Interpersonal conflict on workplace American vs Chinese

              Interpersonal conflict has also been associated with poor work-related attitudes and psychological states such as job dissatisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intensions, negative emotions, and emotional exhaustion (Frone, 2000; Giebels & Janssen, 2005; Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2007; Spector & Jex, 1998).

              For example, Penney and Spector (2005) demonstrated interpersonal conflict to have a negative relationship with job satisfaction and this relationship was stronger for individuals with high negative affectivity. In another study with university employees, interpersonal conflict at work was positively related to negative emotions at work such as feeling furious, angry, frightened, anxious, and disgusted as well as to job dissatisfaction and turnover intentions (Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2008). Similarly, in a sample of social services workers, interpersonal conflict at work was related to increased emotional exhaustion and turnover intensions. Third party support in conflict management mitigated the strength of these relationships (Giebels & Janssen, 2005). Using a structural equation model, Frone (2000) demonstrated that interpersonal conflict at work is predictive of lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment, higher turnover intentions, and more depressive symptoms. In a meta-analysis by Spector and Jex (1998), interpersonal conflict at work was found to be negatively related to job satisfaction (r = -.32) and positively related to turnover intentions (r = .41). Thus, it seems that interpersonal conflict at work has important relationships to psychological and attitudinal outcomes.

              Moreover, physical health has been related to interpersonal conflict at work. Furthermore, interpersonal conflict is a frequently encountered stressor at work. Keenan and Newton (1985) have proposed that interpersonal conflict may be the most important workplace stressor affecting organizations today. This notion is reflected in several taxonomies of job stressors which include turbulent interpersonal relationships at work (Kasl, 1998; Williams & Cooper, 1998). Grebner, Elfering, Semmer, Kaiser-Probst, and Schlapbach (2004) found that social stressors, such as conflicts at work, comprised the most frequently reported category of workplace stressors in a diary event sampling study. Additionally, some work suggests direct interpersonal conflict at work may be a stressor more common in the United States than in other countries (Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2007). Thus, interpersonal conflict at work is a prevalent occupational stressor and has important relationships to a variety of organizational and employee outcomes.

              One potential moderator of the stressor-strain relationship is coping. Coping can be defined as cognitive and behavioral efforts made to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The Cognitive Theory of Stress and Coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) incorporates coping into the transactional process between one’s environment and reactions to that environment. Coping has generally been recognized as an important determinant of physical and psychological health outcomes (Penley, Tomaka, & Wiebe, 2002), but has been conceptualized in a variety of different ways (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Roth & Cohen, 1986; Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003).

              The effects of various coping styles on well- being have appeared to be contingent on the specific coping measures used (Penley et al., 2002), how well-being was conceptualized and measured (Penley et al., 2002), the nature of the stressors (Havlovic & Keenan, 1995; Penley et al., 2002; Terry, Callan, & Sartori, 1996), the other resources available (e.g., social support; Penley et al., 2002), and individual characteristics (Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001; Keoske, Kirk, & Keoske, 1993).

              Also it has distinguished problem-focused coping from emotion-focused coping (Endler & Parker, 1999; Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986; Folkman & Lazarus, 1984). Problem-focused coping has been defined as purposeful task-oriented efforts aimed at solving the problem, cognitively restructuring the problem, or attempts to alter the situation. The main emphasis is on the task or planning, and on attempts to solve the problem (Endler & Parker, 1999). Emotion- focused coping refers to self-oriented efforts that aim at analyzing and dealing with emotional responses towards stressors (Endler & Parker, 1999). Problem- and emotion- focused coping may have different relationships with health and well-being. Generally, problem-focused coping has been suggested to be more adaptive, reducing the strength of the relationship between stressors and strains (Compas et al., 2001; Penley et al., 2002). On the other hand, emotion-focused coping may be a less effective approach which has been shown to relate to enhanced negative emotional states (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 2002; Park, Armeli, & Tennen, 2004).

              The appropriateness of the problem- versus emotion-focused coping conceptualization has been criticized for various reasons. First, a large portion of previous work has approached coping as a personality style or trait. This approach assumes that coping style can be measured like a trait without reference to any specific situation and assumes that individuals adopt a consistent coping strategy across stressors. Counter to this, coping is a process that is continually changing and coping responses will depend on the situation (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunke- Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). In two studies with structured interviews to understand how participants coped with stressors that they had experienced in the last five months, it was found that patterns of coping varied within the same individual from one stressful experience to another (Folkman et al., 1986; Folkman et al., 1986).

              Second, the problem- versus emotion-focused coping conceptualization assumes that a single strategy will always be more adaptive than another. Problem-focused coping has historically been accepted as more effective than emotion-focused coping. However, some recent empirical work has suggested this is not the case. In fact, some work supports the idea that emotion-focused coping is beneficial for well-being. One study reported a positive relationship between emotion-focused coping and positive affect in women (Yamasaki & Uchida, 2006). In a longitudinal study, cognitive reinterpretations (classified as an emotion-focused coping style) at time 1 was shown to predict positive affect at time 2 (Yamasaki, Sakai, & Uchida, 2006). In another study of incarcerated individuals, emotion-focused coping by sharing negative emotions increased both psychological and physical well-being (Van Harreveld, Van Der Pligt, Claassen, & Van Dijk, 2007). One review paper suggested that certain types of emotion-focused coping strategies may have positive relationships with health (Worthington & Scherer, 2004).

