Equal

variances

assumed

.145 .703 -.433 949 .665 -.02732 .06312 -.15120 .09656

Equal

variances not

assumed

-.433 937.396 .665 -.02732 .06312 -.15120 .09656

Item45 Equal

variances

assumed

3.566 .059 1.885 949 .060 .09482 .05031 -.00392 .19356

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.871 898.614 .062 .09482 .05067 -.00463 .19426

Item46 Equal

variances

assumed

.242 .623 1.501 949 .134 .07630 .05082 -.02344 .17603

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.501 936.310 .134 .07630 .05083 -.02347 .17606

Item47 Equal

variances

assumed

.193 .661 3.967 949 .000 .22413 .05650 .11326 .33500

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.957 926.507 .000 .22413 .05664 .11298 .33528

Item48 Equal

variances

assumed

1.183 .277 2.701 949 .007 .12926 .04787 .03533 .22320

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.691 920.980 .007 .12926 .04803 .03500 .22353

Item49 Equal

variances

assumed

1.868 .172 1.434 949 .152 .07101 .04950 -.02614 .16816

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.430 923.923 .153 .07101 .04965 -.02643 .16845

OverallF Equal

variances

assumed

1.200E1 .001 2.864 949 .004 .09337 .03261 .02938 .15736

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.850 913.413 .004 .09337 .03276 .02907 .15768

T-Test

Extent to which effective communication is suitable for managing conflict

Group Statistics


Item50 Academic 502 3.5498 .69250 .03091

Non academic 449 3.4633 .76422 .03607

Item51 Academic 502 3.4841 .70268 .03136

Non academic 449 3.3296 .76066 .03590

Item52 Academic 502 3.4960 .72521 .03237

Non academic 449 3.3519 .76240 .03598

Item53 Academic 502 3.2470 .82061 .03663

Non academic 449 3.0267 .88852 .04193

Item54 Academic 502 3.5578 .73387 .03275

Non academic 449 3.3964 .79820 .03767

Item55 Academic 502 3.3526 .71005 .03169

Non academic 449 3.2294 .75204 .03549

Item56 Academic 502 3.4502 .73988 .03302

Non academic 449 3.2472 .82316 .03885

Item57 Academic 502 3.2669 .79699 .03557

Non academic 449 3.1114 .90439 .04268

OverallG Academic 502 3.4228 .45481 .02030

Non academic 449 3.2728 .47909 .02261


Levene's Test for

Equality of


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error


Item50 Equal

variances

assumed

6.055 .014 1.832 949 .067 .08655 .04724 -.00615 .17925

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.822 909.173 .069 .08655 .04750 -.00667 .17977

Item51 Equal

variances

assumed

2.585 .108 3.254 949 .001 .15444 .04746 .06131 .24758

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.240 915.798 .001 .15444 .04767 .06089 .24799

Item52 Equal

variances

assumed

3.177 .075 2.986 949 .003 .14412 .04826 .04941 .23883

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.978 924.877 .003 .14412 .04840 .04914 .23910

Item53 Equal

variances

assumed

1.023 .312 3.974 949 .000 .22029 .05543 .11151 .32906

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.957 915.724 .000 .22029 .05567 .11102 .32955

Item54 Equal

variances

assumed

5.325 .021 3.247 949 .001 .16133 .04969 .06383 .25884

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.232 914.214 .001 .16133 .04992 .06336 .25930

Item55 Equal

variances

assumed

.351 .554 2.597 949 .010 .12319 .04743 .03011 .21627

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.589 922.688 .010 .12319 .04758 .02981 .21657

Item56 Equal

variances

assumed

1.223 .269 4.005 949 .000 .20298 .05068 .10352 .30245

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.981 906.237 .000 .20298 .05099 .10292 .30305

Item57 Equal

variances

assumed

.548 .459 2.820 949 .005 .15557 .05517 .04730 .26385

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.800 898.756 .005 .15557 .05556 .04653 .26462

