Conflict at Work: The Role of the Supervisor Kïrsten Way Associate Professor Nerina Jimmieson Professor Prashant Bordia
Conceptual Beginnings Harassment and stress investigations in workplaces Manager s average of 20% of their time managing conflict (Thomas, 1992). Workers comp data: Claims categorised as mental stress increased by 83% from1996/7 to 8,410 in 2003/4 since that time have been decreasing. Hovers around 5% of all compensation claims Median time lost from work 10.8 weeks (nearly 3X the time lost for all serious claims. One of most costly claim types - $16,300(more than 2X the median cost for all serious claims) (Worksafe, 2011). Incidents reported to regulator identified work pressures, with interpersonal stressors (e.g., harassment) often playing a role.
What is Conflict? Tension among employees due to real of perceived differences. (Wall & Callister, 1995) a) Task Conflict allocation, distribution of resources, policies and procedures, judgement and interpretation of facts; b) Relationship Conflict interpersonal attributes, personal taste, political preferences, opposing values. (Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954; Jehn & Mannix, 2001, De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997) CRICOS Provider No 00025B
Conflict as a source of Occupational stress Conflict one of the most important stressors (Keenan & Newton, 1985; Spector & Jex, 1998). Effects of workplace conflict on employees can be explained from occupational stress theory and research (e.g., Jex, 1998): Information-processing perspective (Jehn, 1995; Walton, 1969). Job Demand, Control, Support Model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Quick et al, 1997; Sutton & Kahn, 1987). Conflict involves negative emotions and may threaten self esteem, self-worth (Felled, 1995), sense of self and similarity with others (c.f. De Dreu et al., 2002).
Outcomes from exposure to conflict Animosity, social conflict, negative relationships, abusive supervisory styles and bullying associated with stress responses and psychological disturbance beyond variates of age, health practices, support from work and home, stressful life and stressful work events (Beehr & Newman, 1978; Jones et al, 1998; Warr, 1994;Gilbreath & Benson, 2004, Leiter, 1991, Spector and Jex, 1998). Evidence of bullying, harassment, and conflict being related to work stress with effect sizes ranging from 0.16 to 0.34 (Thompson et al., 2002). Occupational stressors influence employee behaviours that have implications for organisational effectiveness (e.g., absenteeism, turnover, and reduced job performance) (Goldstein, 1984; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Wall & Nolan, 1986). Legal Applications
Risk Management Framework Constructs/theories Supervisor Responses Identify risk Assess severity and outcomes of risk Implement controls to manage risk 1. Identify conflict Supervisors are aware of any conflict in my workgroup 2. Assess severity of conflict Supervisors underestimate the level of conflict in my workgroup when it occurs. 3. Level that Action taken Supervisors usually deal with relationship and task conflicts within my workgroup by offering assistance aimed at improving individual s ability to cope with the situation. 4. Processing of action - Conflict handling style (Compromising, yielding, forcing, collaborating, or avoiding) Supervisors usually deal with relationship and task conflicts within my workgroup by giving in to the wishes of one party Aspects of Emotional Intelligence (perceiving emotion accurately, using emotion to facilitate thought) General Systems Theory, occupational stress interventions classification Conflict Management Taxonomy/Dual Concern theory 6
Proposed Model Workgroups Perception of Supervisor Conflict Management Style Employee Outcomes Supervisor Avoids Anxiety/Depression +ve -ve Supervisor Yields Job Satisfaction -ve Supervisor Collaborates Procedural Justice Climate Sleep Disturbance +ve +ve -ve Supervisor Forces -ve +ve Claims/Leave +ve -ve BETWEEN WITHIN Employee Outcomes (AD, JS, SD, CL)
And what about perceptions of Justice? At the individual level At the group level
Justice climate Justice = fairness (distributive, procedural, interactional) (Greenberg, 1990a) Justice climate = group perception of justice. (Liao & Rupp, 2005; Mossholder et al, 1998). Workplace justice.cannot be understood in terms of individuals independently (Cappelli & Sharer, 1991). Justice climate associated with: employee attitudes and behaviours above and beyond individual level perceptions (Naumann & Bennett, 2000) team performance and absenteeism (Colquitt et al, 2002) Employees make differential judgements about the interactional and procedural treatment by their supervisor and the organisation (Byrne, 1999; Liao & Rupp 2005).
Research Questions 1. Are group-level perceptions of supervisor s conflict handling style associated with differential levels of justice climate? 2. Are group-level perceptions of supervisor s conflict handling style associated with differential levels of job satisfaction, anxiety/depression, sleep disturbance and thoughts of making a workers compensation claim/taking leave? 3. Does Justice Climate mediate the relationships between Supervisor conflict handling style and employee outcomes? CRICOS Provider No 00025B
What s new? - Group level perceptions of responses to conflict Almost all conflict management literature to date has focused on conflict strategies taken by the individuals involved in the conflict. This research introduces a new group-level construct in considering workgroups perceptions of supervisors responses to conflict. Analysis of data conducted at the workgroup level to capture this group-level variable.