              Additionally, some work suggests that problem-focused coping is not always effective. In one study of hospice workers, it was found that reliance on problem-focused coping strategies may increase the incidence of emotional exhaustion (Sardiwalla, VandenBerg, & Esterhuyse, 2007). This study also suggested that emotion-focused strategies, such as emotional support and positive reformulation, may be more effective. Thus, the conventional wisdom that problem-focused coping is more adaptive than emotion-focused coping may be challenged.
 

              Therefore, this study adopts the orientation that because our environment is constantly changing, our coping strategies also change as we adapt to the characteristics of each stressful situation. Simply, the coping strategy used for various types of stressors may be different. Given the same individual, coping strategies may change based on the characteristics of the stressor. For this reason, an interpersonal conflict at work and coping in relation to that specific stressor will be measured.

              Because people may adopt different coping strategies on a situation-specific basis, effectiveness of those strategies may depend on the characteristics of the stressor at hand. One characteristic that may have important relationships with coping is perceived control. The effectiveness of coping may depend on level of perceived control.

              Furthermore, job control can buffer the effects of demands, or stressors, on employee strain (Karasek, 1979). Recent reviews on the JDC model have provided substantial evidence for the main positive effects of job control on well-being (de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003).

              Taken together, the purpose of the interpersonal conflict at work is to explore whether the interplay between coping and control simultaneously moderate the stressor-strain relationship. It may be the interaction between coping strategy and control that predicts how one work-related stressor—interpersonal conflict—is related to well-being.

              Occupational stressors are a major focus in occupational health psychology. Environmental stressors, job characteristics, and relationships at work are potential sources of strain in organizational settings. By nature, humans are social beings. We are part of many different types of social networks in our lives such as our family, our schools, and our work organizations. We place value on these relationships and extract information about ourselves based on the dynamics of these relationships (Festinger, 1954). Generally speaking, group membership fulfills a basic need to create positive and continuing relationships with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1985).               Therefore, it can be easily accepted that interpersonal relationships may have important relationships with our behavior, emotions, cognitions, and well-being.

              While interpersonal relationships may influence us in positive ways, they may also have important negative effects (Berscheid & Reis, 1998), especially when conflict in these relationships arises. In fact, some research suggests that bad relationships may have even more impact on our lives than positive relationships (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Conflict in relationships can undermine our sense of self (Fiske, 1992). In work relationships, employees’ relationships to colleagues can help foster and maintain positive social identities (Fiske, 1992). Interpersonal conflict may therefore be a stressor with reasonable potential of creating strains. Fiske (1992) proposed a general theory of social relations in which all dimensions of social relationships can be classified according to four elementary social models.

              One of these models is a communal sharing model which seems to apply nicely to workplace relationships. In this type of relationship, individuals have a feeling of being united by a common identity. The focus in these relationships is on commonalities rather than individual identities and participants in these relationships strive to treat each other as socially equivalent. Generally, individuals like and want to be liked by others who are similar to themselves. So, to the extent that relationships between coworkers reflect a communal sharing model, interpersonal conflict at work is a potent stressor that can elicit strains and thereby having a negative impact one's psychological health and well-being because it undermines one's sense of self, likability, and similarity to others.

              Interpersonal conflict may also elicit strain through detriments to group efficacy. It is possible that increased interpersonal conflict may impact collective efficacy beliefs because agreement is unlikely when employees are experiencing high amounts of conflict (Jex & Thomas, 2003).

              Furthermore, interpersonal conflict may detract from group members’ ability to meet performance goals. In fact, interpersonal conflict generally has a negative effect on the performance of groups (Jehn, 1994). The detriment to collective efficacy and performance may subsequently elicit strain. Thus, when there is a high degree of interpersonal conflict, collective efficacy and performance may suffer and in turn produce strains in employees.

              It is worthwhile to consider that interpersonal conflict at work is becoming more commonly studied as two dimensions: interpersonal conflict with one’s supervisor and interpersonal conflict with co-workers. For the purposes, interpersonal conflict with supervisors is defined as tension or disagreement within the employee- supervisor relationship. Interpersonal conflict with supervisors can arise due to a variety of work-related situations and behaviors such as lack of resources, work overload, fairness issues, role conflict or role ambiguity, and incorrect instructions on how to perform certain job tasks. Interpersonal conflict with co-workers is defined as tension or disagreement within an employee-co-worker relationship. Interpersonal conflict with co- workers may be due to differences among coworkers’ personalities, bullying behavior, free-riding behavior, competition, or differences in the goals of coworkers and is a prevalent problem. The two types of conflict are qualitatively different, and each deserves research attention (Frone, 2000).

