Organize Commun Article Rvw 3 (Please DO NOT SEND ANOTHER STUDENT'S COMPLETED WORK)

proquestdocuments-2017-08-21.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Organize Commun Article Rvw 3 (Please DO NOT SEND ANOTHER STUDENT'S COMPLETED WORK)

Conflict resolution styles and personality Canaan Messarra, Leila; Karkoulian, Silva; El-Kassar, Abdul-Nasser . International Journal of Productivity

and Performance Management ; Bradford 65.6 (2016): 792-810.

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) Purpose

- Conflict in the workplace creates a challenge for many of present day managers. The purpose of this paper is to

explore the moderating effect of generations X and Y on the relationship between personality and conflict handling

styles.

Design/methodology/approach

- The study is conducted using a sample of 199 employees working in the electronic retail sector in a non-Western

culture. The five-factor model of personality traits is used to measure personality, while conflict styles are

measured using Rahim's Organizational Conflict Inventory II.

Findings

- Results indicate that generations X and Y moderate the relationship between specific personality traits and

conflict handling styles.

Research limitations/implications

- This study investigated the moderating effect of generations X and Y on a sample of employees within the

electronic retail service sector in Lebanon. It is recommended that future research examine such a relationship in

other sectors and cultures for generalizability. Since generation Z (born in the late 1990s) will soon be entering the

job market, further studies should include this cohort when investigating the relationships. Finally, for a deeper

understanding of the relationship, it is advisable to use both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods.

Practical implications

- The understanding of what influences an individual's choice regarding his/her choice of conflict resolution styles

is of great use to supervisors in general and human resource managers in particular. This will assist in developing

training programs that help employees acquire the appropriate skills necessary to control their impulses in a

conflict situation. Training should comprise conflict resolution and communication skills that could help bridge the

gap between generations. Effectively managing generational conflict in the workplace can positively contribute to

the level and frequency of future conflicts, which in turn, can lead to favorable organizational outcomes.

Originality/value

- Earlier research that examined the relationship between personality and conflict management styles have found

varying results ranging from weak to strong relationships. The understanding of what influences an individual's

choice of which management style he/she chooses is of great use for managers in general and human resource

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 20

https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1798625657?accountid=33337

managers in particular. This study showed that the inconsistency could be the result of some factors that

moderate this relationship. The age of individuals contributes to the strength or the weakness of the various

relationships between personality and conflict handling styles. Findings suggest that generations X and Y do not

moderate the relationships among the personality traits and the dominating and obliging conflict styles. They do,

however, have varying moderating effects on the relationships between specific personality traits and the

integrating, avoiding, and compromising styles. FULL TEXT Introduction

Conflict creates a challenge for many managers, an issue very common in today's workplace. These conflicts are

likely to arise between individuals or groups because of differences in values, expectations, needs, workplace

practices, and personalities, which, in turn, could produce conflicting actions and preferences. However, poorly

managing such conflicts in the workplace can have adverse effects on the level and frequency of future conflicts

and can negatively affect productivity, job performance (Meyer, 2004; Trudel and Reio, 2011), and organizational

commitment (Thomas et al., 2005). Workplace conflict has also been shown to have a positive relationship with

absenteeism and employee sickness (Giebels and Janssen, 2005). On the other hand, properly managing such

conflicts has been shown to decrease stress, improve long-term relationships, and reduce emotional

defensiveness (DeChurch et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the conflict management style that the individual chooses to

adopt may largely influence the outcome of the conflict.

The conflict handling styles favored by individuals in a certain situation depend on factors such as personality

(Ejaz et al., 2012; Anwar et al., 2012), emotional involvement, and the prevailing circumstances (Wilmot and

Hocker, 2000). When choosing which conflict management style to adopt, researchers sometimes suggest a

contingency approach. This approach recognizes that many conflicts happen without warning, and, as such, a

reactive approach is inescapable (Zia and Syed, 2013). Critics of this perspective argue that some individuals are

not adaptable enough to alternate conflict management styles. Their personalities factor in and largely dictate one

style over another (Antonioni, 1998; Thomas, 1976). According to Carlson (2010), genetics and environmental

factors are both equally important in personality formation. Personality has been shown to be instrumental in

conflict management styles to different extents (Ejaz et al., 2012; Wang, 2010; Whitworth, 2008), having an impact

on "how employees interpret their organizational environment, and hence shaping the behaviors in light of those

interpretations" (Hong and Kaur, 2008, p. 4). However, no research has been conducted with regards to

generational differences moderating the relationship between personality and conflict management styles.

