Styles of handling interpersonal conflict: an observational study

The s udy o s yles o handling in e - pe sonal con lic has inc eased in impo - ance in ecen decades. Among di e en Psico hema, 1997. Vol. 9, nº 1, pp. 145-153 ISSN 0214 - 9915 CODEN PSOTEG 145 STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY Lou des Mundua e, Ped o Luque & Miguel Ba ón Uni e si y o Se ille Es ilos de ges ión del con lic o in e pe sonal: Un es udio obse acional. El p opósi o del p esen e es udio es el de co obo a si los hallazgos sob e los es ilos de ges ión del con- lic o hallados en es udios p e ios (Mundua e, Ganaza, Alcaide & Pei o, 1994; Rahim, 1992), se con i man u ilizando una me odología dis in a. En luga de analiza los au oin o mes de los di ec i os sob e los es ilos u ilizados en si uaciones p e ias de con lic o, como se ha ea- lizado en los es udios indicados, el obje i o eside en analiza expe imen almen e los es ilos di ec amen e obse ados en sus in e acciones de con lic o. Se conside a ambién la inciden- cia del es a us ela i o y las ác icas de in luencia. Con una mues a de 45 suje os insc i os en p og amas de pos g ado, se simula una si uación de con lic o en el labo a o io, en la que se a modi icando el es a us ela i o de los pa icipan es - con cómplices de los in es igado es que desempeñan el ol de supe io es, compañe os o subo dinados -, y la ác ica de in luencia empleada - ase i as, de bloqueo, y acionales. Se ilman las in e acciones de con lic o, y pos e io men e dos jueces codi ican los es ilos empleados po los di ec i os - e i ación, do- minación, in eg ación, comp omiso y se ilismo. Los esul ados indican que los es ilos ob- se ados en las conduc as de los di ec i os, di ie en de los es ilos empleados según los au- oin o mes de los di ec i os en es udios p e ios. Se obse a ambién que los es ilos a ían en unción del es a us je á quico ela i o y la ác ica de in luencia empleada. One expe imen al s udy was conduc ed in o de o obse e con lic handling s yles used by manage s. The objec i e was o de e mine i he majo indings in p e ious esea - ches (Mundua e, Ganaza, Alcaide & Pei o, 1994; Rahim, 1992) could be eplica ed wi h di - e ences in me hodology. Ra he han conside ing he pe cep ions o he subjec s in ela ion o hei s yles o handling wi hin con lic si ua ion, he aim was o analyze expe imen ally he ac ual s yles o handling con lic using an obse a ional me hodology. The incidence o he ela i e s a us and he in luencing ac ics we e also conside ed. Wi h a sample o 45 subjec s egis e ed in pos g adua e educa ional p og ammes, a con lic si ua ion was simula ed. By using accomplices, he expe imen e manipula ed he ela i e s a us among subjec s - supe- io s, pee s and subo dina es - and he in luencing ac ic used - asse i eness, blocking and a ionali y. Then, he s yles o handling con lic s - a oiding, comp omosing, obliging, domi- na ing and in eg a ing - used by subjec s we e obse ed. S uc u ed obse a ions showed ha he e a e some ele an di e ences be ween indings go by sel - epo o con lic handling s yles in p e ious esea ch and obse a ions o manage s beha io . S yles also a ied by he e ec s o ela i e s a us and in luence ac ics. Co espondencia: Lou des Mundua e Dp o. de Psicología Social. Facul ad de Psicología Uni e sidad de Se illa A da. San Fco. Ja ie , s/n. 41005 Se illa (Spain) app oaches ca ied ou o dis inguish and classi y s yles - see Blake & Mou on, 1964; P ui , 1983; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Thomas, 1976, 1992; Tjos old, 1989; Van de Vlie & P ein, 1989 and Van de Vlie & Ho dijk, 1989 -, empi ical e idence shows an impo an suppo o GRID’s i e s yle o con lic handling be- ha io app oach (Ruble & Thomas, 1976; Rahim, 1983a; Van de Vlie & Kabano , 1990). This ca ego y, ca ied ou by Tho- mas (1976, 1992) and