              Indeed, empirical evidence supports that interpersonal conflict at work is a significant occupational stressor that is related to deleterious outcomes for employers. In one meta-analysis, interpersonal conflict at work was correlated both with organizational and personal psychological outcomes, including turnover intentions, absenteeism, and organization commitment (Spector & Jex, 1998). Spector and Jex found that interpersonal conflict at work was positively related to turnover intentions (r = .41). Similarly, Frone (2000) found that interpersonal conflict with supervisors predicted diminished organizational commitment and an increased intention to leave the job. Gierbels and Janssen (2005) reported that interpersonal conflict was positively related to absenteeism and turnover intentions. Thus, interpersonal conflict is an important occupational stressor which may influence important organizational outcomes. Next, a discussion of how this stressor may influence employee outcomes.

1.5. Conflict resolution.

              In many cases, conflict in the workplace just seems to be a fact of life. We've all seen situations where different people with different goals and needs have come into conflict. And we've all seen the often-intense personal animosity that can result.

              The fact that conflict exists, however, is not necessarily a bad thing: As long as it is resolved effectively, it can lead to personal and professional growth.

              In many cases, effective conflict resolution can make the difference between positive and negative outcomes.

              By resolving conflict successfully, you can solve many of the problems that it has brought to the surface, as well as getting benefits that you might not at first expect:

-  Increased understanding: The discussion needed to resolve conflict expands people's awareness of the situation, giving them an insight into how they can achieve their own goals without undermining those of other people.

-  Increased group cohesion: When conflict is resolved effectively, team members can develop stronger mutual respect, and a renewed faith in their ability to work together.

-  Improved self-knowledge: Conflict pushes individuals to examine their goals in close detail , helping them understand the things that are most important to them, sharpening their focus, and enhancing their effectiveness.

              However, if conflict is not handled effectively, the results can be damaging. Conflicting goals can quickly turn into personal dislike. Teamwork breaks down. Talent is wasted as people disengage from their work. And it's easy to end up in a vicious downward spiral of negativity and recrimination.

              Two of the theories that lie behind effective conflict resolution:

              First theory is  Conflict Styles. In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However they also noted that different styles were most useful in different situations. They developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) which helps you to identify which style you tend towards when conflict arises.

              Thomas and Kilmann distiguished several styles of conflict resilution:

1)   Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations.

2)   Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when a you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.

3)   Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.

4)   Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person's own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this "favor" you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is unlikely to give the best outcomes.

5)   Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to take.

              Adopting an approach that meets the situation, resolves the problem, respects people's legitimate interests, and mends damaged working relationships.

              The second theory is commonly referred to as the "Interest-Based Relational (IBR) Approach". This type of conflict resolution respects individual differences while helping people avoid becoming too entrenched in a fixed position.

              In resolving conflict using this approach, should follow these rules:

1)   Make sure that good relationships are the first priority: As far as possible, make sure that you treat the other calmly and that you try to build mutual respect. Do your best to be courteous to one-another and remain constructive under pressure.

2)   Keep people and problems separate: Recognize that in many cases the other person is not just "being difficult" – real and valid differences can lie behind conflictive positions. By separating the problem from the person, real issues can be debated without damaging working relationships.

3)   Pay attention to the interests that are being presented: By listening carefully you'll most-likely understand why the person is adopting his or her position.

4)   Listen first; talk second: To solve a problem effectively you have to understand where the other person is coming from before defending your own position.

5)   Set out the "Facts": Agree and establish the objective, observable elements that will have an impact on the decision.

6)   Explore options together: Be open to the idea that a third position may exist, and that you can get to this idea jointly.

              By following these rules, it keeps contentious discussions positive and constructive. This helps to prevent the antagonism and dislike which so-often causes conflict to spin out of control.

              Based on these approaches, a starting point for dealing with conflict is to identify the overriding conflict style employed by yourself, your team or your organization.

              Over time, people's conflict styles tend to mesh, and a "right" way to solve conflict emerges. It's good to recognize when this style can be used effectively, however make sure that people understand that different styles may suit different situations.

              Conflict in the workplace can be incredibly destructive to good teamwork. Managed in the wrong way, real and legitimate differences between people can quickly spiral out of control, resulting in situations where co-operation breaks down and the team's mission is threatened. This is particularly the case where the wrong approaches to conflict resolution are used.

              To calm these situations down, it helps to take a positive approach to conflict resolution, where discussion is courteous and non-confrontational, and the focus is on issues rather than on individuals. If this is done, then, as long as people listen carefully and explore facts, issues and possible solutions properly, conflict can often be resolved effectively.

Conclusion on chapter 1.

              When dealing with uncomfortable situations in the workplace, it often disassociates from our emotions and tries to focus on concrete facts. This is a mistake;  strong emotions can distort our perceptions. Perception is subjective; two people may have significantly different memories of the same event. Identifying how you feel towards your co-worker can help you retain your objectivity during subsequent interactions.