THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INNOVATION AND THE STYLES OF HANDLING'INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT by Douglas E. Eshleman Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration in the Management Program .. Advispr / Date Dean of' the Graduate School YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY December, 1982 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INNOVATION AND THE STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT Douglas Edwin Eshleman Master of Business Administration Youngstown State University, 1982 This study looks at the behavioral view of innova- tion and considers how innovators and adaptors deal with interpersonal confl ict with subordinates. A number of dif- ferences have previously been found between innovators and adaptors, but one major area that has not been investigated - is the relationship between these two types and organiza- tional confl ict. The five styl es of hand1 ing interpersonal confl ict: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromi sing were examined in relation to the adaption-innovation theory. It was hypothesized that i nno- vators would utilize different styl es of handling confl ict than adaptors, and that speci fical ly innovators would be more integrating and dominating and less obliging and avoid- ing than adaptors. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in the use of the compromising style between innovators and adaptors. iii The sample consisted of 210 employed graduate and undergraduate students from Youngstown State University. Two questionnaires, a confl ict inventory and an innovation inventory, together wi th a demographic sheet were adminis- tered in the spring and fall of 1982. The questionnaires asked students to respond to questions about their immediate supervisor, rather than themselves, in the hopes of reducing the problem of soci a1 desirabi 1 i ty response bi as. Statistical analysis provided support for the hypotheses. A discriminant analysis showed that innovators are more integrating and dominating in handling confl ict with subordinates, and that adaptors are more avoiding in hand1 ing conflict with subordinates, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere thanks are expressed to Dr. Afzalur Rahim for his continued advice and support during the course of preparing this thesis. His enthusiastic interest in organi- zational research helped to spark my initial desire to begin this manuscript. The suggestions given by the other members of the committee, Dr. Frank Seibold and Dr. Clement Psen- icka, are also greatly appreciated. My deepest thanks also to my wife, Irene, who supported me throughout this endea- vor. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT ................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................... v CHAPTER I . INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1 I1 . INNOVATION IN ORGANIZATIONS ....................... 5 Approaches in Innovation Research ............... 5 Adaption and Innovation ......................... 6 Innovation and Creativity ....................... 9 Distribution of Adaptors and Innovators ......... 10 ......................... I11 . CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS 13 Definition of Conflict .......................... 13 . ................... Conflict: Amount Versus Style 14 Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict ....... 15 IV . INNOVATION AND STYLES OF HANDLING CONFLICT ........ 20 ............................... Relevant Research 20 ...................................... Hypotheses 22 ............................................ V . METHOD 23 ....................................... Procedure 23 Subjects ........................................ 24 ..................................... Instruments 24 Analysis of Data ................................ 29 ........................................... VI . RESULTS 31 Validity of Inventories ......................... 31 ...................... Reliability of Inventories 32 Pearson's Correlations .......................... 32 Discriminant Analysis ........................... 34 VII . DISCUSSION ........................................ 37 REFERENCES ................................................. 42 ...................................... ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 47 .... APPENDIX A . Rahim Organizational Confl ict Inventory-I1 49 APPENDIX B . Modified Conflict Inventory ................... 52 .......... APPEIJDIX C . Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory 55 APPENDIX D . Modified Innovation Inventory ................. 57 APPENDIX E Demographic Sheet ............................. 59 ................................. APPENDIX F . SPSS Programs 60 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Innovation has been called "...a niajor factor, if not the major factor, assuring the well-being and growth of this nation's economy" (Sharwell, 1981, p. 6). Research suggests that technological innovation alone accounts for one third of the growth of the Gross National Product (Deni- son, 1967; Jorgenson, 1979). Unfortunately, there appears rather recently a number of indicators to suggest that the United States is suffering a depressing downturn in innova- tive activity (Fernilious & Waldo, 1980). This decline in innovation has been called the "graying of Ariierica" (Hays, - 1977, p. 61, and is seen as "a significant threat to U.S. dominance of world-wide markets in the 1990's" (How Four Companies, 1980, p. 1). Therefore, the need for increasing innovation in industry is being continuously stressed by organizational theorists, management consultants, and corpo- rate executives. In order to understand and attempt to reverse the declining trend in innovation, it is necessary to empiri- cally study the construct through the use of valid and reli- able scientific research. Current research on innovation is of two types: a macro organizational approach and a micro behavioral approach. A1 though much emphasis has been placed on the macro approach, which focuses on the creation of an organizational climate conducive to the acceptance of change and new ideas, relatively few studies have looked at the behavioral approach. The behavioral study of innovation is still relatively new, but is a promising alternative to the macro approach. A behavioral study examines the behavior of the individual, in this case the emphasis is on how the innovative person differs from the non-innovative person. One theory suggests that all people fall on a con- tinuum measure of innovation with the poles labeled adaptive ..- and innovative (Kirton, 1976). Innovators and adaptors solve problems in characteristical ly different ways. Adap- tors suggest solutions that fit neatly within the structure of the organization, while innovators suggest changes that are often seen as threatening to upset the organization's equilibrium. Innovators and adaptors have a number of beha- vioral differences which result in different treatment by others; adaptors are often seen as stabilizers and innova- tors are often seen as trouble-makers. A major area of research that has not yet been investigated is the relationship between adaption-innovation and organizational confl ict. Because adaptors and innova- tors have different orientations in approaching problems, and are viewed differently by others, it is expected that these two types will not handle interpersonal conflict in the same ways. Researchers (Thomas, 1976; Rahim & Donoma, 1979) have shown that interpersonal conflict can be handled in five different styles; these styles are labeled: inte- grating, dominating, obliging, avoiding, and compromi sing. Each style is appropriate depending on the situation. it is desirable to know what styles individuals use in order to manage conflict properly. Conflict must be managed properly in order for an organization to attempt to maximize its effectiveness. The present study will explore the relationship bet- ween adaption-innovation and the five styles of handling conflict. It is hypothesized that differences do exist in how adaptors and innovators handle conflict. Adaptors are expected to be avoiding and obliging, and innovators are expected to be integrating and dominating in handling inter- personal confl ict with subordinates. The confl ict-hand1 ing styles of the adaptors and innovators need to be appropri- - ately identified so that their conflict can be managed effectively. This study involves basic research on organizational behavior and ill be of particular interest to researchers and practitioners involved in the human aspects of organiza- tions. The personnel specialist, for example, may wish to further investigate adaption-innovation and confl ict sty1 es in relation to the selection, training, and placement of empl oyees. The next chapter delves more fully into the concept of innovation; approaches in innovation research, and the nature of adaptive and innovative individuals. Chapter I11 deals with the concept of organizational conflict, its defi- nition, styles versus amount of conflict, and the styles of hand1 ing interpersonal confl ict. Chapter IV presents the related research on innovation and styles of handling inter- personal conflict, and describes the hypotheses of the study. Chapter V describes the research methodology i ncl ud- ing the survey instruments, the demographic information, and the procedure for data analysis. The results of the study are presented in Chapter VI, and the last chapter presents the interpretations of these results and the conclusion. CHAPTER I1 INNOVATION IN ORGANIZATIONS Approaches - in Innovation Research Researchers have general ly approached the question of how to increase innovative activity in two different ways: a macro organizational approach, and a micro beha- vi oral approach. The macro approach generally involves a broad over- view of those industries that perform favorably in the area of innovation, and compares and contrasts them with less innovative industries. This research has invariably looked at ways to improve organizational climate, to make the wqrk environment more conducive to new and different ideas. Researchers uti 1 izi ng the macro approach recommend stab1 e funding for research and development, a phi1 osophical manag- erial commi tment to purposeful change, and the establishment of working conditions conducive to innovation (Cohn, 1981; Sharwell, 1981). The other approach in innovation research has been to look at the organization in the micro sense, a behavioral view which examines the individuals responsible for innova- tive actitivity. Here research has centered on how various personality variables, such as intel ligence, creativity, and adaptabil i ty relate to innovativeness. Because the beha- vioral innovation approach is relatively new, there has been considerably less research than with the organizational approach; consequently there is a need for more micro stu- dies. Adaption and Innovation - . - - -.