Rahim (1992), is based on a wo-dimensional app oach - a - emp o sa is ay one’s own conce ns and a emp o sa is y he conce ns o he o he pe son. As is shown in Figu e 1, a combi- na ion o he dimensions esul s in g id’s i e di e en con lic handling s yles: in- eg a ing, comp omising, obliging, domi- na ing and a oiding. The ela ions be ween hese s yles o con lic managemen ha e been con as ed using sel - epo ing ques ionnai es -wi h sa is ac o y le els o eliabili y- ha we e speci ically designed o e lec he i e s yles o con lic managemen . S udies ca- ied ou in Spain on his subjec (Mun- dua e, Ganaza, Alcaide & Pei ó, 1994), using he adap ion o ROCCI-II (Rahim, 1983b), ha e shown ha in eg a ing is he s yle mos widely used by Spanish mana- ge s, ollowed by comp omising and a oi- ding. Obliging and domina ing ea u e as he leas used. The indings conce ning he in luence o he hie a chical posi ion o he o he pa y, indica e ha he s yle o con lic managemen adop ed by he speake a- ies depending on whe he he con lic is wi h a supe io , a subo dina e o a pee . I has been shown ha subjec s adop a s yle o domina ion in he esolu ion o di e- ences wi h subo dina es (Philips and Ches on, 1979; Lee, 1990); while hey adop a comp omising s yle when bo h pa ies in a con lic si ua ion hold a simi- la sha e o powe -among pee s, o example- (Lee, 1990; Philips & Ches on, 1979; Rahim, 1983a; 1986). Finally, su- bo dina es end o adop an obliging s yle mo e in cases o con on a ion wi h a su- pe io han in hose wi h pee s o subo di- na es (D ake, Zammu o and Pa asu aman, 1982; Mundua e, Ganaza & Alcaide, 1993). Resea ch Objec i es and Hypo hesis Lee p oposes (1990) he need o empi- ical s udies which analyze he ac ual s y- les o con lic managemen , ins ead o analyzing he pe cep ion ha subjec s ha- e abou hei s yles o con lic manage- men h ough e ospec i e ield s udies, as has been he case in mos o esea ch o da e. In ac , o he s udies in p in , only Lee’s (1990) es ablishes he s yles used by manage s in hei ela ions wi h supe io s, pee s and subo dina es by obse ing hei beha io in he momen o con on a ion. A di e en app oach o ha adop ed h- ough sel - epo ed ques ionnai es -in spi- e o ob aining e ospec i e da a-, is ha adop ed by Kabano & Van de Vlie (1993). They ha e used manage s’ epo s STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY 146 Psico hema, 1997 Figu e 1. S yles o handling in e pe sonal con lic . abou hei in e en ions in eal con lic si- ua ions which a e hen e alua ed and classi ied by code s. Cosie & Ruble’s (1981) s udy also mo es away om sel - epo ed ques ionnai es using an expe i- men al game wi h a compu e p og am. The p incipal objec i e o he p esen s udy is o es ablish whe he he indings abou he s yles o con lic managemen a e con i med using a di e en me hodo- logy. The i s speci ic objec i e is o es a- blish whe he manage s a e mo e inclined o use he s yle o in eg a ion, ollowed by comp omise and a oidance, in hei con- lic in e ac ions in o ganiza ions. Conside ing he in e ac i e ocus o he analysis o con lic si ua ions pu o - wa d by Kabano & Van de Vlie (1993), and d awing on esea ch in o p ocesses o social in luence (Mosco ici, 1976; Mugny & Doise, 1978), we ha e picked up on he design s udy used by Lee (1990). This ap- p oaches om he s andpoin ha in in e- ac ions o con lic wi h a supe io , a pee o a subo dina e, one o he ac o s ha in- luences he s yle o con lic managemen adop ed by he manage is he ac ic o in- luence used by he o he pa y. In o he wo ds, he subjec ends o adop a di e- en ac ic depending on whe he she/he is dealing wi h a boss, a pee o a subo dina- e, and his in u n a ec s he s yle o con- lic managemen adop ed by he o he pa y (Lee, 1990). Linked o he esul s o he e ec s o hie a chical posi ions on so- cial in luence (Lemaine, Lasch & Rica e- au, 1971-1972; She i & She i , 1969), Kipnis, Schmid & Wilkinson (1980) poin ou ha subjec s end o use di e en ac- ics o in luence depending on he ela i e s a us o he o he pa y: supe io s will end o use asse i e ac ics, pee s, bloc- king ac ics, and subo dina es, a ional ac ics. The second objec i e o he p esen s udy is o analyze he s yle o con lic managemen used by manage s, depen- ding on he ela i e s a us and he ac ics o in luence o he o he pa y, wi h he o- llowing p edic ions: – Hypo hesis 1: di e ences will be ound in manage s’ use o s yles o con- lic managemen depending on whe he hey a e dealing wi h supe io s, pee s o subo dina es, in he ollowing di ec ion: he e will be a endency o use an obliging s yle mo e wi h supe io s han wi h pee s o subo dina es; ha o comp omise mo e wi h pee s han wi h subo dina es o supe- io s and, inally, domina ing mo e wi h subo dina es han wi h pee s o supe io s. – Hypo hesis 2: di e ences will be ound in manage s’ use o s yles o con- lic managemen , depending on he ac- ics o in luence adop ed by he o he pa y in he ollowing di ec ion: he e will be a endency owa ds using he obliging s yle mo e when he o he pa y uses asse i e ac ics; comp omise when he o he uses blocking; and domina ing when he o he u ns o a ional a gumen s. – Hypo hesis 3: Di e ences will be ound in manage s’ use o s yles o con- lic managemen depending on who s/he is dealing wi h -a supe io , pee o subo - dina e- and he ac ics o in luence used by ha pe son -asse i e, blocking o a- ional-, in he ollowing di ec ion: hey will end o use he obliging s yle mo e when he supe io uses asse i e ac ics; he comp omising s yle mo e when he pe- e uses ac ics o blocking, and domina ing mo e when he subo dina e u ns o a io- nal a gumen s. Me hod Sample. F om a class o subjec s a en- ding a pos -g adua e manage ial cou se, 45 subjec s we e selec ed (27 men and 18 women, wi h an a e age age o 31). The subjec s’ jobs in ol ed hem in asks o a LOURDES MUNDUATE, PEDRO LUQUE & MIGUEL BARÓN Psico hema, 1997 147 manage ial na u e, o hei cu iculum was one which would lead o hem assuming esponsibili y, as his was one o he c i e- ia o hem being accep ed on he cou ses. Expe imen al design. A 3x3 ac o ial design was used wi h he ollowing in e - g oup a iables: Rela i e s a us o he ma- nage and Tac ics o in luence used by he manage s. The i s o he a iables has h- ee dimensions: Rela ions wi h supe io s s. Rela ions wi h pee s s. Rela ions wi h subo dina es. The second independen a- iable has h ee dimensions: Asse i e ac- ics s. Blocking ac ics s. Ra ional ac- ics. The dependen a iable is he s yle o con lic managemen adop ed in each ex- pe imen al condi ion, acco ding o he o- llowing i e dimensions: in eg a ing, com- p omising, obliging, domina ing, and a ioding. P ocedu e. The 45 subjec s a e an- domly assigned o one o he g oups o six subjec s, om he nine expe imen al con- di ions. Each g oup is made up o i e ex- pe imen al subjec s and an accomplice. The g oup is asked o ca y ou an exe ci- se, and each subjec is gi en a ole which speci ies he depa men hey a e going o ep esen as well as he posi ion hey hold wi hin i . Gene al in o ma ion is also gi- en abou he o ganiza ion and he aims o he mee ing which is he same o all he pa icipan s. They a e gi en wen y minu- es o p epa e he exe cise du ing which i- me hey a e no allowed o exchange in- o ma ion. The accomplice subjec is ea- ed in he same way as he es o he membe s o he g oup so as no o a ouse suspicion, bu his posi ion a he able has been p e iously ag eed so as o gi e him he planned ole. As he exe cise un olds a con lic si ua- ion de elops. The exe cise consis s o he alloca ion o a hal -yea ly budge in which each membe assumes he manage ial ole o a ce ain depa men and has o nego ia- e wi h he o he subjec