Write a 2- to 3- page paper that addresses the following:

CULTURES OF CONFLICT: HOW LEADERS AND MEMBERS SHAPE CONFLICT CULTURES IN ORGANIZATIONS

MICHELE J. GELFAND Department of Psychology

University of Maryland, College Park College Park, MD 20742

LISA M. LESLIE University of Minnesota

KIRSTEN KELLER Rand Corporation

CARSTEN K. W. DEDREU University of Amsterdam

INTRODUCTION

Why do some organizations develop cultures where conflict is managed productively whereas others have cultures where members work against one another, sabotaging each other in and out of the boardroom? Southwest Airlines, for example, has been argued to have a collaborative conflict culture (Gittell, 2003), whereas organizations such as Playco describe themselves as having a dominating conflict culture, approaching conflict like they are in “the old west” or through “warfare games” (Morill, 1995, p. 195). Still others, such as the now defunct Wang laboratories, are known to have avoidant cultures, in which people actively suppress conflict at all costs (Finkelstein, 2005). For psychologists, many questions remain unasked and unanswered: Is there any evidence that conflict cultures exist at the organizational level? If so, how do such distinct conflict cultures develop? What role do leaders and organizations play in shaping the development of conflict cultures? Answers to these questions cannot be found in the psychological literature on conflict, which has focused on conflict management styles at the individual and small group level and has yet to examine whether and how distinct conflict cultures develop at higher levels of analysis.

In the present research, we start with the premise that although individuals have idiosyncratic preferences for different conflict management strategies, organizational contexts provide strong situations (Johns, 2006; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996) that serve to define socially shared and normative ways to manage conflict—what we refer to as conflict cultures—which ultimately minimize individual variation in conflict management strategies (De Dreu, van Dierendonck, & Dijkstra, 2004; Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008). Because norms typically develop around fundamental problems that need to be managed in any social system (Schein, 1992; Schwartz, 1994), and conflict is an inherent problem in all organizational systems, we expect that distinct conflict cultures can develop in many, if not all, organizations. Accordingly, we first examine whether we can empirically establish conflict cultures and distinguish different conflict culture types. We then examine possible antecedents of different conflict cultures – where do they come from, who shapes conflict cultures and why?

DO CONFLICT CULTURES EXIST?

Individual members of organizations have distinct ways of managing workplace conflicts. Some prefer a pro-active approach and easily engage in constructive negotiations and collaborative problem solving. Others are inclined to compete and dominate the conflict partner. They seek victory and perceive the boardroom and shop floor as battlegrounds in which you eat or are eaten. Finally, some individuals shy away from conflict. To avoid contentious interactions, they may go to great lengths and suppress the emergence of conflicts at all costs.

Consistent with the classic distinction between three distinct ways of managing conflicts—cooperation, competition, and withdrawal—we propose a tripartite taxonomy of organizational conflict cultures (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964; Chen, Liu & Tjosvold, 2005; DeChurch & Marks, 2001; De Dreu & van Vianen 2001; Deutsch, 1949; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Rahim & Magner, 1995; Weingart & Olekalns, 2004). Collaborative conflict cultures are characterized by conflict management norms for active, cooperative discussion of conflict (Gelfand et al., 2008). Underlying this conflict culture is the assumption that individuals have agency to deal with conflict, and that cooperative behaviors and resolving conflicts openly is normative and appropriate. Dominating conflict cultures, in contrast, are characterized by conflict management norms that encourage active confrontation in order to publicly win conflicts (Gelfand et al., 2008). Underlying this conflict culture is the assumption that individuals have the agency to openly deal with conflict and that disagreeable or competitive behaviors are appropriate and normative. Finally, avoidant conflict cultures are characterized by conflict management norms of passive withdrawal in response to conflicts (Gelfand et al., 2008). Underlying this conflict culture is the assumption that conflict is dangerous and should be suppressed in order to maintain harmonious relationships.

Research has yet to systematically and quantitatively identify the three distinct conflict cultures described above. Accordingly, our first goal is to empirically assess whether these conflict cultures exist at the unit level of analysis. We therefore propose:

Hypothesis 1: Collaborative, dominating, and avoidant are distinct conflict cultures that exist at the unit level of analysis.