- - -. . It is Kirton's (1976) contention that people charac- teristical ly solve problems either by adapting "doing things better" or by innovating "doing things differently." Ki r- ton's theory posits a continuum with ends labeled adaptive and innovative along which a1 1 peopl e fa1 1. Adaption-innovation is seen as a basic dimension of personality, a dimension which is clearly important in the analysi s of organizational change. The adaptive person works wi thi n the confines of an appropriate consensual ly agreed paradigm. The innovative person, on the other hand, typically views the paradigm itself as an aspect of the problem. "Paradigm" is a term used by Kuhn (1970) to describe the structure of the problem, the regulations governing the problem, and assumptions, attitudes, and theories on which the problem is based. Thus, the adaptor while working within the paradigm, attempts to modify it or refine it in order to come up with an appropriate solution. The innovator, who is not bound by the confines of the para- digm, is more likely to discover and accept solutions which threaten to result in a switch of the paradigm. Thus, when the paradigm, or structure, is incorporated into the prob- 1 em, the solution is often something completely innovative or radical. Conversely, the less the structure is ques- tioned, the more the solution tends to be adaptive. The observation that peopl e do indeed characteri sti- cally adapt or innovate has led Kirton to explore behaviors that could be related to these two cognitive styles. Adap- tors, for example, are seen as embodying precision, reli- abil i ty, efficiency, are concerned with resolving problems, and approach problem solutions in traditional , understood ways. Innovators are seen as undi scipl ined, approaching problems in unconventional ways and from unsuspecting angles. Innovators are as concerned with findin9 and mani- pulating problems as they are with solving them. Kirton's (1977, p. 8) complete listing of behavior descriptions of adaptors and innovators is given in Table 1. It is apparent that the adaptor fits well in the bureaucratic system. Weber (1948) wrote that bureaucracy has the goals of precision, reliability, and efficiency. Merton (1957) stressed that such a bureaucracy places pres- sure on managers to be methodical, prudent, disciplined, and conforming. These attributes are certainly those of the adaptive person, a person who is often highly valued and successful in large organizations. Because the innovator does not follow the accepted patterns of thought and action, it is evident that he does not fit the traditional bureaucratic mold. The nature of innovative change leads to increased risk, uncertainty, and Table 1 Characteristics of Adaptors and Innovators The Adaptor The Innovator Characterized by precision, reliability, Seen as undisciplined, thinking efficiency, methodicalness, prudence, tangentially, approaching tasks discipline, conformity. from unsuspected angles. Concerned with resolving residual problems resulting from the current paradigm. Seeks solutions to problems in tried and understood ways. Reduces problems by improvement and greater efficiency, with maxirmun of continuity and stability. Seen as sound, conforming, safe, dependable. Liable to make goals of means. Seems impervious to boredom, seems able to maintain high accuracy in long spells of detailed work. Is an authority within given structures. Challenges rules rarely, cautiously, when assured of strong support. Tends to high self-doubt. Reacts to criticism by closer outward conformity. Vulnerable to social pressure and authority; compliant. Searches for problems and alter- native avenues of solution, cutting across current paradigms. Queries problems ' concomitant assumptions: manipulates problems. Is catalyst t7 settled groups, seen as abrasive and creating dissonance. Seen as unsound, impractical, often shocks his opposite. In pursuit of goals, treats means with little regard. Capable of detailed routine (system-maintenance) work for only short bursts. - Tends to take control in -unstructured situations. Of ten challeages rules, has little respect for past customs. Appears to have low self-doubt when generating ideas, not needing consensus to maintain certitude in face of opposition. When collaborating with innovators : When collaborating with adaptors : Supplies stability, order and continuity to the partnership Supplies the task orientations, breaks with the accepted theory. Appears sensitive to people, maintains Appears insensitive to people, group cohesion and co-operation. . Threatens grour, cohesion and co-operation. Provides a safe base for the innovator' s riskier operations. Provides the dynamics to bring about periodic necessary radical change. Source : ~irton, fiI. J. Manual - of - the -- Kirton Adaption-Innovation 3- Inventory. London: National ?oundatio~ Lor Educz-t- ional Xesearch, 1977. imprecision (Bright, 1964); and so the innovator tends to be 1 ess conforming of organizational rul es, soci a1 norms, and typical work patterns. Kirton (1961) has found that the innovator makes changes in an atypical unexpected manner, and these changes are very often associated with noteworthy (unpleasant to the adaptor) precipitating events. In describing innovators, the adjectives used are the same as those commonly attributed to creative individu- als. Kirton (1976) makes note of this point and states that the 1 i terature on creativity has almost exclusively concen- trated on innovators, even though innovators and adaptors may be equally creative. The reason for this is that the innovator attracts greater attention because he has a ten- dency to disrupt traditional modes of thought and action. Innovation and Creativity - .. -- pp Creativity has interested researchers for many years, but there is no agreement on the exact meaning of the construct. Creative ability has been described as the capacity to produce ideas that are both new and useful (Reitz, 1977). Gough (1979) states that the testing of creativity often stresses: ingenuity, the ability to over- come constraining sets, and fluency in ideation. A major tenent of the adaption-innovation theory is that adaptors and innovators have equal levels of creativity. The theory states that individuals on the continuum have varying dif- ferences in the style of creativity rather than level or amount of creativity (Kirton, 1978). In popular usage the term innovative imp1 ies creativity, but the term adaptive has no implication of creativity. Confusion is evident in the terms Kirton has selected; it intuitively appears that innovative individuals should be more creative than adaptive individuals. To eliminate this confusion, and to show sup- port for his theory, Kirton (1978) compared the creativity levels of adaptors and innovators. In a study of 415 stu- dents, no significant correlations were found to exist bet- ween adaption-innovation and five measures of creativity level. Kirton's conclusions are that while some individuals may be more creative than others, and individual differences obviously exist, innovators, as a whole, are no more crea- tive than adaptors. While both groups may be equally crea- tive in problem solving, the paradigm or style of problem - solving does differ greatly. Distribution -- of - . -- Adaptors - - - -- and Innovators " -. - - Adaptors and innovators both play crucial roles in an organization, and so it was surmised by Kirton (1978) that generally both should be found in equal numbers in man- agement. Kirton did predict, however, that organizations existing in a stable environment would have a mean manager- ial score leaning toward adaptiveness, while organizations in a turbulent environment would have a nean managerial score in the direction of innovativeness. Keller and Hol- land (1978b) have indeed found systematic differences among companies with respect to adaption-innovation scores of man- agers. In a study of three research and development organi- zations, a greater number of innovators than adaptors was found. Thus, empirical support was provided for the hypothesis that research and development companies employ innovative individuals. Not only are there differences among companies in the ratio of innovative to adaptive employees, there is evi- dence to suggest that there are not equal proportions of the two types within the different divisions of the same company (Kirton, 1980). Research has shown that in organizational departments which have relatively 1 i ttle interaction with other departments, such as production, managers tended to be adaptive rather than innovative. Departments which operated as interfaces between divisions of the same company, or bet- ween the company and the external envi ronment, tended- to have innovative managers. Managers involved in sales, for example, have been found more often than not to be innova- tive individuals. Kirton (1976) claims that an optimum "balance" of adaptors and innovators should exist within the departments of an organization. This balance has not been operationally defined, and there is no research to substantiate the claims of improved performance resulting from a certain mix of adaptors and innovators. ~vluch research remains to be con- ducted on the interpersonal re1 ationships between adaptors and innovators, and how both types relate to others. A major area of concern that needs to be investigated is how innovators and adaptors handle interpersonal conflict with others. Because the two types