s -ac ing as mana- ge s o o he depa men s- he quan i y co- esponding o each one. They mus each an ag eemen wi hin he 40 minu es allo- wed o he mee ing. The accomplice p o- okes he con lic si ua ion by eques ing an excessi e p opo ion o he o e all bud- ge . In each o he nine expe imen al si- ua ions he accomplice is assigned a di - e en manage ial ole - high- anking, low- anking, o same hie a chical le el-, and adop s di e en ac ics o in luence - asse i e, blocking, and a ional. The mee- ings o he nine expe imen al si ua ions a e ilmed om he con ol oom o sub- sequen e alua ion o he a iables. E alua ion o he dependen a iable. Two code s ca ied ou s uc u ed obse a- ions o he ideos. The ca ego ial sys em used o codi y he in e ac ions co esponds o he i e s yles o con lic managemen , and also includes a six h s yle labelled mis- cellaneous which ca e s o hose beha- io s ha canno be included in he p e- ious ca ego ies and ha will be le ou o la e analyses. The uni s o obse a ion se- lec ed o he codi ying o he in e ac ions a e he in e en ion u ns. These u ns a e he u e ances ha he subjec s make du- ing he sessions. Each in e en ion u n mus be codi ied in o one o he ca ego ies men ioned. The aspec s o he in e en ion u ns ha a e eco ded ha e a mainly se- man ic con en while no uling ou he possibili y o eco ding non- e bal aspec s when hese clea ly subs i u e u e ances. The in e code eliabili y o 0.91, cal- cula ed using Cohen’s Kappa coe icien (1968) is e y sa is ac o y. The disag ee- men s in codi ica ion o he ca ego ies o analysis a e esol ed by going back o e he ideos, discussing hem and ag eeing on a codi ica ion. To se le di e ences in he e en o a disag eemen pe sis ing, he codi ica ion is ca ied ou by a hi d obse - e . E e y ou in e en ion u ns he ob- STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY 148 Psico hema, 1997 se e s compa e o see whe he hey ha e been codi ying he same in e en ion u n -by compa ing he i s and las ph ase o he u n codi ied. The disag eemen s o e in e en ion u ns a e so ed ou a ha poin by he obse e s. The success o he expe imen al mani- pula ion. To es whe he he accomplices ha e co ec ly ul illed hei oles as supe- io s, pee s and subo dina es, obse a ions a e made o hese beha io s by he judges wi h coe icien s being ob ained o 0.93, 0.93, and 0.94 espec i ely. The same p o- cedu e is epea ed o he ac ics o in- luence used by he accomplices, wi h co- e icien s being ob ained o 0.95, 0.85 and 0.87 o a ional, blocking and asse i e ac ics, espec i ely. In sho , he success o he expe imen al manipula ion o bo h a iables is con i med. Resul s Al hough Table 1 con i ms he g ea e o e all use o he in eg a ion s yle, he highligh o he indings in his pape is he use o domina ion in second place. The e is hen a la ge dis ance o he s yle o comp omise which, acco ding o in- dings in p e ious s udies, should ha e be- en in second place. As o Hypo hesis 1, conce ning he in- cidence o ela i e hie a chical s a us o he o he pa y on he s yle o con lic ma- nagemen , he e is con i ma ion (see Table 2) o he ollowing: he use o in eg a ion mo e o en wi h supe io s han pee s; comp omise mo e wi h pee s han supe- io s; and domina ion mo e wi h subo di- na es and pee s han supe io s. The e is no hing o show ha an obliging s yle is used mo e wi h supe io s. In he case o Hypo hesis 2 abou he in- cidence o he ac ics o in luence used by he o he pa y on he s yle o con lic ma- nagemen (see Table 3), he e is only con- i ma ion o he g ea e use o domina ion when he o he u ns o a ional a gumen s. The p edic ions in Hypo hesis 3 abou he in e ac i e e ec o bo h a iables a e no con i med (see Table 4). LOURDES MUNDUATE, PEDRO LUQUE & MIGUEL BARÓN Psico hema, 1997 149 Table 1 Mean ecuency o con lic managemen s yles and di e ences in using hem Summa y com- pa