Generations X and Y are characteristically different as they were brought up at different times. Previous research

proposes that intergenerational differences happen as a result of people developing their social identities around

technological developments and other important social events (Lyons and Kuron, 2014; McMullin et al., 2007).

Generation X includes those born between the years 1965-1980, while those born between 1981 and 2000

comprise the Millennials or Generation Y.

Conflict

Organizational conflict may befall parties because of contradictory emotions about a certain issue, limited

resources, incompatible ideologies, different values, lack of communication, and workplace practices, etc. Such

conflicts are likely to occur between individuals or groups since each have their own beliefs, attitudes, and values.

Jones et al.(2013, p. 880) define it as "the discord that arises when the goals, interests, or values of different

individuals or groups are incompatible, and those individuals or groups block or thwart one another's attempts to

achieve their objectives." Nevertheless, if a conflict is properly managed, it can lead to both personal and

organizational benefits (Silverthorne, 2005). Otherwise, it can negatively affect organizational outcomes such as

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 20

productivity, absenteeism, commitment, and job performance (Meyer, 2004; Thomas et al., 2005; Giebels and

Janssen, 2005; Trudel and Reio, 2011). Still, managing these conflicts is no easy process; a wide range of

organizational actions must be taken, including understanding positions, communicating, and problem solving as

well as dealing with emotions (Brett, 2001; Behfar et al., 2008).

Many scholars have proposed conceptual models for classifying interpersonal conflict management styles (see,

e.g. Blake and Mouton, 1964; Thomas, 1976). However, Rahim (1992) developed a conceptualized classification

into two basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for others (this classification will be the basis for our

research). The first dimension, concern for self, describes the degree (high or low) to which a person aims to

satisfy his/her own motives. The second, concern for others, describes the degree (high or low) to which a person

aims to satisfy others' concerns (Rahim, 1992; Rahim and Bonoma, 1979). Combining these two dimensions

renders five interpersonal conflict management styles:

1. Integrating style, also known as collaborating style, is characterized by great concern for both one's own and the

other party's goals. Both parties carry out a win-win interaction; they solve the problem by clarifying differences,

maximizing joint gains, ultimately reaching a mutually acceptable solution. While some consider it to be the most

constructive conflict management style (Rahim, 1983; Blake and Mouton, 1984), others feel it is misleading

because it is time and energy consuming, and therefore unsuitable when solving low-priority conflicts (Shetach,

2009). Rahim (1992) considers this style potentially inappropriate in situations when immediate decisions need to

be made or when the concerned parties lack problem solving skills.

2. Obliging style, also known as accommodating style, is characterized by low concern for one's own goals and

high concern for others' where individuals may neglect their own needs to satisfy the other party's - a sacrifice to

maintain the relationship. This style holds a self-sacrifice element, and can therefore be dubbed a lose-win

situation (Rahim, 1983, 1992).

3. Dominating style, also known as competing style, is characterized by high concern for one's own goals and low

concern for others' where individuals use power to complete their objective and ignore others' interests and needs.

Individuals in management positions are likely to use the power their position affords them. If they hold no such

power, they are likely to "yield" power by bluffing or involving a superior (Rahim, 1992). The outcome of this style is

win-lose; only one person comes out of it as a winner.

4. Avoiding style is characterized by low concern for both self and others. In this style, an individual acknowledges

the existence of a conflict, but suppresses or withdraws from it - failing to satisfy both his\her own needs and the

other's needs and giving the impression of an "unconcerned attitude" (Rahim, 1992). It is considered a lose-lose

situation.