of individuals are viewed differently by others, and because the two types behave in different ways, it is expected that ways of handling con- flict will also differ. As of this date, however, no studies have been conducted on the relationship between adaption-innovation and the sty1 es of handling interpersonal conflict. This study will attempt to bridge the gap of know1 edge by exa~ni ning whether or not innovative and adap- tive individuals do have differences in handling conflict. The next chapter will define organizational conflict and explain the various styles used in handling conflict. CHAPTER I11 CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS Definition of Confl ict - Confl ict is a subject in organizational research that has received a great deal of attention in recent years. Studies of organizational conflict have led to some reveal- ing findings which can be utilized to improve organizational effectiveness. One study found that managers view confl ict as an integral part of their daily work, and that managers at all levels spend approximately 20% of their time dealing with conflict (Thomas & Schmidt, 1976). Conflict is a term that has been defined in many ways, and has often been confused with other terms including competition. Therefore an operational definition for con- fl ict is necessary. Conflict occurs whenever a struggle for behavioral preferences, scarce resources, or competing values exists within or between organizations (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). From this definition it is evident that con- flict is a broad term encompassing interpersonal and intra- personal conflict. Rahim (1977) has developed a useful tax- onomic structure to explain the relationships of the various types of conflict. The four potential types of organiza- tional confl ict are intrapersonal , intragroup, intergroup, and interorganizational. The two primary divisions, how- ever, are the intrapersonal and interpersonal ; this study will look only at the interpersonal level of conflict. Contrary to popular be1 ief, conflict is not neces- sarily negative and should not always he avoided. In fact, some researchers have stressed the positive values of con- flict stating that organizations stand to benefit from a moderate amount of conflict (Rahim, 1977); and that conflict provides a useful opportunity to improve relationships and create change (Roarke, 1978). Conflict: Amount Versus Style .- . -------A- . - - - - -- Research on the management of organizational con- fl ict has progressed in two different directions. One approach has been directed at measuring the level or amount of conflict experienced by menjbers of the organization, and exploring sources of this conflict (Pondy, 1969). The other approach in conflict research is to investioate the various styles or modes of managing conflict. Behavioral styles for handling interpersonal conflict were first presented in a conceptual scheme by Blake and Mouton (1964); the five modes they originated are: problem solving, smoothing, forci ng, wi thdrawi ng, and sharing. Thonias (1976) redefined and extended the modes of handling interpersonal conflict. Rahim and Bonoma (1979) renamed the five styles to: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromis- ing. The sty1 es of hand1 ing interpersonal confl ict have been differentiated on two basic dimensions, concern for self and for others. When the two dimensions are combined, the five styles of handling conflict can be illustrated as shown in Figure 1 (Rahin & Bonoma, 1979, p. 1327). The first dimension, skown as the vertical axis, indicates the degree to which an individual desires to ful- fill his own concerns. Although this dimension is a contin- uum, it is simply dichotomized as "high concern for self," and "low concern for self." The second dimension, shown on the horizontal axis, indicates the degree to which an indi- vidual desires to fulfill the concerns of the other person. The dichotomy of this dimension is "high concern for oth- ers," and "low concern for others." Each of the styles of hand1 ing confl ict can be effective in different situations, and conflict can be managed functionally if the styles are used appropriately. A description of the five styles is - given be1 ow. Sty1 es of Hand1 i ng Interpersonal Confl ict - The integrating style involves high concern for self as well as high concern for the other person. This style uses a problem solving approach which includes the sharing of ideas and information, as well as rationally confronting differences of opinion, so that a mutually acceptable solu- tion may be reached. The individual using this approach realizes that the solutions of both parties may be equally viable, and so he collaborates with the other party in order to find the solution most beneficial to both. The integrat- CONCERN FOR SELF High Low INTEGRATING OBLIGING I COMPROMISING DOMINATING AVOIDING _r FIGURE 1. A Two-dimensional model of styles of handling interpersonal conflicts. Source: 2ahim, A,, & Bonoma, T.V. ?Canaging organizational con- flict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. --- Psycholog- ical Fieports, 1979, 44, 1323-1344.. - - - - .- -- ing style is especially useful in solving particularly com- plex problems because an agreeable synthesis of ideas is possible. With this style of managing conflict the indivi- duals work together, confront the problem directly, and avoid competition. The obliging style of handling confl ict involves low concern for self, but high concern for the other party. This style is essentially a smoothing technique whereby the differences in ideas or beliefs are minimized in order to appease and accommodate the other person. As might be expected, the obliging style is often used when a person is lacking confidence in his own ideas, or when he believes that the issue is of greater importance to the other party. The obliging style is also useful when harmony and stability within the organization are deemed to be highly desirable. The dominating style, also known as the competing-or forcing style, involves a high concern for self and a low concern for the other party. With this style, the dominat- ing person makes every effort to win his own position even at the expense of the needs and expectations of the other party. While this style is often seen as an unfavorable mode of resolving conflict, there are specific desirable situations for its use. When expediency is required, or if the conflict is of a trivial nature, the dominating style may be the most useful. Also, this style may be necessary when unpopular issues must be resolved. The avoiding style of handling confl ict involves low concern for self and low concern for the other party. An individual using this style withdraws from or sidesteps potential conflict. The avoiding style is desirable in cer- tain situations where the gravity of the issue is less important than the potential unpleasant rarni fications of confronting the other party. This style is also useful when the issue is trivial in nature. The compromising style of handling confl ict is essentially a mixed style in which both parties make conces- sions in order to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. In using the compromising style the individual must be will- ing to give in on some of his positions in order to win the others. Cornpromi sing differs from the integrating sty1 e in that there is not the synthesis of new ideas found in the other style. The compromising style is typically used when the two parties are in equally powerful positions, or when the goals of these parties are mutually exclusive. Because each of the five styles of handling conflict has specific situations for appropriate use, no style is inherently better than another, and each style can be equally effective depending on the situation (Hart, 1981; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Thomas, 1977). In order for conflict to be managed properly, it is important that the recognition of one's styles of handling conflict be made. When the diagnosis of the conflict styles is made, intervention may be necessary for organizational members to learn the appro- priate use of the five styles (Rahir3, in press-c). Now that both adaption-innovation arid the styles of handling conflict have been adequately defined and expl ained, the relationships between them can be discussed. The following chapter will look at these relationships and provide hypotheses on how adaptors and innovators differ on handling interpersonal conflict in organizations. CHAPTER IV ADAPTION-INNOVATION AND STYLES OF HANDLING CONFLICT Re1 evant Research Organizational theorists and researchers have 1 ong espoused the view that innovation is related to conflict. All of the work in this area, however, has concentrated on the macro organizational approach to innovation and how it is affected by the level of organizational conflict. Much of this research has been of a theoretical nature, and the results of some studies have been confusing due the non- standardized nonoperational defini tions of confl ict and innovation. No behavioral studies have yet been conducted - on the relationship between adaption-innovation and the styles of handling interpersonal conflict. This lack of research exi sts in part because the adaption-innovation theory is relatively new, and also because a valid and re1 i- able measure of conflict handling styles has been developed only very recently (Rahim, in press-b,c). What are the predicted relationships between the adaption-i nnovation theory and the sty1 es of hand1 ing con- flict? Innovators tend to have greater confidence in their own ideas, and have less self-doubt than adaptors (Kirton, 1976). Thus, in terms of the conflict dimensions, innova- tors will most likely use the styles in which concern for self is high, and adaptors will use the styles in which con- cern for self is low. The relationship of this first dimen- sion of hand1 ing conflict with adaption-innovation shows that innovators are integrating or dominating while adaptors are obliging or avoiding. How concern for others, the sec- ond conflict dimension, relates to adaption-i nnovation is less clear. Adaptors are seen as being rnore 'sensitive' to people than are