isons o meansa S yles M SD 1 2 3 4 5 In eg a ing 17.40 10.13 11.49** 2.91** 11.15** 8..44** Obliging .11 .44 –9.7** –3.82** –5.62** Domina ing 11.31 7.81 9.05** 5.63** A oiding .73 1.01 4.63** Comp omising 3.80 4.42 a Means compa isons a e based on he « » S uden es . ** p < .01 * p < .05 Table 2 Ta ge s a us and mean equency o con lic managemen s yles Rela i e S a us Supe io Pee Subo dina e F In eg a ing M 21.33 12.86b 18.00ab 2.99** SD 11.94 8.29 8.48 Obliging M .13 .20 .00 .80 SD .51 .56 .00 A oiding M .80 .53 .86 .44 SD 1.20 .74 1.06 Comp omising M 2.20 6.13b 3.06ab 3.68 SD 2.27 5.93 3.43 Domina ing M 7.00a 13.06a 13.86b 3.93* SD 6.52 9.30 5.66 * p < 0.5; ** p < 0.1 Discussion The da a abou he g ea e use o he s yle o in eg a ion con i ms he endency obse ed in manage s in ecen yea s o add essing he in e es s o o he pa ies as well as hei own, seeking new and imp o- ed al e na i es o bo h sides (Mundua e, Ganaza, Alcaide and Pei ó, 1994; Rahim, 1992). Howe e , wha s ands ou is ha domina ion is he s yle leas used by Spa- nish manage s acco ding o he sel - epo - ing ques ionnai es (Ga cía-Eche a ía, 1991; Mundua e, Ganaza & Alcaide, 1993; Oso io, 1992; Se ano & Remesei- o, 1987; Vidal Abascal, 1991), and he se- cond o las s yle used by Ame ican mana- ge s (Rahim, 1992), while in his pape i appea s as he second mos widely used s yle. This seems o indica e a di e ence be ween he indings p e iously ob ained h ough manage s’ epo s abou hei s y- les o con lic managemen , and hose ob- ained h ough he obse a ion o hei be- ha io in con lic in e ac ions. The di e ences ound conce ning he use o di e en s yles depending on he e- la i e s a us o he o he pa y, con i m da- a om Kabano & Van de Vlie (1993) and Mannix, Thompson & Baze man (1989) abou he in luence o ela i e po- we . They s a e ha as he imbalance in he powe ela ions g ows, he likelihood o mu ual coope a ion in he esolu ion o he con lic dec eases. In ac , we ha e obse - ed ha al hough manage s a e seen o be mo e in eg a ing wi h supe io s han wi h pee s, and ha e a g ea e endency owa ds comp omise wi h pee s han wi h supe- io s, hey do, howe e , end o use a do- mina ing s yle wi h subo dina es and pee s. As a conclusion o he p esen pape , we should highligh he signi ican di e ences be ween manage s’ pe cep ion o he way hey ac in con lic in e ac ions, and hei ac ual beha io . One explana ion o his STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY 150 Psico hema, 1997 Table 3 Accomplices’ in luence ac ics and mean equency o con lic handling s yles In luence ac ics Asse i eness Bloking Ra ional F In eg a ing M 15.80 19.93 16.46 .71 SD 11.64 11.15 7.19 Obliging M .26 .06 .00 1.54 SD .70 .25 .00 A oiding M .53 1.00 .66 .84 SD .63 1.36 .89 Comp omising M 2.86 4.00 4.53 .54 SD 3.46 4.76 5.01 Domina ing M 8.53a 9.93a 15.46b 3.71 SD 4.80 7.84 8.83 * p < 0.5; ** p < 0.1 Table 4 Con lic handling s yles as a unc ion o ela i e s a us and in luence ac ic FP In eg a ing Ta ge s a us 2.96 .064 In luence ac ic .804 .456 In e ac ion 1.39 .256 Obliging Ta ge s a us .778 .467 In luence ac ic 1.44 .249 In e ac ion .444 .776 A oiding Ta ge s a us .429 .655 In luence ac ic .796 .459 In e ac ion .673 .615 Comp omising Ta ge s a us 3.37 .046 In luence ac ic .572 .570 In e ac ion .328 .857 Domina ing Ta ge s a us 4.29 .021 In luence ac ic 4.09 .025 In e ac ion .422 .792 could lie in he beha io -a i ude inconsis- ency desc ibed by LaPie e back in 1934, and which has eme ged as he di e ence be ween he cogni i e, a ec i e, and beha- io al componen s o a i udes. The cul u al and social changes which Spanish socie y has unde gone in ecen yea s may explain he de elopmen o s yles o con lic mana- gemen on a cogni i e le el, bu no on a be- ha io al le el. A s udy ca ied ou by Po a (1970), o analyce he in luence o cul