WHERE DO CONFLICT CULTURES COME FROM?

As with other aspects of organizational culture, we expect that the three distinct conflict cultures emerge through bottom-up influences (e.g., attraction-selection-attrition and shared sense-making) and top-down influences (e.g., leader personality and childhood history).

Bottom-up Antecedents

Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model suggests that when an individual’s values, attitudes, and personality match the dominant values, attitudes, and personality of an organization or organizational unit, that individual is likely to be attracted to the organization, selected as a member of the organization, and remain a member. At the aggregate level, ASA processes yield homogeneity of personality, which through daily interactions, information sharing and shared sense-making, establish norms for social conduct (Schneider, 1987) and socially-shared realities and mental representations (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). It is through such bottom-up processes that characteristics of individuals become amplified and have

emergent characteristics at higher levels of analysis (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In the case of conflict cultures, we similarly theorize that because organizations attract and select individuals with different personalities, they develop distinct conflict cultures. In particular, we expect that member agreeableness and extraversion shape the type of conflict culture that emerges.

Agreeable individuals focus on cooperation, problem solving, and collective well-being (Barry & Friedman, 1998; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Moberg, 2001), and agreeable employees are therefore likely to approach conflict collaboratively. On the other hand, disagreeable individuals are competitive and inflexible (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and disagreeable employees are therefore likely to engage in and encourage confrontation and conflict (Nauta & Sanders, 2000).

Hypothesis 2: Unit levels of member agreeableness will be (a) positively related to collaborative conflict cultures and (b) negatively related to dominating conflict cultures. Extraverted individuals tend to be assertive, active, bold and dominating (McCrae &

John, 1992) and have agency and a desire to get ahead (Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Indeed, Barrick, Stewart, and Piotrowski (2002) found that extraversion was related to status striving, which captures actions directed toward obtaining power and dominance over others (see also Barrick & Mount, 1991), and suggests that member extraversion will facilitate dominating conflict cultures. Alternatively, introverts are unsociable, unassertive, and untalkative (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and introversion is positively correlated with individual- level conflict avoidance (Moberg, 2001). Thus, introverted employees are likely to shy away from open discussions of conflict and thereby facilitate avoidant conflict cultures.

Hypothesis 3: Unit levels of member extraversion will be (a) positively related to dominating conflict cultures and (b) negatively related to avoidant conflict cultures.

Top-down Antecedents

Organizations also develop distinct cultures through top-down influences, such as leaders’ personalities and histories. Schein (1983) was one of the first to argue that the personality of the leader affects the development of organizational culture, a proposition that has received substantial empirical support (e.g., Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, & Goldstein, 2007; Schein, 1992; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). Particularly relevant to the current focus on conflict cultures is pioneering work by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) on how leaders influence group interactions. In their now classic series of studies, these authors manipulated the leadership style used in boys’ clubs and found that clubs with democratic leaders were friendlier and more cooperative than clubs with laissez-faire or autocratic leaders. Although never directly measured, Lewin and colleagues attributed these different conflict behaviors to the “social climate” created by the different leadership styles. We take this idea one step further, and theorize that leaders’ personality (e.g., agreeableness, extraversion, need for closure) and their childhood experiences with household conflict are critical determinants of organizational conflict cultures.

Agreeable leaders are likely to approach conflict collaboratively, signaling through their own behaviors that conflict should be solved constructively. By contrast, disagreeable leaders likely approach conflict in a competitive and inflexible manner, signaling through their own behaviors that conflict should be approached in a dominating way.

Hypothesis 4: Leader agreeableness will be (a) positively related to collaborative conflict cultures and (b) negatively related to dominating conflict cultures.

Introverted leaders are unsociable, unassertive, and untalkative (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Thus, introverted leaders are likely to suppress open discussions of conflict and facilitate avoidant conflict cultures.