5. Compromising style is characterized by intermediate concern for both one's own and others' goals. It involves

using give-and-take strategies to reach a happy medium (middle ground position). Unlike integrating style, in this

style, the problem is not explored fully and neither party's needs are fully satisfied; both have given something up

in exchange for something from the other. The object of the conflict is rationed to reach a solution that provides

incomplete satisfaction for both parties' concerns. A compromising person is more willing to forgo his\her needs

than a dominating person, but less than an obliging person. This style culminates in a no-win/no-lose situation (no

clear winner or loser).

Personality

Personal features primarily define and forecast human conduct. These personal characteristics also designate

different individualities, which can contribute to implications about behavioral consequences (Liao and Lee, 2009).

There are several scholars who believe that personality is fundamentally unchangeable (Ferrer-i-Carbonell and

Frijters, 2004). Nevertheless, according to Boyce et al.(2013), the assumption that personality is fixed is

problematic for several reasons. The chief reason is that this belief condenses the interest in personality to

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 20

practical economists and policy makers. It would not be a valuable target or specific aim for micro- or macro-level

intercession. Ferrer-i-Carbonell (2005) asserts that even though personality is an imperative interpreter of a person,

it might only be attention-grabbing if it is a phenomenon that actually changes. Economists, ever more, look at

personality as a form of non-cognitive skill, which may have essential penalties for the economic decisions that

people make and the upshots that they achieve. On the other hand, Almlund et al.(2011) avow that the traits of

personality react to parental actions, level of education, and policy intrusions. This makes personality change a

possibility even throughout adulthood.

Additionally, in the psychology field, the stance of personality change has been mixed throughout the years. The

traditional view in psychology is that an individual's personality is fairly permanent and enduring. At the outset,

personality was thought to be stable especially after the age of 30 in which it has been described to be "set like

plaster" (Costa and McCrae, 1988). Further studies claim that personality is actually "set like soft plaster" since it

does change, although in a slow pace after the age of 30 (Srivastava et al., 2003).

According to Robbins et al.(2008), personality traits are an accepted means for elucidating people's behavior.

Current theoreticians approve of the five central personality dimensions, repeatedly referred to as the "Big Five" or

"five-factor model," composed of a few qualities used to describe individuals (Durupinar et al., 2009). The five-

factor model of personality suggests that there are five factors to an individual's personality. The Big Five

personality traits, also referred to with the acronym OCEAN, are openness to experience, conscientiousness,

extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Goldberg, 1993; Robbins et al., 2008). Openness to experiences is

the personality attribute that is stalwartly related to the intelligence facet (Fumham et al., 2008). It demonstrates

to which extent a person has artistic affinity, and it is merely associated to one's attractions to new things

(Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2009). Individuals who are highly open to experience are creative, imaginative, inspired,

and sensitive. Individuals low on openness to experience are conformists and tend to be more at ease with familiar

surroundings (McCrae and Costa, 1987; Sodiya et al., 2007).

Pertaining to the second dimension of the five-factor model, conscientiousness is a propensity to exhibit strength

of mind, behave devotedly, and show self-control. Conscientiousness designates that individuals are highly

motivated and goal oriented (Judge and Ilies, 2002). Highly conscientious people are responsible and organized,

and therefore are more likely to attain their objectives (Robbins and Judge, 2007). Individuals who are low in

conscientiousness are plainly disorganized and easily distracted.

In addition to this, extroversion is allied to a person's easiness with external relationships and situations (Laney,

2002). Extroverted people, generally, enjoy socializing with others and tend to be more positive, energetic, friendly,

and outgoing (Srivastava et al., 2008). Nonetheless, introverts are typically shy, quiet, and distant as they possess

lower energy levels and social interactions than extroverts.

Regarding the fourth element of the five-factor model, the agreeableness trait displays people's general concern

for social concord. It shows how much an individual is apt to behave in harmony with the interests of others.

Highly agreeable people are pleasant, kind, trusting, and warm. They are usually willing to compromise with others

and are more reliable (Rothmann and Coetzer, 2003; Clarke and Robertson, 2005). Individuals low in agreeableness

are time and again forceful, disagreeable, and cold (Graziano and Tobin, 2009).

Lastly, the fifth dimension of the five-factor model, neuroticism is the proclivity to experience adverse feelings,

such as anger, nervousness, or despair, especially in threatening situations and loss (Lahey, 2009). People high in

neuroticism are more likely to be depressed, worried, and anxious. This personality trait is sometimes reversed and

denoted as emotional stability (Jeronimus et al., 2014). People who mark low in neuroticism tend to be emotionally

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 20

stable and calm. They do not show evidence of obstinate negative emotions (Dolan, 2006).