u al di e ences in he way execu i es o a ious coun ies handle con lic , indica ed ha when Spanish execu i es o he beginning o he se en ies eached ag eemen s, hey did so in sho e imes han Danes, Swiss o B i ish, bu ha Spanish execu i es ended o lead nego ia ion o a ze o-sum si ua ion in which bo h pa ies los . They adop ed ha d and in lexible ac ics, higly coe ci e, when hey could no a i e a an ag eemen in he i s pa o he p ocess. Al hough he da a in he p esen pape abou he p esence o in eg a ion and domina ion as he mos widely used s yles ie in wi h he endency desc ibed by Po a (1970), he empo al phases o he p ocess ha e no been analy- zed. As Hai e, Ghiselli & Po e (1963) poin ed ou in hei s udy abou manage ial s yles in di e en coun ies, we see he ab- sence o a link be ween he ideas abou ma- nage ial p ac ices - ha end o be based a ound pe suasion and pa icipa ion- and basic belie s abou human na u e - ha end o emain adi ional and unchanging. The au ho s poin ou ha his pa adox be ween a basic lack o con idence in o he people and a he same ime a endency owa ds g oup-based pa icipa i e s yles may be showing he e ec o a pa ial accep ance o mode n manage ial concep s (Mundua e, Ganaza, Alcaide & Pei ó, 1994). I may be possible o s e ch his explana ion o co e he disc epancies be ween he desc ip ions ha he manage s ga e abou hei s yles o con lic managemen , and he ac ual s yles o con lic managemen hey we e seen o adop . In ac , al hough he use o ba gai- ning s yles simila o in eg a ion and com- p omise ha e been p esen in s udies on he subjec in ecen yea s (Ga cía-Eche a ía, 1991; Mundua e, Ganaza & Alcaide, 1993; Oso io, 1992; Se ano & Remesei o, 1987; Vidal Abascal, 1991), he da a ob ained in he p esen s udy by using an obse a ional me hodology show ha manage s con inue o all back on p essu e s yles on mo e oc- casions han hey a e willing o admi . Ag adecimien os This esea ch was suppo ed by a g an om he Spanish CICYT (Comisión In e minis e ial de Ciencia y Tecnología)(PB91-0955). Pape p esen ed a he 8 h annual con e en- ce a he In e na ional Associa ion o Con lic Mamagemen e, Elsino e, Denma k, June 11- 14, 1995. LOURDES MUNDUATE, PEDRO LUQUE & MIGUEL BARÓN Psico hema, 1997 151 Re e encias Blake, R.R. & Mou on, J.S. (1964). The Mana- ge ial G id. Hous on: Gul Publishing. Cohen, J.A. (1968). Weigh ed kappa: Nominal scale ag eemen wi h p o ision o scaled di- sag eemen o pa ial c edi . Psychological Bulle in, 70, 213-220. Cosie , R.A. & Ruble, T.L. (1981). Resea ch on Con lic -Handling Beha io : An expe i- men al App oach. Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 24, 816-831. D ake, B.H., Zammu o, R.F. & Pa asu aman, S. (1982). Fi e con lic S yles: Fac o e s uc u e and social desi abili y issues un- de lying he con lic mode ins umen . Pa- pe p esen ed a he Annual Mee ing o he Ame ican Ins i u e o Decision Sciences Ga cía-Eche e ía (1991). Di ección de la Em- p esa y el ejecu i o del u u o [Managemen and he execu i e o he u u e] Al a Di ec- ción, 157, 59-176. Hai e, M., Ghiselli, E. & Po e , L.W. (1963). Cul- u al Pa e ns in he Role o he Manage .Ins i- u e o Indus ial Rela ions, 2, 95-117. Kabano , B. & Van de Vlie , E. (1993). Beha- iou Symme y in Con lic Dyads and i s Re- la ion o In e powe and Con lic Ou comes. Pape p esen ed o he Six h Annual Con e- ence o he In e na ional Associa ion o Con lic Managemen . Hou halen, Belgium. Kipnis, D., Schmid , S.M. & Wilkinson, Y. (1980). In ao ganiza ional In luence Tac ics: Explo a ions in Ge ing one’s way. Jou nal o Applied Psychology. 65(4), 440-522. LaPie e, R.T. (1967). Type- a ionaliza ions o g oup an ipa hy. Social Fo ces, 15, 32-238. Lee, Ch.W. (1990). Rela i e s a us o employe- es and s yles o handling in e pe sonal con- lic : An expe imen al s udy wi h Ko ean Manage s. The In e pe sonal Jou nal o Con lic Managemen . 