Hypothesis 5: Leader introversion will be positively related to avoidant conflict cultures. Leaders may also influence conflict cultures through their epistemic motivation and

behaviors. For example, individuals with high need for closure prefer order, predictability, and consensus, and dislike opinion diversity and dissenting views (Kruglanski, Pierro, Mannetti, & DeGrada, 2006; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). Thus, leaders with high need for closure are likely to create pressures toward consensus, demonstrating that dissenting opinions are not valued and should be avoided (Pierro, Cicero, Bonaiuto, van Knippenberg, & Kruglanski, 2005).

Hypothesis 6: Leader need for closure will be positively related to avoidant conflict cultures. Finally, we examine if leaders’ experiences outside organizations vis-à-vis conflict

management “spill over” and influence the culture within organizations. Grounded in developmental psychological research showing that the way conflict is managed in one’s childhood household has long-term effects on the way individuals manage conflict later in life (e.g., Davies & Cummings, 1994; O’Brien & Chin, 1998), we explored whether leader’s childhood household conflict cultures influence organizational conflict cultures. Given the lack of prior research on this topic, we advance a general question regarding whether leaders’ childhood household conflict cultures relate to conflict cultures in organizations.

Research Question 1: Are the conflict cultures leaders experienced in their childhood households related to organizational conflict cultures?

METHOD

We gathered survey data from 540 branch members (i.e. employees) from 92 branches of a large bank in the mid-Atlantic United States, as well as the 92 leaders (i.e. mangers) of each branch. The member response rate was 59% overall (62% within branches), and the leader response rate was 68%. The surveys were completed during work hours and returned to the researchers by mail. All participants were entered in a lottery with a chance of winning $60.

The member survey included an original measure of conflict cultures that was based on an existing inventory of individual-level conflict management styles (De Dreu, et al., 2001; also see Rahim & Magner, 1995; Van de Vliert & Kabanoff, 1990) and included three dimensions: collaborative (4 items,  = .87), dominating (5 items,  = .79), and avoidant (4 items,  = .66). The survey also included measures of member extraversion (8 items,  = .77) and agreeableness (8 items,  = .72; Goldberg, 1999). We aggregated all member survey measures to the branch level using the within-branch mean for each measure.

The leader survey included measures of leader extraversion (10 items,  = .85) and agreeableness (7 items,  = .73; Goldberg, 1999), as well as leader need for closure (5 items,  = .77; Pierro & Kruglanski, 2006). The leader survey also included an original measure of childhood household conflict cultures. This measure was modeled after the conflict cultures measure included in the employee survey and included three dimensions: collaborative (3 items,  = .85), dominating (4 items,  = .75), and avoidant (6 items,  = .89).

RESULTS

Do Conflict Cultures Exist?

We first examined if distinct conflict cultures exist (Hypothesis 1). We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the conflict cultures measure, which supported a three- factor solution (1 = 4.71, 2 = 1.86, 3 = 1.28, 4-13 < 1.00; 49% variance explained), in which all items loaded on the intended factor. We also assessed if conflict culture perceptions are shared among branch members, by calculating rwg(j) and ICC(1) values for each conflict culture. In all cases, the average rwg(j) across branches was above the recommended value of .70 and all ICC(1) values were statistically significant. These results support Hypothesis 1, and that the three conflict culture types exist and are unit-level constructs.

We also examined if leaders’ reports of household conflict cultures differentiated between the three cultures. We ran an EFA, which supported a three-factor solution (1 = 4.15, 2 = 3.43, 3 = 1.31, 4-13 < 1.00; 60% variance explained), in which all items loaded on the intended factor. Thus, the analysis supported three distinct types of household conflict cultures.

Where Do Conflict Cultures Come From?

We used hierarchical regression to test our hypotheses regarding antecedents of conflict cultures. We controlled for a number of variables in the analyses, including task and relationship conflict, which were measured in the employee survey (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). We also controlled for leader ethnicity and gender, which were measured via the leader survey. Finally, we controlled for branch size, which we gathered from the bank’s archival records. We used directional tests for our hypotheses and bidirectional for our research question.

We expected that member personality would influence conflict culture emergence through bottom-up processes. Consistent with Hypotheses 2a and 2b, member agreeableness was positively related to collaborative conflict cultures ( = .25, t = 2.07, p < .05), but negatively related to dominating conflict cultures ( = -.32, t = -2.62, p < .05). In support of Hypothesis 3a, member extraversion was positively related to dominating cultures ( = .22, t = 1.76, p < .05), but extraversion was unrelated to avoidant cultures, failing to support Hypothesis 3b.