Personality and conflict management styles

Several researchers have, for decades, intended to expose the nature of the relationship between personality and

conflict style (Anwar et al., 2012). Pepin (2005) affirms that findings of these studies have been inconsistent,

where some found a weak relationship between personality and style of conflict, while others found a strong

relationship between them.

Wang (2010) found a correlation between the five-factor model and conflict management styles. His study showed

a positive relationship between integrating conflict style and openness to experience, but a negative one between

integrating style and neuroticism. In addition, the obliging conflict style was positively associated with

neuroticism, but negatively with extroversion. Furthermore, the avoiding conflict style was positively correlated to

neuroticism, but negatively correlated to extroversion. Wang (2010), correspondingly, established the existence of

a positive correlation between the compromising style and agreeableness, and a negative correlation between the

dominating style and agreeableness.

Ejaz et al.(2012) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between the different conflict handling styles

and personality traits. Their study comprised call center representatives in Pakistan and revealed significant

connotations among the diverse conflict handling styles and the Big Five traits. The results displayed that both the

integrating and obliging conflict styles were positively correlated to openness, agreeableness, and

conscientiousness, while the compromising and dominating conflict styles, were positively linked to openness and

extroversion. Additionally, the avoiding style was positively associated with neuroticism.

On the other hand, Whitworth (2008) found no association between preferred conflict handling styles and

personality factors among female nurses in Southern Mississippi.

Generations X and Y

Born between the years 1965-1980, ranging in age from 35 to 50, Generation X, otherwise known as the Baby

Busters, was the first generation to really have to deal with the dramatic shift in workplace paradigms brought

about by the technological revolution. They were the first to own personal computers, and the first to modernize.

They are seen as generally driven by the mantra "work to live" (Fraone et al., 2008) This generation has witnessed

many crises in its time. They are "accustomed to recurring economic recessions," and familiar with "oil shortages,

terrorist attacks, and soaring inflation." According to Saleh (2008), generation X developed skepticism and

independence, which helped them succeed in an entrepreneurial setting. They are considered to have a great work

ethic and unflinching loyalty when it comes to their workplace.

Also known as Millennials, generation Y ranges in age from 15 to 34, born between 1981 and 2000. Unlike their

Baby Busters counterparts, the Millennials were born into an already hi-tech environment. Their time experienced

its fair share of violence, particularly with regards to terrorist attacks (Mukundan et al., 2013). Respectively, their

mantra, "work my way," can be seen as resulting from a career-driven personality that characterizes the generation.

Millennials are considered "special, sheltered, confident, team oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving"

(Howe and Strauss, 2000) who in addition to being "high maintenance and high risk" can also be "high output"

(Fraone et al., 2008). They are highly networked and are in constant search of instant gratification.

Millennials see work as elective, if only to further their personal goals; they have a different definition of loyalty

than their predecessors and are sometimes described as self-centered. They are contentious to the systems of

hierarchy widely accepted by generation X, and rather, expect more of a mentoring role from their supervisors.

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 5 of 20

They would not mind leaving their employer if they find a better opportunity elsewhere for themselves. They expect

to be included in intellectual talk and in management decisions (Mukundan et al., 2013, p. 83). They respect

positions and titles, and want a good relationship with their boss. This does not always mix well with generation

X's independent nature and hands-off style, and can cause conflict.

Hypothesis development

Several previous research studies explored the relationships between the Big Five personality traits and the

different conflict management styles, which led to identifying some significant associations among them. This

study, however, intends to take things further by investigating a possible moderator of the various relationships.

Thus, the main research question of this paper is the following:

RQ1.Do generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between each of the Big Five personality

traits and the five conflict management styles?

A main characteristic of the dominating conflict style is the use of power to achieve results. Since the

characteristics of both generations X and Y do not comprise power use, the relationship between the personality

traits and the dominating style is supposedly independent on X and Y. Hence, the following hypothesis is

formulated:

H1.Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits

and the dominating conflict style.