OverallG Equal

variances

assumed

9.391 .002 4.950 949 .000 .14998 .03030 .09052 .20944

Equal

variances not

assumed

4.936 924.297 .000 .14998 .03039 .09035 .20961

T-Test

Extent to which clarification of goals and objectives is suitable for

managing conflict

Group Statistics


Item58 Academic 502 3.4382 .71704 .03200

Non academic 449 3.3608 .83926 .03961

Item59 Academic 502 3.3625 .65359 .02917

Non academic 449 3.1849 .82057 .03873

Item60 Academic 502 3.3048 .73189 .03267

Non academic 449 3.2004 .84774 .04001

Item61 Academic 502 3.2948 .73732 .03291

Non academic 449 3.0735 .89215 .04210

Item62 Academic 502 3.2430 1.00929 .04505

Non academic 449 3.1759 1.05971 .05001

OverallH Academic 502 3.3203 .51348 .02292

Non academic 449 3.2040 .61462 .02901


Levene's Test for

Equality of


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error


Item58 Equal

variances

assumed

5.208 .023 1.534 949 .125 .07745 .05048 -2.16182E-2 .17651

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.521 886.171 .129 .07745 .05092 -2.24937E-2 .17738

Item59 Equal

variances

assumed

2.330 .127 3.711 949 .000 .17769 .04788 .08373 .27166

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.665 854.610 .000 .17769 .04848 .08253 .27285

Item60 Equal

variances

assumed

1.726 .189 2.037 949 .042 .10434 .05123 .00380 .20487

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.020 890.527 .044 .10434 .05165 .00297 .20570

Item61 Equal

variances

assumed

.216 .642 4.185 949 .000 .22132 .05288 .11755 .32510

Equal

variances not

assumed

4.142 871.676 .000 .22132 .05344 .11644 .32621

Item62 Equal

variances

assumed

.857 .355 .999 949 .318 .06708 .06712 -6.46490E-2 .19881

Equal

variances not

assumed

.997 925.237 .319 .06708 .06731 -6.50118E-2 .19917

OverallH Equal

variances

assumed

7.859 .005 3.178 949 .002 .11631 .03660 .04448 .18814

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.146 876.495 .002 .11631 .03697 .04376 .18886

T-Test

Extent to which confrontation is suitable for managing conflict

Group Statistics


Item63 Academic 502 3.3207 .75998 .03392

Non academic 449 3.2940 .84673 .03996

Item64 Academic 502 3.2610 .79018 .03527

Non academic 449 3.1002 .89952 .04245

Item65 Academic 502 3.1952 .82000 .03660

Non academic 449 3.0869 .91321 .04310

Item66 Academic 502 3.1574 .81963 .03658

Non academic 449 3.1225 .92130 .04348

Item67 Academic 502 3.4363 .79351 .03542

Non academic 449 3.2272 .90980 .04294

OverallI Academic 502 3.2749 .51358 .02292

Non academic 449 3.1719 .67189 .03171


Levene's Test

for Equality of


95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error


Item63 Equal

variances

assumed

1.389E

0

.239 .513 949 .608 .02673 .05210 -

7.55159

E-2

.12898

Equal

variances not

assumed

.510 905.715 .610 .02673 .05241 -

7.61382

E-2

.12960

Item64 Equal

variances

assumed

.009 .924 2.933 949 .003 .16073 .05479 5.32023

E-2

.26826

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.912 897.512 .004 .16073 .05519 5.24184

E-2

.26905

Item65 Equal

variances

assumed

.250 .618 1.928 949 .054 .10836 .05620 -

1.93680

E-3

.21866

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.917 905.868 .056 .10836 .05654 -

2.60552

E-3

.21932

Item66 Equal

variances

assumed

2.784E

0

.096 .618 949 .537 .03488 .05645 -

7.59119

E-2

.14566

Equal

variances not

assumed

.614 902.405 .540 .03488 .05682 -

7.66411

E-2

.14639

Item67 Equal

variances

assumed

2.519E

0

.113 3.785 949 .000 .20908 .05524 1.00681

E-1

.31749

Equal

variances not

assumed

3.757 894.666 .000 .20908 .05566 9.98478

E-2

.31832

OverallI Equal

variances

assumed

1.603E

1

.000 2.670 949 .008 .10296 .03856 2.72949

E-2

.17863

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.632 834.732 .009 .10296 .03913 2.61655

E-2

.17976

IHUARULAM, MARYJANE OKWUCHI PG/Ph.D/12/64650 … · IHUARULAM, MARYJANE OKWUCHI, a postgraduate...

Documents

Transcript of IHUARULAM, MARYJANE OKWUCHI PG/Ph.D/12/64650 … · IHUARULAM, MARYJANE OKWUCHI, a postgraduate...