We also expected that leader personality and childhood experiences would influence conflict culture emergence through top-down processes. Leader agreeableness was not related to conflict cultures, failing to provide support for Hypotheses 4a and 4b. In support of Hypothesis 5, leader extraversion was negatively related to avoidant conflict cultures ( = -.23, t = -1.90, p < .05), and in support of Hypothesis 6 leader need for closure was positively related to avoidant conflict cultures ( = .24, t = 2.07, p < .05). We also explored whether leaders’ reports of their household conflict cultures predicted organizational conflict cultures (Research Question 1), and found that leader reports of avoidant childhood household conflict cultures were negatively related to avoidant branch conflict cultures ( = -.36, t = -2.91, p < .05).

DISCUSSION

In their classic work on the social psychology of organizations, Katz and Kahn (1978) observed that “…every aspect of organizational life that creates order and coordination of effort must overcome other tendencies to action, and in that fact lies the potentiality for conflict” (p.

617). As conflict is inherent in any organizational system, it is not surprising that conflict management has received much attention in the organizational sciences. Yet to date, research on conflict management has had a decidedly micro focus, examining conflict management processes at the individual and small group levels of analysis. Here, we pursued the possibility that organizations are characterized by distinct conflict cultures, and that these conflict cultures have antecedents in leader and member characteristics.

Our research provides support for this idea and reveals three distinguishable conflict culture types—collaborative, dominating, and avoidant. These findings corroborate anecdotal accounts reported in the popular press and speculations advanced in the scholarly literature (De Dreu et al., 2004; Gelfand et al., 2008). We also obtained support for many of our hypotheses about how employee and leader characteristics shape conflict cultures. In particular, branches with members who are agreeable are likely to develop collaborative conflict cultures, whereas branches with members who are disagreeable and extraverted are likely to develop dominating conflict cultures. Finally, branches with leaders who are introverted, have high need for closure, and grew up in a household characterized by low levels of conflict avoidance are likely to develop avoidant conflict cultures. Thus, the current study highlights that conflict cultures are shaped by members’ and leaders’ personalities, through both bottom-up and top-down processes.

More broadly, a conflict cultures perspective has the potential to connect conflict scholarship with other central topics in organizational behavior and psychology. Conflict scholarship, with its penchant for individual-level theory and research, has been largely separated from its organizational roots. For example, chapters on organizational behavior in the Annual Review of Psychology have rarely discussed conflict management. Accordingly, understanding how conflict cultures are created and sustained through bottom-up and top-down processes helps integrate the conflict management field with other core organizational behavior topics, including leadership, personality, organizational culture, and organizational change.

We found that both bottom-up and top-down factors affect the development of collaborative, dominating and avoidant cultures, yet we clearly have not examined all possible antecedents. Additional leader (e.g., charisma) and member (e.g., dominant personality) characteristics, as well as organizational structure (e.g., centralization), industry (e.g., growth rate), and national culture (e.g., femininity) are all likely to have an impact on the emergence of distinct conflict culture types (Gelfand et al., 2008). Accordingly, this research opens up a number of possibilities for future research on the multilevel determinants of conflict cultures.

The conflict culture perspective also has implications for practice. Through the identification of specific bottom-up and top-down processes, a conflict culture paradigm invites new diagnostic tools and mechanisms for implementing systematic change in organizations. Given that individual differences are important predictors of conflict cultures, it is possible for organizations to strategically select individuals to create different conflict cultures, given certain organizational goals. As Schneider (1987) remarked, the people make the place, and thus, individual differences not only affect individual performance but the creation of organizational culture. More generally, conflict cultures, like other aspects of culture, can be challenged, contested, and changed. As we continue to understand the multilevel factors that affect conflict cultures, we will be in a better position to help with organizational change efforts related to organizational conflict cultures.

REFERENCES AVAILABLE FROM THE AUTHORS

Copyright of Academy of Management Proceedings is the property of Academy of Management and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Copyright of Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings is the property of Academy of

Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.