Additionally, the integrating conflict style is characterized by a large concern for both one's own and the other

party's objectives. Unlike generation Y, generation X is known for joining gains and ultimately reaching an

acceptable solution. This, in turn, will result in easiness to deal with external relationships and situations, a

portrayal of being extroverted. For this reason, it is theorized that generations X and Y have a moderating effect on

the relationship between extroversion and the integrating style, and that the strength of this relationship is greater

for generation X than for generation Y. Nevertheless, not sufficient common characteristics are found between the

remaining personality traits and the integrating conflict style. Therefore, the following three hypotheses are

formed:

H2a.Generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between extroversion and the integrating

conflict style.

H2b.Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between openness,

conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism, and integrating conflict styles.

H2c.The moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between extroversion and the integrating conflict

style is greater than that of generation Y.

Moreover, the central characteristic of the avoiding style is the withdrawal from a conflict. Generation X tends to

suppress from conflict more than generation Y as these individuals are usually more responsible (a feature of

conscientiousness), more at ease with their surroundings (a feature of extroversion), and more likely to behave in

harmony with others' interests (a feature of agreeableness). Because of this, it is expected that generations X and

Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, and

the avoiding conflict style, and that the strength of this relationship is greater for generation X than for generation

Y. Unlike the common characteristics between conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness, and the

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 6 of 20

avoiding conflict style, such commonalities cannot be pinpointed for the two remaining personality traits,

openness, and neuroticism. Consequently, the next three hypotheses are developed:

H3a.Generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness, extroversion,

and agreeableness, and the avoiding conflict style.

H3b.Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between openness and neuroticism,

and the avoiding conflict style.

H3c.The moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between conscientiousness, extroversion, and

agreeableness, and the avoiding conflict style is greater than that of generation Y.

Furthermore, a main characteristic of the obliging conflict style is a low concern for one's own goals. Both

generations X and Y are concerned for their objectives and do not neglect their desires. For that reason, the

association between the personality factors and the obliging style is expected to be independent on X and Y.

Therefore, the subsequent hypothesis is developed:

H4.Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits

and the obliging conflict style.

In addition, a fundamental characteristic of the compromising conflict is reaching middle ground position where

give-and-take strategies are applied to satisfy both one's own and others' objectives. Contrasting to generation Y,

generation X seems to be more willing to compromise as they show self-control and behave devotedly, known

features of being conscientious. As a result of this, it is hypothesized that even though generations X and Y may

have a moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style, the

effect of generation X is expected to be larger than that of generation Y. Unlike the common characteristics

between conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style, such similarities cannot be found for the

remaining personality traits, openness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Thus, the following three

hypotheses are formulated:

H5a.Generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness and the

compromising conflict style.

H5b.Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between openness, extraversion,

agreeableness, and neuroticism, and the compromising conflict style.

H5c.The moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between conscientiousness and the compromising

conflict style is greater than that of generation Y.

Research design and data collection

The aim of this research is to test whether generations X and Y, as separate cohorts, moderate the relationship

between conflict handling styles and personality.

For the purpose of collecting data for this study, the top electronic retail companies in Lebanon were contacted.

The Lebanese electronic retail sector is one of the most developed sectors, and is a major contributor to the

Lebanese economy. This sector was chosen for its popularity across generations; it largely employs members of

the newer generations, who grew up surrounded by technology, while holding onto members of the older

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 7 of 20

generation as well.

In order to carry out the data collection process, e-mails were sent to the HR departments of ten selected

companies. The addressed e-mail contained a brief introduction about the purpose of the study and asked whether

they would like to participate by completing it. The questionnaire was then sent to the HR departments of the eight

companies that agreed to take part in it, which distributed it to their employees across all levels. All participants

were assured complete anonymity.

The questionnaire was initially piloted by three management professors and five professionals in the field during

the first week of June 2013. Then, it was amended where needed to ensure content validity. The final questionnaire

was administered between July 2013 and December 2013, culminating in a total of 214 responses from the

participating companies, in which 199 were usable.

The questionnaire collected demographic data regarding age, gender, education, years of work experience, and

position. Also, it contained a section with questions regarding the conflict handling styles (integrating, obliging,

dominating, avoiding, and compromising), and another section pertaining to personality (openness,

conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability).