innovators, but this does not tell us whether or not adaptors have a higher concern for others than do innovators. A recent study by Carne and Kirton (1982) can shed more light on how innovators and adaptors differ in their styles of handling confl ict. These researchers tested the relationship between adaption-i nnovation and the personal i ty dimensions as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers, 1962). The MBTI measures four Jungian per- sonal ity dimensions: sensing-intuition, thinking-feel ing, judging-perceiving, extraversion-introversion. In the Carne and Kirton (1982) study a sample of 109 managerial students was given the bIBTI along with a measure of innovative-adap- tion. Innovators were found to be intuitive, perceptive, and extraverted. Conversely, adaptors were found to be sensing, judging, and introverted. These personal i ty attri- butes are consistent with Kirton's (1976) theory of adap- tion-innovation. Rahim (in press-b) has explored the relationship between the four dimensions of personality as rrieasured by the MBTI and the five styles of handling conflict. In using a collegiate sample of 297 business students, Rahim (in press-b) found that intuitive, extraverted, and perceiving persons tended to be dominating; extraverts tended to be integrating; and introverts tended to be avoiding. Because innovators are intuitive, perceiving, and extraverted, and these three personality types are related to the integrating and dominating conflict styles, it can be inferred that innovators will then be integrating and dominating. Because adaptors are introverted, and introversion is related to the avoiding conflict style, it is fair to assume that adaptors will make use of the avoiding style of handling conflict. Hypotheses - Taking into consideration the observation that inno- vators have high concern for self and adaptors have low con- cern for self, and assumptions derived from the results of the 1 inkinq personality studies, the following hypotheses are postulated: H1: Innovators are more integrating and dominating than adaptors in handling their interpersonal con- flict with subordinates. H2: Adaptors are more obliging and avoiding than innovators in hand1 ing their interpersonal confl ict wi th subordinates. H3: Adaptors and innovators are not si ynificantly different in using the comprorriising style of han- dling interpersonal confl ict wi tti subordinates. CHAPTER V METHOD Procedure A modified version of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation inventory (KAI) and the Rahim Organizational Confl ict Inven- tory I1 (ROC1 11), Form A were administered to a sample of graduate and undergraduate students from Youngstown State University. The two questionnaires and a demographic sheet were administered to a number of classes in various depart- ments (primarily business and education) in the spring and fall quarters of 1982. Questionnaires were given only to students who indicated that they were (a) presently workicg, and (b) had a supervisor. Students were given instruction on the completion of the questionnaires, and upon the appro- val of the instructor, either completed the instruments dur- ing the class period or took the questionnaires home and returned them at the beginning of the next class period. Altogether, 305 sets of questionnaires were distri- buted; of this number, 225 or 74% were returned. Fifteen of the returned questionnaires did not meet the criteria set by the investigator, therefore 210 cases (68% of the total dis- tributed) were utilized in the study. Because both questi- onnaires required accurate information about the student's boss, it was decided that only those who were presently working for at least (a) one year as for full-time workers, or (b) two years as part-time workers would be accepted. Questionnaires which did not meet the criteria were dropped from the analysis in order to provide greater validity for the study. Subjects Of the 210 respondents 106 were male students and 104 were female. Graduate students comprised nearly three- fourths (n = 151) of the sample, the remainder (n = 59) were undergraduates. The graduate students had a median age of 28 compared to 23 for the undergraduates. Most students (n = 155) were full-time workers, the remainder (n = 55) worked part-time. The median number of years at the present job was 5.1 for the graduates and 3.2 for the undergraduate stu- dents. The range of the supervisors' ages was 22 to 65 w-ith a median of 44. One hundred seventy of the supervisors were male and 40 were female. Instruments Confl ict Inventory The instrument used to measure the styles of han- dl ing superior-subordinate confl ict was a variation of the ROCI-11, Form A (Rahim, in press-a). Form A asks the res- pondent to indicate how he handles conflict with his boss. The modified version of the questionnaire asks the respon- dent to indicate how his boss handles conflict with hirn. Thus, while Form A measures conflict styles used with super- visors, the revision of Form A measures a subordinate's per- ception of how his boss handles conflict with him. It was decided to utilize a measure in which the individual rates someone else (his boss) rather than himself in order to reduce the possibility of socially desirable responses (Howat & London, 1980). Receiving socially desi- rable answers, or responses which the test-taker believes people would 1 ike to hear, is a common problem in survey research (Crown & Marlowe, 1960). Questionnaires which ask for self-evaluation of some trait, ability, or belief of an individual are so often fraught with social desirability response bias that the results of the study are meaningless. The original ROCI-11, Form A had seven statements for each of the five conflict handling styles: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising, fop a total of 35 statements. Rahim (in press-a) dropped seven items which did not load properly in the factor analysis. These seven items have been revised and were included in this study. The questionnaire has a 5-point Likert scale with the response choices: Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. A higher score represents a greater use of a particular conflict style. The indepen- dence of the conflict handling styles allows the formation of five separate continuous scales. A copy of the original ROCI-I1 Form A is shown in Appendix A, and the modified ver- sion used in this study is shown in Appendix B. ROCI-I1 was selected for use because of the con- struct and external validity, and test-retest and internal consistency reliability of the scales (Rahim, in press-c). The instrument has been carefully constructed to measure the styles of handling interpersonal conflict, and has received rigorous testing with managerial and collegiate samples. Until recently, much of confl ict research has been ineffec- tive due to the use of poor measuring instruments (Thomas & Kilmann, 1978; Rahim, 1981). By using the ROCI-I1 question- naire, the shortcomings of many previous studies of inter- personal conflict could be avoided. Innovation Inventory. The questionnaire used to measure innovation was a modified version of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) (Kirton, 1976). The KAI contains 32 items which - are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The scores are added together to give one adaption-innovation score, a high score indicates innovation, while a low score indicates adaption. Scores can range from 32 to 160, and 96 is the theoretical mean. The KAI is composed of three subscales called: ori- ginal i ty, efficiency, and conformity. Innovators score high on originality, while adaptors score high on efficiency and conformity. One study found that the 13 items of the origi- nality scale correlated .88 with the entire KAI, and that this scale could be used as a valid and reliable shortened version of the complete innovation inventory (Keller & Hol- 1 and, 1980a ) . A1 though the KAI is a well constructed and thoroughly tested questionnaire, it does suffer from some minor flaws that this study attempted to rectify. Even though most individuals expressed no problems with the KAI, it was felt that there were enough queries to warrant some changes. Difficulties in deal ing with the test instructions were actually a result of Kirton's attempt to reduce the occurrence of socially desirable responses. The KAI is a self-evaluation questionnaire, but the instructional format has been altered in a unique manner in order to reduce the 1 ikel i hood of socially desirable answers. Unfortunately, these changes also make the test instructions more difficult to comprehend. The instructions of the KAI ask the respondent to indicate how difficult, or easy, it would be to maintain a - certain image consistently for a -- long time (See Appendix C). The fact that the individual is asked to rate the degree of difficulty of presenting an image of himself, rather than a direct rating of himself, is a method which should provide fewer socially desirable reponses. Indeed, research has shown that the KAI is relatively free from social desirabil- ity response bias (Kirton, 1978). It was found that all of the items in the KAI showed a negligible correlation with the Lie scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964). It was felt that the low social desirability of the KAI could be achieved through the use of a less confusing format. Again it was decided to utilize the method advo- cated by Howat and London (1980) in which the individual rates not himself but another person, typically his boss. In general, it has been found that subjects give a more objective evaluation of others than they do themselves. New and simpler instructions were prepared in which the respondent is asked to rate his boss on each of the questionnaire itenis. This approach is more parsinonious and so less confusing than the instructions of the original KAI. All of the test items were left essentially unchanged except for the addition of the words "t4y boss is ..." at the beginning of each item. The first item, a "blind" item was dropped because it was thought to be unnecessary. The res- ponse headings for the KAI are: Very Easy, Easy, Hard, Very Hard; these were changed to a typical 5-point Likert scale > with the choice of responses being: Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Next to each i tem on the KAI is a line of 17 dots on which the respondent is to place and "X" to indicate his degree of response. It was felt that this system of dots was cumbersome and impracti- cal, and so was replaced with the numbers 1 to 5 to corres- pond with the response headings. The oriqinal KAI and the modified version are shown in Appendix C and U, respec- tively. In addition to the two questionnaires, deniographic information was collected from each participant. hespon- dents were asked to report their age, sex, occupation, nunl- her of years at present job, full-time or part-time work, student status, and school major. A1 so, respondents were asked to give information about their current supervisor; title, age, sex, and organizational level of the boss were requested. The conlplete demographic sheet is 1 isted in Appendix E. Analysis of Data -- -- The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Stein- brenner, & Bent, 1975). Appendix E lists a copy of the pro- gram which includes the various statistical tests used to analyze the data. An important procedure of any survey research is the testing of the validity and reliability of the instruments. Both the revised forms of ROCI-I1 and the KAI were tested for construct validity and internal consistency re1 iabil i ty. Factor analysis, which has been called the most powerful method of construct validation (Kerlinger, 13731, and Cron- bach alpha, a useful measure of internal consistency reli- ability (Cronbach, 1951), were both utilized in the analy- sis. A stepwi se mu1 tip1 e di scrirni nant analysis was per- formed to see if the five conflict scales could discriminate between adaptors and innovators (tlull & Nie, 1981). The originality scale of the KAI was used as the measure of adaption-innovation. Two groups were created for the dis- crimi nant analysis; adaptors were those who scored lower than the theoretical adaption-innovation mean, and innova- tors were those who scored higher than this mean. The fol- lowing chapter describes the results of these analyses. CHAPTER VI RESULTS Validity of the Inventories -- Factor analyses using principle factor with i tera- tion and varin~ax rotation were conducted on both invento- ries. The factor analysis of the modified KAI yielded three identifiable factors which are consistent with the three scales of the original KAI. The eigenvalues for factors I, 11, and I11 were 7.1 (originality), 4.9 (efficiency), and 1.2 (conformity), respectively. Together the three factors accounted for 83% of the variance in the data. Items that did not load > .40 or that loaded > .30 in a second factor were dropped from subsequent analyses in order to improve results. Nineteen of the 32 items met the criteria of fac- tor 1 oadi ng. Because the original i ty scale retained the most items (10 out of 13), and because this scale is the one which measures innovation, it was decided to use this revised scale for further analysis. The factor analysis of the ROCI-I1 items resulted in five factors, but only three factors had eiqenvalues > 1.0. The integrating scale made up the first factor (eigenvalue > 12.0) although some of the items from the cor~lprornising and obliging scales were also included in this factor. The avoiding and dominating scales were identified as the second and third factors, with eigenvalues of 4.2 and 2.2, respec- tively. Together, the three factors explained 91.3% of the variance in the data. Because the obliging and compromising scales did not emerge as individual factors, and could only confound the results, it was decided to remove them from the discriminant analysis. All of the iterns of the three remaining factors, integrating, dominating, and avoiding met the factor loading criteria and were retained in the study. Re1 iabil -- i ty - of Inventories - - -- - . - Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and the internal consistency reliabil i ties of the revised scales of the originality scale of the KAI, and the three conflict style scales of ROCI-11. The alpha coefficient of the ori- ginality scale is acceptable at .89. Each of the conflict > handling scales has alpha coefficients > .81 with the inte- grating scale the highest at .95. These coefficients of internal consistency re1 iabili ty are acceptable and compare quite favorably with the original scales of the two invento- ries. Yearson's correlations pp The Pearson's correlations among the conflict scales and between the originality scale and the conflict scales are shown in Table 3. As can be seen, high intercorrela- tions (ri> .60) exist among three of the conflict scales: integrating, obliging, and cornpromi sin?. These intercorre- Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficients of the Modified RAI Originality Scale and ROCI-I1 Scales Scale M - SD - Cronbach Alpha KAI Originality 3.31 .85 89 Integrating 3.53 1.02 -95 Dominating 3-54 76 .81 Avoiding 3.02 -92 -86 Table 3 Pearson's Correlations Among the Modified ROCI-I1 Scales, and Between the Three Conflict Scales and the KAI Originality Scale IN DO AV OB CO Integrating (IN) 1.00 2 -.34 -68 .77 Dominating (DO) 1.00 .26 -.33 -.46 Avoiding (AV) 1.90 .09 -.15 Obliging (OB) 1.00 .69 Compromising (CO) 1.00 Originality .71 -.26 -.51 lations are consistent with the results of the factor analy- sis in which some of the obliging and compromising items merged into the integrating factor. Pearson's correlations between the originality scale and the three scales of con- fl ict styles show a positive relationship between innovation and the integrating and dominating scales, and a negative relationship between innovation and the avoiding scale. Discriminant Analysis Table 4 shows the results of the stepwise mu1 tiple discriminant analysis. Milks lambda was the criterion used for the stepwise selection. The group centroids for the adaptors and innovators are -1.14 and .57 respectively. The three confl ict-handling styles resulted in canonical discri- minant coefficients: integrating (.96), avoiding (-.40), and dominating ( .31). These results suggest that innovators are integrating and that adaptors are avoiding, and also that innovators are to a lesser extent dominating. The classifi- cation analysis shows that 82% of the cases are correctly classified. In order to cross-val idate the discriminant func- tions, a random sample of 40% of the cases was used for developing the functions. This function was used to clas- sify the innovators and adaptors in the holdout sample of the remaining 60% of the cases. The functions correctly classified 81% of the cases in the holdout sample. To see if the classifications were statistically significant, the Table 4 Stepwise Multiple Discriminant Analysis using the Modified KAI for Comparing the Styles of Handling Conflict Between Adaptors and Innovators Canonical Wilks Chi Eigenvalue Correlation Lambda Square DF Standardized Canonical Conflict + Discriminant Function Group Scales Coefficients Centroids Integrating Dominating Avoiding 96 Adaptors -1.14 31 Innovators .57 -. 40 chance ratio was calculated using the proportional method (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Grablowsky, 1979). Since 54% of the cases could be expected to be correctly classified by chance alone, a level of at least 68% was needed to be sig- nificant. Because more than 80% of the cases were correctly classified in the entire sample and in the split sample test, the results of the discriminant analysis are signifi- cant. CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION In analyzing the results of the discrirr~inant analy- sis, it can be seen that the hypotheses of the study are partially supported. It has been clearly shoun that innova- tors are integrating and not avoiding in handling conflict wi th subordinates. Adaptors, conversely, have been shown to be avoiding and not integrating in handling conflict with subordinates. To a lesser extent, innovators are also seen by their subordinates as being dominating. Nothing can be said about the other two styles of handling conflict because they were not identifiable as independent factors. The problem with high intercorrelations among three factors in the conflict inventory seems to be a result of the modification of the questionnaire. The fact that an individual is asked to rate his boss results in a different perceptual orientation than when the person is asked to rate himself. Apparently, the respondent views the confl ict styles differently depending on whether he is rating himself or his superior. When rating his boss, the respondent tends to merge the integrating, obliging, and compromising styles. Thus, when the boss is obliging or compromising with his subordinate, the subordinate views that action positively as if it is integrating. Understandably, the avoiding and dorni nating sty1 es remain independent because the subordi nate is able to correctly identify the use of these styles by his superior. Even though Howat and London (1980) mention that self-rating has problems with social desirability, and that the rating of another person may alleviate that problem, it appears that the other-rating questionnaire has its own set of problems. In the case of the modified ROCI-I1 used in this study, the problems found with the factor structure were most likely due to differing perceptual viewpoints res- pondents have between self-rating and other-rating question- naire. The use of the other-rating questionnaires raises the possibility of a problem with the error of central ten- dency. Kerlinger (1973) describes the error of central ten- dency as the tendency of the respondent to score down -the middle or neutral response of a questionnaire. This error occurs when the respondent either does not understand the questionnaire items or if he does not have the knowledge to answer these items. An analysis of each of the items of the two inventories showed that some items did have high res- ponse frequencies for the middle 'undecided' response. In the present study it is likely that some of the respondents could not accurately answer the items because their know- ledge of their bosses' behavior was not sufficient. The data were reanalyzed in order to