Conflict management as a mediator between conflict and workplace bullying: implementation of the Dual Concern Theory Elfi Baillien, Inge Neyens, Hans De Witte Research Group for Stress, Health and Well-being KULeuven - Belgium

1

KUL Mobbers (Belgium) • Inge Neyens

• Guy Notelaers

2

KUL Mobbers (Belgium)(2) • Hans De Witte

• Elfi Baillien

3

1. Workplace bullying and conflict • Empirical studies
relationship between conflict and workplace bullying • E.g.: O’Moore et al. (2003), Baillien et al. (2005), Neyens et al. (2005)

• ‘conflict’ inside the process of bullying • Leyman (1996)
escalation of unresolved conflict (‘critical incident’) • Glasl (1982, 1984)
escalation from what to who is the problem • Baillien et al. (2004)
conflict escalation as one of the three main processes to lead to WB

4

Bullying versus conflict Conflict

Bullying

Yes

Yes

Subtle

Clear

Time

No

frequent behavior

Intention?

No

Yes (victim)

Not necessary

Yes

Interaction between ≥ 2 persons Negativity

Power difference? Keashly & Nowell (2003)

5

2. Research question • Not conflicts as such (the fact that there is a conflict) but the escalation of conflicts are antecedents of bullying • So, conflicts are related to bullying through conflict management (‘CM’) (=mediator) • If we take into account the mediation of CM
no relationship between conflict and bullying 6

3. Escalation? Dual Concern Theory (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Van de Vliert, 1997; …) Accomodating

Concern for the other’s goals

2

Avoiding

Problem solving 1

Fighting

Concern for one’s own goals 1 = ‘integrative dimension’
integration of both party’s GOALS 2 = ‘distributive dimension’
division of the OUTCOME

7

• Avoiding – Prevention or termination of efforts to yield openly, to negotiate constructively, or to win completely

• Accomodating – One gives in to the opponent’s point of view

• Problem solving – A win/win strategy aimed at optimizing rather than at satisficing for the parties

• Fighting – One seeks to prevail at the expense of the adversary 8

• Conflict escalation – X: • Low on distribution – fighting

• Low on integration – Avoiding

– Concerns: • Low on concern for others

• No escalation of the conflict – X: • High on distribution – Accomodating

• High on integration – Problem solving

– Concerns: • High on concern for others 9

4. Hypotheses Problem Solving Conflicts

Fighting Accomodating

+

Workplace Bullying

+

Avoiding

10

5. Method • Sample: – 5420 respondents (74 organizations) • Diversity
sector • Dutch speaking (Brussels and Flanders -Belgium)

• Questionnaire: 1. Demographics - age

- gender - position * blue collar worker * white collar worker * executives 11

2. Conflict in the team (self constructed) - number of conflicts in your team (1 item) - team = ‘the employees who work for the same supervisor” 3. Conflict Management in the team (DUTCH; Van de Vliert, 1997) - problem solving (4 items, α = 0.90) - fighting (4 items, α = 0.85) - avoiding (3 items, α = 0.76) - accomodating (4 items, α = 0.68) 4. Workplace Bullying (NAQ, translated by Notelaers et al., 2005) - α = 0.90

• SPSS 12.00 12

6. Analyses • Controlled for demographics • Regression Analyses
mediation 1. Direct relationship between ‘number of conflicts’ and bullying? 2. Relationship between mediators (‘CM’) and bullying? 3. Relationship between ‘number of conflicts’ and ‘CM’? 4. Is the mediation model better?

13

7. Results Graph of β coefficients

from .41*** to .24***

Problem solving -.44*** .45***

Number of conflicts

Fighting

-.23***

.14***

Workplace bullying

-.26***

Accomodating .08***

Avoiding

p***< .001, p**<.01, p*<.05

14

8. Discussion (1) • Conflict - bullying: partial mediation by conflict management
The direct relationship between conflict frequency and bullying remains – accumulation of negative feelings and frustrations => bullying? • conflicts have a -subtle- negative undertone

– cross-sectional (reversed interpretation): • bullying => increases conflict frequency in teams?

• Dual Concern Theory? – Confirmed: fighting and problem solving • are related to bullying (and are mediators) • escalation of conflict in bullying in the expected direction!

– Not confirmed: avoiding and accomodation 15

• Escalation of conflicts to bullying
Concern for other’s goals (‘for own goals’: always high) – low = escalation – high = prevention

• Shift in relative power due to bullying process (cross-sectional design)

• Relationship between conflict frequency and 4 conflict management styles?: More conflicts Accumulation of negative feelings towards others Decrease in concern for goals of others: ⇒ less problem solving ⇒ less accomodation ⇒ more fighting ⇒ more avoiding 16

9. Future research • Cross sectional – Tautologies? Consequence? Cause? • Fighting and a lack of problem solving= workplace bullying? ⇒need for a longitudional design!

• Relationship between styles of conflict management? – SEM

• Conglomerated conflict behaviour? • Difference between large organizations and SME’s? - Less fighting in SME’s (t-test: .26*) 17

Thank you for your attention!

[email protected] [email protected]

18