Construct measures

The question relating to age asked about date of birth, divided into the following categories: 1981-2000, 1965-1980,

and 1964 or before. These categories were chosen in order to identify generations X and Y. The answers of

participants born before 1965 were removed from consideration.

The conflict resolution styles were measured using the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory II, constructed by

Afzalur Rahim in 1983 and based on the five items depicted in the present survey: dominating style (Q1-Q4);

integrating style (Q5-Q8); avoiding style (Q9-Q12); obliging style (Q13-16); and compromising style (17-Q20). This

scale was used to accurately measure the conflict resolution styles of the employees. To this end, the effect of

generations X and Y on conflict resolution can be accurately studied as this instrument has been proven valid and

reliable (Hopkins and Yonker, 2015; Rahim, 1983).

The personality traits were measured using the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor

Inventory (NEO-FFI), constructed and developed by Costa and McCrae (1992), and based on the five items depicted

in the present survey: openness (Q1-Q5); conscientiousness (Q6-Q10); extraversion (Q11-Q15); agreeableness

(Q16-20); and emotional stability (Q21-Q25). The above mentioned scale was used to accurately measure the

personality traits of the employees working in the electronic retail industry in Lebanon. To this end, the moderating

effect between generations X and Y, and conflict resolution can be accurately studied as this instrument has been

proven valid and reliable (Oshio et al., 2014; Karkoulian et al., 2009).

Both instrument statements were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral,

4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree).

Results

Demographics

Pertaining to the participants' generation, 51.3 percent belong to generation Y while 48.7 percent belong to

generation X. Regarding the gender of the respondents, 56.8 percent are females and 43.2 percent are males.

Additionally, concerning the level of education, the majority of the participants (43.2 percent) are holders of a

bachelor's degree and 38.6 percent hold a degree higher than bachelor. Relating to the years of work experience,

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 8 of 20

41.2 percent of the participants had zero to five years of experience, 21.6 percent had six to ten, 12.1 percent had

11-15, 12.1 percent had 16-20, and 13.1 percent had above 20 years of work experience. Moreover, the majority of

the respondents occupied non-managerial positions (49 percent), 21.2 percent occupied middle-level management

positions, 20.2 percent occupied operational management positions, while only 9.6 percent occupied top-level

management positions.

Correlation

To test for relationships between the five personality traits and the different styles of conflict, a correlation matrix

was conducted. The results are displayed in Table I.

The outcomes show that no significant relationships exist between the dominating style and the Big Five

personality traits. This is in line with neither the study of Wang (2010), who found that the dominating style and

agreeableness have a significant negative relationship, nor the study of Ejaz et al.(2012) who found that

dominating style is positively related to openness and extroversion. The integrating conflict style, however, is

positively correlated to openness (consistent with both the findings of Wang, 2010 and Ejaz et al., 2012),

conscientiousness (unfailing to Ejaz et al., 2012), extroversion, and agreeableness (similar to Ejaz et al., 2012) at a

significance level of 0.01, and negatively correlated to neuroticism (unfailing to Wang, 2010) at a 0.05 significance

level. Moreover, the avoiding conflict style is significantly related to openness at a 0.01 significance level, and

significantly related to extroversion and agreeableness at a 0.05 significance level, which are not in line with

Wang's (2010) and Ejaz et al.'s (2012) study. In addition to this, the obliging conflict style is negatively correlated

to conscientiousness, but positively correlated to neuroticism (consistent to Wang's, 2010 results but not to Ejaz

et al., 2012 results) at a 0.05 significance level. Also, the compromising conflict style is significantly related to

openness, conscientiousness, and extroversion at a 0.01 level of significance and to agreeableness (unfailing to

Wang's, 2010 research) at a 0.05 significance level.

Regression analysis

To assess probable generational differences in the intercept and slope for prediction of conflict style, a regression

was conducted to predict conflict style from generations (dummy coded 1=generation X, 0=generation Y),

personality traits, and a product term to represent a generation-by-personality traits interaction. Thus, the

regression model is applied to test the moderating effect of generations X and Y on the relationship between each

personality trait and each conflict handling style.