test the sta- bility of the results, and to locate any source of error within the sample which could help to explain the high i ntercorrel ations among the confl ict sty1 es. Pearson's cor- re1 ations were conducted selecting only for graduate stu- dents, undergraduate students, full-time workers, part-time workers, males, females, or combinations of these, and the results were similar. High intercorrelations existed among the same three confl ict styles, intercorrel ations which pro- bably would not result from poor data but from the percep- tion that the three styles are the same. Also, the internal consistency reliabilities of the two inventories were good, and the appropriate factors emerged in the factor analysis of the modified KAI inventory. This study has two limitations which should be addressed. First, the research was an ex post facto field study and so is subject to the problems with internal valid- ity that are inherent in this type of study. Ex post facto field studies generally have less internal validity than 1 aboratory experiments because of the i nabi 1 i ty to control for all sources of secondary variation (Robinson, 1976). On the positive side, however, the study has high external val- idi ty. Most subjects were mature graduate students with full -time jobs and several years ' work experience. Because the research dealt with workers with meaningful jobs, the results of the study can indeed be generalized to the real work envi ronnent. The second limitation of this study is that the sam- pl e was nonrandom and convenient. Additional research uti - 1 izing random selection of subjects will be necessary before it can be said with complete assurance that the results can be generalized to a1 1 populations. Further research could a1 so compare the re1 ati ve meri ts and probl ems associated with using the self-rating versus the other-rating question- naire. What are the implications of this study? The know- ledge of the specific styles of handling conflict used by innovators and adaptors can be useful in several ways. First, because the styles of handling conflict are known, it is possible to manage conflicts properly. Organizational members can be taught to understand conflict-handling styles used by adaptors and innovators in order to improve interpersonal communication. Second, the encouragement of the use of the integrating style, and to a lesser extent, the dominating style may help foster the developriient of an innovative envi ronrnent. In organizational departments, such as research and development, which are concerned primarily with creating new ideas or products, the inteqrating style may be stressed. Conversely, the encourayenent of the use of the avoiding style may result in increased organizational stability. Departments which are more concerned with main- taining the stability and consistency in the organization, such as accounting or perhaps production, may find that greater use of the avoiding style of handling confl ict will provide this needed stability. In conclusion, the objective of this study was to conduct basic behavioral research which could shed some light on the problem of lack of innovation in organizations. Specifically, the relationship between adaption-innovation and the styles of handling conflict was investigated. The results of statistical analyses provided partial support for the hypotheses, and show that adaptors are seen by their subordinates as avoiding, and innovators are seen as inte- grating, and to a lesser extent, dominating. REFERENCES Bakke, E. W. Concept of the social organization. In M. Haire (Ed.). Modern organization theory. New York: Wiley, 1965. Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J. S. - The managerial - grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing, 1964. Bright, J .R. Research, development, - and technological i nno- vation, Homeward, 111.: Irwin, 1964. Carne, G.C. & Kirton, M.J. Test score correlations between the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Psychological Reports, 1982, 50, 31-36. Cohn, S.F. Adopting innovations in a technology push indus- try. Research Management, 1981, 24(5), 25-31. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychornetrika, 1951, 16, 297-334. Crowne, D.P. & Marlow, D. A new scale of social desirabil- i ty independent of psychopathology. Journal -- of Con- sul ting Psycho1 ogy, 1900, 14, 349-354. Deni son, Why growth rates differ. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1967. Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. Manual -- of the Eysenck Per- - sonal i ty Inventory. London: University of London Press, 1964. Fernilious, W.C. & Waldo, W.H. Role of basic research in industrial innovation. Research Management, 1980, 23(4), 36-40. Gough, H.G. A creative personality scale for the adjective check1 ist. Journal - of Personality - and Social Psychol- O~Y, 1979, 37, 1398-1405. 7 Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham R.L., Grablowsky, B.J. Mu1 tivariate - data analysis. Tul say Oklahoma: Petroleum Publishing, 1979. Hart, L.B. Learning - from conflict. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1981. Hays, R.H. Return to risk management attitude essential, The Challenge, 1977, 14, 6-9. - How four companies spawn new products by encouraging risks. The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 18, 1980, p. 1. -- Howat, G. & London, M. Attributions of conflict manage6ent strategies in supervi sor-subordinate dyads. Journal - of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 172-175. Hull, C.H., & Nie, M.H. SPSS update. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1981. Jorgenson, S. Transcripts - of proceedings. Washington: Com- ittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Novem- ber 14, 1979. Keller, R.T. & Holland W.E. A cross-validation study of the Kirton Adaption Innovation Inventory in three research and development organizations. Appl ied Psychological Measurement, 1973, 2, 563-570 (a). Kel ler, R.T. & Holland W.E. Individual characteristics of innovativeness and communication in research and devel- opment organizations. Journal - of Appl ied Psycho1 ogy, 1978, 63, 759-762 (b). Kerl inger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research (2nd - ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Kirton, F4.J. Fianagenent initiative. London: Action Society Trust, 1961. Kirton, M.J. Adaptors and innovators: k description and measure. Journal - of Appl ied Psychology, 1976, 61, 622-629. Ki rton, fi1.J. I4aaual - of - the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. London: National Foundation for Educational Research, 1977. Kirton, M.J. Have adaptors and innovators equal levels of creativity? Psychol ogical Reports, 1980, 56, 36-40.' Kirton, M.J. Adaptors and innovators in organizations. Human Relations, 1980, 33, 213-224. Kuhn, T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions. (2nd - - ed.) Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Merton, R.K. (Ed. ) Bureaucratic structure and personal i ty. In Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1957. pp. 195-206. Myers, 1.0. Manual : - The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1962. Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D.H. Statistical - - package for the social sci- - -- - ences. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-tlill, 1975. Pondy , L. R. Varieties of organizational confl ict. Admini s- trative Science Quarterly, 1967, 12, 296-300. Rahim, A. Managing confl ict through effective organization design: An experimental study with the MAPS design technology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of Business, Univer. of Pittsburqh, 1976, (Uis- - sertation Abstracts International, 1977, 37 , 4477A-4478A). Rahim, A Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-I1 --- Form - A. Pal o A1 to, CA: Consul ti ng Psycho1 ogi sts Press (in press) (a). Rahim, A. -- Rahim Organizational - -- Confl ict -- Inventories: . - - - Pro- fessional Manual. Palo A1 to, CA: Consulting Psycholo- - gists Press (in press) (b)- Rahim, A. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal confl ict. Academy -- of blanagenient Journal (in press) -- - (c). Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T.V. Managing organizational confl ict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Roark, A.E. Interpersonal confl ict management. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1978, 56, 400-402. Reitz, J .H. Behavior - in organizations. -- Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1977. Robinson, P.W. Fundamentals - of experimental psychology: - -- - - A comparative --- approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren- tice-Hall, 1976. Sharwell , W.G. A prescription for innovation. Research Management, 1981, 24(5), 6-7. - -- - Thomas, K.W. Conflict and conflict management. In M.D. Dunette. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organiza- - - tional psycho1 ogy. Chicago: Rand McNal ly , 1976. pp. Thomas, K.W., & Kilmann, R.H. Comparison of four instru- ments for measuring confl ict behavior. Psychological Reports, 1978, 42, 1139-1145. Thomas, K.W., & Schmidt, W.H. A survey of managerial inter- ests with respect to conflict. Academy - of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 315-318. Weber, M. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. In H.H. Gerth & C.W Mills (eds. and trans.), From Max Weber: essays in - - -- - sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970. pp. 196-244. ADDITIONAL REFERE1,ICES Argyris, C. Personal i ty vs. organization. Organizational Barnett, ti. Innovation. New York: i4cGraw-Hill, 1953. Blake, R.R., I~~outon, J.S., & Sloma, R.L. The union-manage- nent i titergroup 1 aboratory: strategy for resolving intergroup confl ict. Journal - of Appl ied Behavioral Science, 1965 1(1), 25-57. Burke, K.J. Methods of resolving interpersonal confl ict. Personnel Administration, -. . - . . - . - - . 1969, 32(4), 48-55. Corwi n, K.G. Patterns of organizational confl ict. .- Adnini -. - -- -- - s- .. trative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 507-520. - - . - - - pp - . Downs, G.bl. & Mohr, L.B. Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science . Quarterly, - 1976, Drucker, P.F. Management's new role. Harvard - - ~usiness Review, 1969, 47(6),49-54. Drucker, P.F. People and performance: The best of Peter ---- Drucker on management. rlew York: Harper Row, 1977. -- - Golembiewski, R.T., & Blumberg, A. The laboratory approach to organization change: confrontation design. Academy - of Kanage~nent Journal, 1968, 11, 199-210. Likert, R., & Likert, J.G. New ways of managing conflict. --- Ne# York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. London, M., & Howat, G. The relationship between employee commitment and confl ict resolution behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 13, 1-14. --- - - - -- Fliles, R.E., Snow, C.C., tleyer, A., i: Coleman, H. Organiza- tional - - -- - . strategy, .-- - - - - - - structure and process. New York: - ---- McGraw-Hill, 1978. Price, J.L. Handbook - of organization measurement. Lexing- ton Mass.: D.C. Heath., 1972. Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. Communication - of innovation: A cross cultural approach. - E;ew York: Free Press, 1971. Thompson, V.A. Bureaucracy and innovation, Adnini strative Science Quarterly, 1965, 10, 1-20. Zaltman, G., Duncan. R,, & Holbek J. m- Innovation - - . - and .- . organi- - . --,--- - zation. -- . . New York: liiley, 1973. Appendix A Rahim Organizational Conflict lnvent'ory-11 FORM A You may have incompatibilities, disagreements, or differences (i.e.. conflict) with your boss. Rank each of the following sratements to indicate how you handle your conflict with your boss. Try to recall as many recent conflict situations as posslble in ranking these statements. There are no right or wrong answers. The response which is most characteristic of your behavior, in a situation of conilict with your boss, is the best answer. Any other answer, which may be considered as more desirable or acceptable, will simply lead to misleading information. STATEMENTS I try to invest~gate into an Issue wlth my boss to find a solutlon acceptable to us ..... I generally fry to satlsfy the needs of my boss .............. I attempt to avoid be~ng "put on the spot" and try to keep my conflict w~th my boss to myself ............. I try to Integrate my Ideas wlth those of my boss to come up wlth a decls~on lolntly I glve some to get some I try to work wlth my boss to find solutions to a problem wh~ch sattsfy our expectatlons I usually avold open discussions of my differences with my boss .... I usually hold on to my solution to a ................ problem I try to find a mlddle course to resolve an impasse .......... I use my Influence to get my ~deas accepted ...... I use my author~ty to make a dec~s~on In my favor I usually accommodate the wlshes of my boss STATEMENTS 13. 1 give in to the wishes of my boss. .... 14. 1 win some and I lose some ....... 15. 1 exchange accurate information with my ... boss to solve a problem together 16. 1 sometimes help my boss to maKe a decision .............. in his favor ... 17. 1 usually allow concesstons to my boss 18. 1 argue my case with my boss to show the ........ merits of my position 19. 1 try to play down our differences to reach ........... a compromise 20. 1 usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks ....... 21. 1 negotiate with my boss so that a compromise ............. can be reached 22. 1 try to stay away from disagreement with my boss. ............... 23. 1 avoid an encounter with my boss 24. 1 use my expertise to make a decision in my favor .......... 25. 1 often go along with the suggestions of my boss ............ 26. 1 use "give and take" so that a compromise can be made ........... 27. 1 am generally firm in pursuing my side of the issue ............. 28. 1 try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved in the ............ best possible way 29. 1 collaborate with my boss to come up with ........ decisions acceptable to us STATEMENTS 30. 1 try to satisfy the expectations of ........... my boss 31. 1 sometimes use my power to win a ........ competitive situation 32. 1 try to keep my disagreement with my boss to myself in order to avoid hard feelings ... 5 4 3 33. 1 try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with 'my boss ............... 5 4 3 34. 1 generally avoid an argument with my boss. . 5 4 3 35. 1 try to work with my boss for a proper understanding of a problem ........ 5 4 3 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Organizational experience (years) 5. Education (check one): 2. Sex: - Male - Female - a. High school completed 3. Your functional area (check one): - b. 2-year college - a. Production - c. Bachelor's degree - b. Marketing - d. Master's degree - c. Finance & Accounting - e. Other (spec~fy) - d. Personnel - - e. General Management - f. RID - g. Other (specify) 4. Managerial or staff level.(check one): a. Top: President, Vice-President 6. Number of employees - ' - b: Middle: Department Managers - c. Lower: Managers, Staff Personnel (Property of Dr. Afzalur Rahlm. 1980) Appendix B Modified conflict Inventory Your boss may have incompat i bi 1 i ties, disagreements, or differences (i .e., conflict) with you. Rank each of the following statements to indicate how your boss handles his/her conf 1 ict with you. Try to recall as many recent confl ict situations as possible in ranking these statements. There are no right or wrong answers. The response which is more characteristic of your boss' behavior, in a situation of conflict with you, is the best answer. Any other answer, which may be considered as more desirable or acceptable, will simply lead to misleading information. - -. -. uln m c - u- cna a 3 a cna STATEMENTS My boss tries to investigate an issue with me to find a solution acceptable to us................................. My boss generally tries to satisfy my needs. .............. My boss attempts to avoid being "put on the spot" and tries to keep his/her conflict with,me to himself/herself. My boss tries to integrate hidher ideas with those of mine to come up with a decision jointly ................... My boss would rather give in and get a little than leave ...................................... an issue unresolved. My boss tries to work with me to find solution to a ...................... problem which satisfy our expections My boss usual ly avoids open discuss ion of his/her differences with me..................... ;................. If ny boss is convinced that her/his solution to a .................. problem is correct, s/he holds on to it. My boss tries to find a middle cburse to resolve an impasse ................................................... My boss uses his/her influence to get his/her ideas accepted. ................................................. My boss uses his/her authority to make a decision in his/her favor .............................................. My boss usually accommodates my wishes .................... 13. My boss gives in to my wishes ............................. STATEMENTS 14. My boss usually makes concessions, if I amwilling to do the same, to make a decision...... ..................... 54321 15. My boss exchanges accurate information with me to solve a problem together ........................................ 54321 16. My boss usually goes along with ma if my decision is a good one................................................ 54321. 17. My boss usually allows concessions to me.................. 54321 18. Once my boss arrives at a good decision, s/he does not want to reverse it easily ................................ 54321. 19. My boss highlights our areas of agreement, in case of an Impasse, to increase the possibility of a compromise ...... 5 43.2 1 - 20. My boss usuaily proposes a middle ground for breaking deadlocks..... ............................................ 54321 21. My boss negotiates with me so that a compromise can be reached..... .............................................. 54321 22. My boss tries to stay away from disagreements with me.. . . . 54321 23. My boss avolds an encounter with me....................... 54321 24. My boss uses his/her expertise to make a decision in hidher favor ............................................. 25. My boss often gas along with my suggestions ............... 26. My boss uses "give and take" so that a compromise can be made..... ................................................. 27. My boss is generally firm in pursuing his/her side of the issue.. ............................................... 28. My boss tries to bring a1 1 our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved In the best possible way.. 29. My boss collabcrates with me to come up with decisions acceptable to us.......................................... 30. My boss tries to satisfy my expectations .................. 31. My boss sometimes uses his/her power to win a competitive situation ................................................. 32- My boss tries to keep his/her disagreements. with me tn himself/herself in order to avoid hard feelings ........... STATEMENTS v >. - P) 0 rP) m E -a m L- CP) P) U m em a m om 22 E,, L, wm m c &I- ma a =, n mn 33. My boss tries to avoid unpleasant exchanges with me....... 54321 34. My boss sometimes avoids an argument with me so as not to disrupt our working relationship ....................... 54321 35. My boss tries to work with me for a proper understanding of a probi ................................................ 54321 NAME - -- -- - - - - -- --- -- AGE __ - SEX - OCCUPATION/TITLE - -- - . - DEPARTMENT -- ---- - EDUCATIONAL STATUS _ - -. - - -. TOTAL SCORE 0 TRAIT SCORES KIRTON ADAPTION-INNOVATION INVENTORY (KAI) RESPONSE SHEET Please read these notes before comp&~ig the other side of this sheet. We all find it necessary to present a particular image of ourselves consistently over a long period. In some cases this proves easy as we are like this; sometimes it is very difficult as we are not like this at all. For instance, some of us are early risers. It is easy for such people to present the image of good timekeepers at work. So if you are an early riser and were asked how easy or hard it is for you to present an image at work of a good timekeeper you would put a clear cross on the scale below on or near 'Very Easy'. verv very Hard Hard Easy Easy If you are the extreme other sort, you would find being on time every morning for a long period difficult, and you may well p11t a cross on the scale at the 'Very Hard' end. Please indicate the degree of difficulty (or easel that would be required for you to maintain the image, consistently for a long time, that is asked of you by each item below. How w or difficult do you Rnd it to pr8smt youndf, conshtentiy, am r long priod, a: vow vw tiad tiard Egv Ew verv very Hud Had Easy Easy 18. A penon who is able to stand out in disagreement alone sgainst a group of equals and senion. 