What s new? - Role of Supervisors Not much known about the influence of supervisor behaviours on employees stress responses when conflict occurs at work. Supervisors logical source of third party help - have formal organisational authority. Third party help additional conflict management style that buffers the stressor strain relationship (Tin-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001, Giebels & Janssen, 2005) buffering effect via promoting accurate information processing (Arnold & O Conner, 1999). Leadership behaviours can trigger different levels of cognitive and affective conflict in groups. (Kotlyar, 2006)
Methodology Data from large geographically diverse transport company, blue and white collar workers. Individual-level N= 517, Group-level N=75 (workgroups less than 3 removed, ave group size 7 members). Measures adapted for a referent to the supervisor and their immediate workgroup: Supervisor conflict handling style based on Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001); Procedural justice climate based on Colquit s (2001) scale; Anxiety/Depression measured using items from Kalliath, O Driscolll & Brough, (2004) CFA of GHQ12 (Goldburg, 1972); Job Satisfaction (Warr, 1991); Sleep Disturbance items from PHQ (Schat, Kelloway & Desmarais, 2005); Claims/Leave 3 item scale constructed. One factor congeneric models conducted at both individual and group levels, reliability /internal consistency acceptable.
Analysis to assess the appropriateness of data aggregation: Significant between unit variance in all four predictor variables with variance in these constructs attributable to group membership ranging from 15-35% (ICC). Data modelled among variables at multiple levels using a 2,2,1 model, following methodology specified by Preacher, Zyphur & Zhang, (2010). Used Multilevel structural equation modelling (MSEM) with full maximum likelihood estimation method using Mplus 6.1. Unlike conventional 2-step method MSEM allows investigation of the 2,2 and 2,1 paths simultaneously. CRICOS Provider No 00025B
Results CRICOS Provider No 00025B
Supervisor Style and Justice Climate YD1 YD2 Supervisor Yields YD3-0.57*** CL1 CL2 Supervisor Collaborates 0.88*** CL3 FC1 FC2 Supervisor Forces -0.63*** Procedural Justice Climate FC3 BETWEEN PJ1 PJ1 PJ2 PJ3 WITHIN Procedural Justice CRICOS Provider No 00025B
Supervisor Yields -Outcomes AD11 0.32** Anxiety Depression AD2 AD3 AD4 JS1 YD1-0.24** Job Satisfaction JS2 YD2 Supervisor Yields 0.40*** JS3 SD1 YD3 0.22** Sleep Disturbance SD2 SD3 CL1 Claims/Leave Thoughts CL2 CL3 CRICOS Provider No 00025B
Supervisor Collaborates -Outcomes AD11 n.s. Anxiety Depression AD2 AD3 AD4 JS1 CL1 0.26* Job Satisfaction JS2 CL2 Supervisor Collaborates -0.58*** JS3 SD1 CL3 Sleep Disturbance SD2-0.29*** SD3 CL1 Claims/Leave Thoughts CL2 CL3 CRICOS Provider No 00025B
Supervisor Forces - Outcomes AD11 0.28** Anxiety Depression AD2 AD3 AD4 JS1 FC1-0.31*** Job Satisfaction JS2 FC2 Supervisor Forces 0.36*** JS3 SD1 FC3 Sleep Disturbance SD2 0.25** SD3 CL1 Claims/Leave Thoughts CL2 CL3 CRICOS Provider No 00025B
Indirect effects: Supervisor Collaborates PJ1 PJ1 PJ1 PJ1 CL1 1 1.15 1.37 1 1.12 CL3 CL2 1.25 1.19 Supervisor Collaborates 0.83*** -0.44* Procedural Justice Climate Sleep Disturbance 1 0.62 0.60 BETWEEN SD1 SD2 SD3 1 1.13 0.72 WITHIN Test of indirect effects is significant (-0.37*); Chi Square (df=33)=39.82 P=0. = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.02; SRMR w = 0.01; SRMR B = 0.08. ; TLI = 0.99; CFI Sleep Disturbance Test of indirect effects is also significant for Job Satisfaction (0.47**) Chi Square (df=41)= 69.35 P=0.004; TLI = 0.98; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.04; SRMR w = 0.0; SRMR B = 0.09. CRICOS Provider No 00025B
Indirect effects: Supervisor Yields PJ1 PJ1 PJ1 PJ1 YL1 YL2 Supervisor Yields -0.53*** -0.50** Procedural Justice Climate Sleep Disturbance YL3 BETWEEN SD1 SD2 SD3 Test of indirect effects is significant (0.26**); Chi Square (df=33)=47.31 P=0.75; TLI = 0.98; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.03; SRMR w = 0.01; SRMR B = 0.08. Sleep Disturbance WITHIN Test of indirect effects is also significant for : 1. Job Satisfaction (-0.18**); Chi Square (df=32)= 30.23 P=0.97; TLI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.01; SRMR w = 0.01; SRMR B = 0.05. 2. Claims/Leave Thoughts (0.12**); Chi Square (df=32)=42.66 P=0.73; TLI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.02; SRMR w = 0.01; SRMR B = 0.08.
Conclusions What the group perceives the supervisor does in response to conflict is related to group perceptions of fairness and employee outcomes. Specifically, if workgroups see their supervisors to use a Collaborative approach, fairness and satisfaction are greater, and sleep disturbance and claims/leave thoughts are decreased. If workgroups see their supervisors to use a Forcing or Yielding approach, there is more psychological strain, more sleep disturbance and more claims/leave thoughts. The group also has less job satisfaction and has a lower justice climate.
Conclusion cont. The group perception of how procedurally fair the supervisor is, constitutes the mechanism by which workgroups have higher levels of job dissatisfaction, sleep disturbance and claims/leave thoughts when their supervisor yields. The group s perception of how procedurally fair the supervisor is, is also the mechanism by which higher satisfaction and lower sleep disturbance occurs when the supervisor collaborates for workgroup conflicts. CRICOS Provider No 00025B