In relation to the dominating conflict style, results reveal that the regression models to predict the dominating style

from the generation with respect to the Big Five personality factors are not statistically significant. In other words,

no significant interaction was found between any personality traits moderated by generations X and Y with the

dominating conflict style. This supports H1that generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the

relationship between the Big Five personality traits and the dominating conflict style. The output is shown in Table

AI.

Furthermore, relative to the integrating conflict style, the overall regression model to predict the integrating style

from the generation with respect to extroversion is statistically significant with R=0.4302, R2=0.1851, F=25.3956,

and p-value=0.0000. The interaction of generations on the relation between extroversion and the integrating style

is statistically significant with b 3 =0.5348 and a corresponding p-value=0.0016. Additionally, the effect of

generation X (0.7511) on the stated relationship is greater than the effect of generation Y (0.2163). No other

significant relationships were found between the remaining personality traits and the integrating conflict style.

This provides evidence to support H2aand H2b, which state that generations X and Y have a moderating effect on

the relationship between extraversion and the integrating conflict style, but not between openness,

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 9 of 20

conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and the integrating conflict style. Also, H2cwhich states that the

moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between extroversion and the integrating conflict style is

greater than that of generation Y is supported. The results are illustrated in Table II.

In turn, the overall regression equation to predict the integrating style relative to extroversion is as follows:

(Equation 1)

Replacing the variables into the expression, the equation becomes:

(Equation 2)

The nature of this interaction can be comprehended by substituting the dummy variable score values into the

above regression equation.

For generation Y:

(Equation 3)

Thus:

(Equation 4)

For generation X:

(Equation 5)

Simplifying the expression, the equation becomes:

(Equation 6)

Furthermore, the overall regression model to predict the avoiding conflict style from the generation with respect to

the personality traits is performed. Results show that the interactions of generations on the relation between the

integrating style and conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are statistically significant with p-values

of 0.0145, 0.0455, and 0.0282, respectively. The moderating effect of generation X on each relationship is greater

than the effect of generation Y, as illustrated in Table III. However, no significant interactions are found between

the remaining two personality traits moderated by generations X and Y and the avoiding conflict style. This

provides evidence to support H3aand H3b, that there is a moderating effect of generations X and Y on the

relationship between conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness, and the avoiding conflict style, while

there is no such moderating effect on the relationship between openness and neuroticism, and the avoiding

conflict style. Additionally, H3cis also supported since the moderating effect of generation X on the relationship

between conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness, and the avoiding conflict style is greater than that of

generation Y.

By this, the overall regression equation to predict the avoiding style relative to conscientiousness is as follows:

(Equation 7)

Replacing the dummy variable score values into the above expression, the equation becomes.

For generation Y:

(Equation 8)

Thus:

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 10 of 20

(Equation 9)

For generation X:

(Equation 10)

Simplifying the expression, the equation becomes:

(Equation 11)

Likewise, the regression equation to predict the avoiding style relative to extraversion is as follows.

For generation Y:

(Equation 12)

For generation X:

(Equation 13)

Similarly, the regression equation to predict the avoiding style relative to agreeableness is.

For generation Y:

(Equation 14)

For generation X:

(Equation 15)

Moreover, in relation to the obliging conflict style, no significant interactions were found between any personality

traits moderated by generations X and Y. This supports H4that generations X and Y do not have a moderating

effect on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and the obliging conflict style. The output table is

shown in Table AII.

Finally, relative to the compromising conflict style, the overall regression model to predict this style from the

generation with respect to conscientiousness is statistically significant with R=0.3327, R2=0.1107, F=6.3057, and

p-value=0.0004. The interaction of generations on the relation between conscientiousness and the compromising

style is significant with b 3 =0.4321 and a corresponding p-value=0.0236. Also, the moderating effect of generation

X (0.5228) on the relationship between conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style is greater than that

of generation Y (0.0907). No significant interactions were found between the remaining personality traits

moderated by generations X and Y with the compromising conflict style, as illustrated in Table IV. This provides

evidence to support H5aand H5bthat generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between

conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style, but no moderating effect on the relationship between

openness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, and the compromising conflict. In addition to this, H5cis

supported as the moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between conscientiousness and the

compromising conflict style is greater than that of generation Y.