4. A person who b patient 2. A penon who conforms. 3. A penon who when stuck will always think of unnething. 19. A penon who is stimulating. 20. A penon who readily agrees with the team at work. 4. A person who enjoys the detailed work. 21. A penon who has original ideas. 6. A person who wwld sooner create something than improve it 22. A penon who masten ail details painstakingly. 23. A penon who proliferates ideas 0. A penon who is prudent when dealing with authority or general opinion. 24. A person who prefen to work on one problem at a time. 7. A penon who nwer acts without proper authority. 25. A penon who is methodical and systematic. 8. A person who never seeks to bend (much iesl break) the ~les. 26. A penon who often risks doing things differently. 9. A penon who likes bosses and work panems which ere consistent. 27. A person who works without deviation in a prescribed way. 10. A penon who holds back ideas until they are obviously needed. 28. A person who likes to impose strict order on manen within own control. 11. Apenonwhohasfresh perspectives on old problems. 12. A person who likes to vary set routines st a moment's notice. 29. A penon who likes the protection of precise instructions. 30. A penon who fits readily into 'the system'. 13. A penon who prefen changes to occur gradually. 31. A penon who needs the stimulation of frequent change. 14. A penon who is thorough. 15. A penon who is a steady plodder. 32. A person who prefen colleagues who never 'rock the boat'. 16. A penon who copes with several new ideas and problems at the same time. 33. A person who is predictable. 17. A penon who Is consistent ANSWERED PLEASE CHECK THAT YOU HAVE AU 33 QUESTIONS Appendix D Modified Innovation Inventory In your work experience you may have noticed that some hosses tend to exhibii oripinality in problem solving while other bosses are more inclined to erhibit efficiency or conformity. Rank each of the following itens in the manner which is most characteristic of your present boss' behavior. There are no riuht or wronq answers. STATEMENT ha, d a, P s4 C P o m s4 rn I% "a 01. My bass has oriuinal ideas.... .......................... 54321 02. My boss prefers to work on one problem at a time ........ 54321 03. Mv boss works without deviation in a prescribed way..... 54321 04. My boss likes the protection of precise instructions... . 54321 05. !4y boss will always think of something when stuck. ...... 54321 > 06. My boss is prudent when dealing with authority .......... 54321 07. My boss imposes strict order on matters within own control.. ............................................... 54321 08. My boss is thorouuh ..................................... 5 4 3 2 1 09. My boss needs the stimulation of frequent change ........ 54321 10. My boss holds back ideas until obviously needed..... .... 54321 11. My boss likes work patterns which are consistent........ 5 4 3 2 1 12. My boss would sooner create than improve ................ 54321' 13. My boss can stand out in disagreement against group ..... 5 4 3 2 1 14. Mv boss masters all details painstakingly ............... 54321 15. My boss proliferates ideas. ............................. 54321 16. My boss is predictable .................................. 5 4 3 2 1 17. My boss conforms ....................................... 5 4 3 2 1 18. My boss is a steady plodder ............................. 5 4 3 2 1 19. My boss has fresh perspectives on old problems.. . . . . . .. . 5 4 3 2 1 STATEMENTS * I+ 3 u. 2 Gal al O oal QI al && R rC1 umtm e 4 4 3 My boss is consistent ................................ 5 4 3 2 1 My boss is methodical and systematic ................. 5 4 3 2 1 My boss often risks doing things differently ......... 5 4 3 2 1 My boss fits readily into the syst em................. 5 4 3 2 1 My boss is stimulatina ............................... 5 4 3 2 1 My boss enjoys detailed work ......................... 5 4 3 2 1 My boss likes to vary set routines at a moment's notice.. ............................................. 5 4 3 2 1 My boss prefers changes to occur gradually ........... 5 4 3 2 1 My boss prefers colleagues who never "rock the boat". 5 4 3 2 1 My boss copes with several new ideas at the same time.............. .................................. 5 4 3 2 1 My boss readily agrees with the teams at work........ 5 4 3, 2 1 My boss never acts without proper authority .......... 5 4 3 2 1 My boss never seeks to bend or break the rules.. ..... 5 4 3 2 1 Fofm A1 is a modification of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory Appendix E Demographic Sheet YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY YOUNGSl'OWN. OHIO 44666 The School of Buwncss Adminisrmrron Dear Respondent, Thank you For agreeing to participate in this survey which will provide much needed data for my Xasters thesis. Because you are asked to give information about your boss, vou must be currently employed and have a supervisor in order to fill out the questionnaires. Together the two questionnaires typically take students no more than eight or nine minutes to complete. Your individual responses will be confi- dential, and if you have any questions about this survey, feel free to contact me at the YSU Yanaeement Department, 742-3071. Please return these questionnaires to your instructor at the beginning of the next class period. Thank you for your help, Douglas E. Eshleman nemographic Information I. Name: (optional) 3. Sex: Yale Female $. Occupation: Years 5. Number of years at present job: 6. Present job: Full time Part tine Graduate 7. Student status: Undergraduate 8. School major: The Eollowing questions are about the person you currently work for. 1. Title of boss: wale 2. Sex of boss: Female 3. Age of boss: (Approximate) . Boss' level in organization: :I. First level supervisor ' B. Xiddle level supervisor C. Upper level manager Appendix F SPPS Programs / /B(:)<)2854& JlIiB ( $$Ri:llJTE4 ) , / / !3R 18 1 (:It:) 1 . JJlIlJ-Jl3, MSC;LEVEL= 1 , ELAS!:;= 1 / / EXEC: 'PC:' .-b .-I.-# //SYS:[I\I * FILE NAME THES I !+-THE RELAT I ON!Z;H I P BETWEEN INNOVATION AND THE STYLES OF HANDL 1 NG 1 NTERPERSONAL CONFL 1 CT RUN NAME DEMI:IGRAPH I CS, REL 1 AR I L I TY , FACTOR ANALYS I !Z; PART I AL C1:lRRELA'T IONS, 11 I SCR I M I NANT UhlALYS I S VAR I ABLE L 1 !ST 1 D, R 1 7111 R:3Z, !3 1 TI:I !3:35, AGE, !:;EX, YEARS, JOE ., :3TATIJ!3, BSEX INPIJT FORMAT FIXED(F:3.~:),&7Fl.(:1,F2.O,Fl.O,F2.C~,:3Fl.(:)) N CASES 2 1 (1) INPUT ME11 I UM CARD VAR LABELS !:; 1 TI:^ !zZS, CI~NFL I CT HANDLING !3TYLE!:;/R 1 TO R:32 , 1 NNClVAT 1 QN STYLE!3/AII;E, AGE OF RE!3F'l:lNDENT/!:;EX, SEX l:lF RESF'!:lNDENT/YEAF:!:;, YEARS AT Pf?E:i;ENT Ji:lg/ JOB ., FI-ILLT I ME OR PARTT I ME WORI-:::/STATI-IS, STUDENT STATI-l!S/B!SEX,!:;EX BlIl!s!s VALUE LABELS SEX ( i ) MCSLE ( 2 ) FEMALE/ JOB ( 1 FIJLL TI ME (2 PART T 1 ME/!~TATl-l!~; ( 1 ) GRADI-IATE ( 2 ) I-IN~IERI~RA[II-IATE/B:~EX (l)MALE(23FEMALE/ RECODE R2., F:27, R7, R:3, R14, R1:3, F:2(:), R21 , R:3? R4, Rk,, Rlt:)., R11,R1,t,,fi17,R2:3,R2:3,R:i:(:),R:31,R:32( 1x5) (2~4) (4=2) (5=1) > C 111 1-1 N T N 1 =!:; 1 , !:;4 , !:;/r., !:; 15 ., !328 , 529 , ::;:35 ( (1) C:l:lMPUTE 1 NT= ( S 1 +!34+!5,5+!5 15+!s2:3+:32'=1+:3:35 ) / ( 7-N 1 ) I:I:IUNT N2=!52., :31.2-, !5 I:::, ::;It., 517 , !:;25, !3:3(:) ( 0 ) COMPUTE lI[EL= ( !:;2+5; 12+!:; 1 :3+S 1 &+!s 17+::;25+!3:3(:) ) / ( 7-N2 j I:I:IUNT N:3=!:;3, !3 I(:), S 1 1 , !3 13, !324, !327 , !3:3 1 ( 1 C:lIlMPI-ITE DOH= ( !2;:::+!31 (:)+!:; 1 1 +S 18+!324+!:;27+:5::: 1 ) / { 7-N:z: ) I:: l:i CI N T N 4= !3 :3 , 3 7 , c .:# ?. -8 3 --'Drt r. .- -8 .-.&.& , .-8 , !=..-'L , .=,.:: .:, , 534 C (:I ) II:lIIMFUTE ~vf:l= ( s:3+C'7+!322+C;'7::T:+!$;:32+!3:3:3+!3:1;4 ,-I .- A - ) / ( 7-~4. ) 12 lzl 1-1 N T N5=:55, !Z:?, !:; 14, S 19, !52(:) ., 5;2 1 , 5;2/s, ( I::) ) CIIIMPI-ITE Cl:lM= ( !35+!:;9+!5 14+!3 1 '3+!32(:)+!52 1 +!32&, ) / ( 7-N5 ) CIIIUNT Nt,=Rl, R5, Rt., R7, R:3, R3,F:l:::, R14,R15, Rlk,, R17, Ri'p, 1 , R.22, RZ:3 , , , R22y/ , R:3(1) ( (1) ) IZI:IMPUTE 0 1 = ( R 1 +R5+R6+RT+R:::+W+ R13+R 14+R 15+R 16+R 17+R I13+F;2 1 +R22+F;2:::+ R24+R25+R29+R:2(;> ) / ( 1':)-N/sa ) ClIlUNT N7=R1, R5, R9, RI:::, Rj.5, Ria=), R22, R24, R2'7((:f j IZOMPI-ITE 113 1 N- ( R 1 +R5+R?+R 1 :l:+R 15+R 1 '3+R22+R2qq+R2T ) / ( 9-N7 I:IIIUNT N:3=R7, R8, RIG, R21, F:25(0) CCIM~=;I_IT~ EFF 1 I::= ( R7+/78+R 14+H2 1 +R25 ) / (9-N:3 ) I:: 13 1-1 N T N8?=R&, Rlt,, R17, H23, R:3(:) it:)) 1:lIlMPUTE I:I:INFI:IF:M= ( R&+R 1 &,+R 1 7+R2:3+R::(:) j ,' i 5-N.3) ) IF (!:;EX EIJ 1 )!sEXD=l M 1 !:;!:; 1 N11i VALI-IE!: ALL ( (1) ) PEARSON IXRR ORIGIN,INT,OBL,DOM,AVO,C:OM WITH INT,~EL,DI:IM, AVO ? ClIIM/ STAT 1 !3T 1 C!3 1 READ INF'CIT LIATA RELIABILITY VAR 1 ABLE!3=!3 1 , S4, !fib , !3 15 , !32:3, :f;2'31 , :3:::5 , :5:3 , :f; 1 i:) , :s 1 1 , s 1 ::: , 5-24 , 527, ::;I> 1 , !:;:I: 57 ~;22 , :-;2:3, 53-2 , !:;:z::3 , 534 1 :sC:ALE ( 1 N'T ) =!% 1 , :34 , 56, 5 15 , :3:>:3 , 523 , 5:35/ !SC:fiLE ( DIIIM ) =!sE: , !f; 1(:) , tf; 1 1 , !:; 1 :3 , 524 , !527 , $;:z 1 / !f;CALE ( AVIII ) =S:l:, 57 , !3*22, :f;23 , :f;:l:.> ., :s:'_::l:, :E;:zq / STAT I ST I cs 1 RELIABILITY VARIfiELE!f;=Rl, R5, R.7, ~1:3, R15, Rll?, R22, R24, R2':#/' ,-. -. .=,I-.ALE( INN)=Rl, R5, H'?, H1:3, H1z7 H1'3, R2ZY R24, RZv?/ !STAT 1 !f;T 1 C:S 1 IF IF COMPI.JT13 D I SCR I M I NANT up I -r I ONS !STAT 1 !3T I Iz!? D I SC:R I M I NANT FAC:TOR i:l p T I 111 N !3 :STAT 1 ST I 1:!3 FAC:TlIiF\I ClPT I ON!3 !STAT I :ST II::!~ FIN I SH /* (ORIGIN LT :>)ORIGIN=l (ORIGIN GE :~)t:iRJ.GIN=.~ !SET=TRUNC I-IN I F1:lRM ( 2.5) ) GF:Ol-lF'S=OR 1 G 1 N ( 1 ,2 ) /VAR 1 ABLE!S= 1: NT , [IfIIM , AVIII/ ANALY!s I !3= 1 NT , DtIiM, AVlII/METHi~i[I=:W 1 LK!S/' 5,7,'?7 11 1,2,4 GROUP!s=ORIGIN ( 1,2 ) /VARIABLE!3=INT, DoM, AVO/ !:;ELEC:T=!i;ET ( (1) ) / ANALY!f; IS= I NT , [IOM ., AVIII/METHCI[I=W I Lt:::S/ 5,7,'3, 11 1 , 2, G -