1 (4), 327-340. Lemaine, G., Lasch, E. & Rica eau, P. (1971- 72). L`in luence sociale e les sys èmes d`ac ion: Les e ecs d`a ac ion e de épul- sion dans une expé ience de no malisa ion a ec “I`allociné ique”. Bulle in de Psycho- logia, 25, 482-493. Mannix, E.A., Thompson, L.L. & Baze man, M.H. (1989). Nego ia ion in small g oups. Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 74, 508- 517. Mosco ici, S. (1976). Social in luence and so- cial change. Lond es: Academic. Mugny, G. & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cogni i- e con lic and s uc u e o indi idual and collec i a pe o mance. Eu opean Jou nal o Social Psychology, 8, 181-192. Mundua e, L., Ganaza, J. & Alcaide, M. (1993). Es ilos de Ges ión del Con lic o In- e pe sonal en las o ganizaciones [S yles o handling con lic in o ganiza ions] Re is a de Psicología Social. 8(1), 47-68. Mundua e, L., Ganaza, J., Alcaide, M. & Pei ó, J.M. (1994). Con lic Managemen in Spain. En Rahim, R.A. y Blum, A. (Eds.). Global Pe spec i es on O ganiza ional Con lic (pp. 103-134). New Yo k: P aege . Oso io, M. (1992). El di ec i o en Eu opa [The Manage in Eu ope]. Ingenie os Consul- o es, S.A. (ICSA). Comunicación in e na. Phillips, E. & Ches on, R. ((1979). Con lic Resolu ion: Wha Wo ks?. Cali o nia Ma- nagemen Re iew. 21(4), 76-83. Po a , A.M. (1970). C oss-cul u al di e ences in esol ing union-managemen con lic h- ough nego ia ions. Expe imen al Publica- ions Sys em, 2, 069A. Rahim, M.A. (1983a). A Measu e o S yles o Handling In e pe sonal Con lic . Aca- demy o Managemen Jou nal. 26, 368-376. Rahim, M.A. (1983b). Rahim O ganiza ional Con lic In en o y -II: Fo ms a, b, and c. Pa- lo Al o, CA: Consul ing Psychologis P ess. Rahim, R.A. (1992). Managing Con lic in O - ganiza ions. (2nd Ed.). New Yo k: P aege . Rahim, M.A. & Bononoma, T.V. (1979). Ma- niging O ganiza ional Con lic : A Model o Diagnosis and In e en ion. Psychologi- cal Repo s, 16, 143-155. Ruble, T.L. & Thomas, K.W. (1976). Suppo o a Two-Dimensional Model o Con lic Beha io . O ganiza ional Beha io and Hu- man Pe o mance.16, 143-155. Se ano, G. & Remesei o, C. (1987). Ac i udes an e la negociación colec i a [A i udes o- wa d collec i e ba gaining]. Bole ín de Psi- cología, 14, 79-108. She i , M. & She i , C.W.(1969). Social Psy- chology. New Yo k: Ha pe and Row. Thomas, K.W. (1976). Con lic and Con lic Managemen . En Dunne e, M.D. (ed.). Handbook o Indus ial and O ganiza ional Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally. Thomas, K.W. (1992). Con lic and Nego- ia ion p ocesses in o ganiza ions. En M.D. Dunne e y L.M. Hough (Ed.), Handbook o indus ial & O ganiza ional Psychology, ( ol. 3, 2nd Ed., pp. 651-717). Palo Al o, CA: Consul ing Psychologis s P ess. Tjos old, D. (1989). In e dependence App o- ach o Con lic Managemen in O ganiza ions. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Managing Con lic :An In e disciplina y App oach (41- 50). New Yo k, P aege . Van de Vlie , E. & Ho dijk, J.W. (l989). A Theo e ical Posi ion o Comp omising Among o he s yles o Con lic Manage- men , Jou nal o Social Psychology, 129 (5), 681-690. Van de Vlie , E. & Kabano , B. (1990). To- wa d Theo y-Based Measu es o Con lic Managemen . Academy o Managemen Jou nal. 33, 199-209. STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY 152 Psico hema, 1997 LOURDES MUNDUATE, PEDRO LUQUE & MIGUEL BARÓN Psico hema, 1997 153 Van de Vlie , E. & P ein, H.C.M. (1989) The Di e ence in he Meaning o Fo cing in he Con lic Managemen o Ac o s and Obse - e s.In A.Rahim (Ed.) Managing Con- lic :An In e disciplina y App oach (pp.51- 63). New Yo k: P aege Vidal Abascal, V. (1991). La ges ión emp esa- ial en los años 90 [Business Managemen in Nine ies]. Documen ación in e na. Acep ado el 20 de mayo de 1996