Thus, the regression equation to predict the compromising style relative to conscientiousness is as follows.

For generation Y:

(Equation 16)

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 11 of 20

For generation X:

(Equation 17)

Discussion

The results indicated no moderating effect of generations X and Y between the dominating conflict handling style

and the Big Five personality traits. This seems in line with the characteristics of generations X and Y, which do not

comprise the use of power to complete any objectives. This is true especially for generation Y who prefer to work

in teams instead of dominatingly leading as they are more team oriented (Howe and Strauss, 2000).

Moreover, the results showed no moderating effect of generations X and Y between the obliging conflict handling

style and the Big Five personality traits. Both generations X and Y do not sacrifice their own needs or goals to

satisfy others. On the contrary, individuals of generation Y believe in empowerment, are achievement oriented, and

acquire career-driven personalities. They are also considered self-centered enough not to abide by other people's

desires (Mukundan et al., 2013).

On the other hand, results revealed that generations X and Y moderated the relationship between the integrating

conflict style and extraversion. However, X had a greater moderating effect than Y. Individuals of generation X are

most likely to prefer an integrating style for conflict handling since it is the most constructive among the conflict

styles and may lead to joint gains for both parties. Generation X is known for joining gains and eventually reaching

a suitable solution. They also acquire a great concern for their own as well as another party's best interest. They

are flexible and usually more loyal than generation Y. All of these characteristics ease their dealings in

relationships and situations, a description of being extroverted. Generation Y individuals, nonetheless, like to work

their own way and tend to leave when something better comes along (Mukundan et al., 2013).

Additionally, generations X and Y moderated the relationship between compromising conflict style and

conscientiousness. Conversely, X had a larger moderating effect than Y. This stems from the independent and

reliable character of generation X, who are more devoted and responsible, two of the characteristics of the

compromising handling style (Borges et al., 2010; Saleh, 2008). Individuals of generation X are more willing to give

up something in exchange for something else, unlike individuals of generation Y, who are regarded as more selfish

and sheltered (Howe and Strauss, 2000). Contrasting to generation Y, individuals who belong to generation X seem

to be more willing to compromise as they show self-control and behave dutifully, known features of being

conscientious.

Finally, generations X and Y moderated the relationship between the avoiding style and conscientiousness,

extroversion, and agreeableness, X having a greater effect than Y. Individuals of generation X aim to achieve and

plan behavior rather than react spontaneously, and they are more willing to withdraw in order to find a solution that

is acceptable to all (or to simply avoid the confrontation). They are more adrift and pleasant. Individuals of

generation Y, however, are willing to take more risks (Fraone et al., 2008). Their attitudes are influenced by today's

increased violence and numerous hollow reality shows (Mukundan et al., 2013). Unlike generation Y, generation X

tends to suppress from conflict more than generation Y, as these individuals are usually more responsible (a

feature of conscientiousness), more at ease with their surroundings (a feature of extroversion), and more likely to

behave in harmony with others' interests (a feature of agreeableness).

Conclusion, limitations, and future research

Earlier research that examined the relationship between personality and conflict management styles have found

varying results ranging from weak to strong relationships. The understanding of what influences an individual's

choice of which management style he/she chooses is of great use for managers in general and human resource

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 12 of 20

managers in particular. This study showed that the inconsistency could be the result of some factors that

moderate this relationship. The age of individuals contributes to the strength or the weakness of the various

relationships between personality and conflict handling styles. Findings suggest that generations X and Y do not

moderate the relationships among the personality traits and the dominating and obliging conflict styles. They do,

however, have varying moderating effects on the relationships between specific personality traits and the

integrating, avoiding, and compromising styles.

This study investigated the moderating effect of generations X and Y on a sample of employees within the

electronic retail service sector in Lebanon. It is recommended that future research examine such a relationship in

other sectors and cultures for generalizability. Since generation Z (born in the late 1990s) will soon be entering the

job market, further studies should include this cohort when investigating the relationships. Finally, for a deeper

understanding of the relationship, it is advisable to use both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods.

Table IPersonality traits and conflict styles