A Cross Cultural Perception of Conflict: Finland and Pakistan.

Nadeem Yousaf

Abstract

It is argued that some situations might be inherently mild or strong for most of the people but intensity of conflicting situation also depends upon the subjective feelings of individuals. The objective of the investigation is to show that perception of conflict varies from person to person. The other objectives are finding a cultural and gender differences in perceiving conflict situations. The respondents from Finland and Pakistan have been included in this study. In this article, it is also argued that many researchers overemphasize on cultural differences and ignore human similarities in human cognitive processes. 

Introduction

Most of studies on handling styles of conflict ask respondents to fill out inventories by considering a conflict situation that they have faced at work. The conflict studies using inventories hardly give any information about the intensity of conflict situations that respondents considered while filling out the questionnaire. The bottom line is that we cannot determine style of handling conflict of an individual without knowing the intensity of the conflict, which is considered by the respondent. The impetus behind the investigation is to find out whether or not some conflicting situations are inherently strong or mild in which respondents respond in a similar manner.

Literature Review

The standard definition of conflict is that it occurs between two people (groups) when, at least, one of the persons (groups) considers that its views does not match with the other party.  Or, one party perceives that the other party has affected or has potential to affect its interest (Bell and Blakeney 1977; Carroll 1991; Chasnoff and Muniz 1985; Thomas 1976, 1992; Tjosvold 1993; Veliert 1984; Vliert et el.1999). The above definition is used as a base to develop inventories and questionnaires to determine style of handling conflicts. For example, respondents are asked in different studies to recall a conflict or given a scenario of conflict before filling out the questionnaire to determine respondents’ styles of resolving conflicts (Rahim 19; Volkema and Bergmann 1989 Vliert et.al 1994). Thomas and Kilmann (1988) have developed an instrument to measure styles of resolving conflicts, which asks respondents to consider situations in which they find their wishes differing from those of other person. Similarly, Organization Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) ask respondents to think of disagreements you have in task situations with your immediate supervisor and do not respond to the items with a particular disagreement in mind (Putnam and Wilson 1987). This might measure individual style of resolving conflict with a specific superior but cannot determine ones style of handling conflicts in general. 

The above definition of conflict has not made clear differentiation between conflicts and other similar terminology such as disagreements, disputes, difference of opinion, heated-discussion and so on. So, it may be plausible to argue that all disagreements, disputes, difference of opinions and so on are sub-domains of a conflict. Since defining conflict is highly problematic, thus any disagreement between two individuals is considered as a conflict situation in this investigation. The studies on styles of resolving conflicts have not paid much attention on Pondy’s suggestion that a conflict passes through different stages (Pondy 1967). He has pointed out two crucial stages of conflict: Perceived conflicts and Felt Conflicts. He defines that perceived conflicts are those when parties are aware of the potential conflict conditions. According to his theory, the parties are not emotionally involved in the stage of perceived conflict. On the contrary, felt conflict means emotional involvement of the individual(s) in a conflict that creates anxiety, tension, frustration and hostility. The other researcher divided phenomenon of conflict into two types in terms of emotional involvement: Low investment conflicts and high investment conflicts (Jonson, Jonson, Dudley and Acikgoz 1994). Low investment conflicts are light-hearted and do not involve emotional energy, whereas, high investment conflicts affect individuals emotionally (Jonson, Jonson, Dudley and Acikgoz 1994). Emotional involvement of individuals is high or low in a given conflict situation varies from person to person depending upon his/her perception of the situation in a given circumstance. Moreover, all conflicts do not carry same intensity as indicated above. It is quite likely that a conflict situation, which is mild for one person may not be mild for the other person. These views are not properly attended to in the studies dealing with individuals’ styles of handling conflict. The available inventories do not measure perception of conflict situation, which influence the strategy of resolving conflict.

Objective

It argued above that it may not be possible to measure styles of handling conflict of individuals until we know how one defines conflict and perceives a given conflict situation. Therefore, nine mild and strong conflict situations were designed to study individuals’ reactions to these situations. One of the objectives of the investigation is to find out whether or not mild and strong situation can be defined, which may be used as ‘standard situations’ in future investigations on styles of handling conflicts. Two other objectives of the study are to find out gender and cultural differences in viewing conflict situations. In addition, it is hypothesized that some conflicts may be inherently strong or mild for most of people, but strongness and mildness of a situation depends upon individuals’ subjective feelings whether they deem a conflict situation is mild or strong.

Methodology:

The survey was distributed in Finland and Pakistan. Sixty responded from the University of Vassa (Finland) and forty-eight (48) responded from Pakistan from different organizations such as First Women Bank Limited, Packages, and UNICEF.

 The respondents were given nine situations (see appendix). The source of these situations is based on real conflict situations, which are either reported by someone or observed by the author. A pilot study was conducted to improvise the situations before distributing the survey to the larger population.  The respondents of the survey were asked to read this conflict situation and mark each conflict situation either ‘mild’ or ‘strong’ (See appendix)

 All respondents advised to read definition of conflict prior to filling out the questionnaire. The explanation of mild and strong conflict was also given to the respondents (see appendix). 

 Percentage is calculated according to the responses on mild and strong dimensions.  The results of the survey are shown from different angles. Firstly, combined results are presented from Finland and Pakistan.  Secondly, results are shown for each country. Thirdly, results are compared to analyze cross-cultural and gender effect.

Results

Combined results: Finland and Pakistan
 
The combined results from Finland and Pakistan are shown in Table 1. According to the table 1 column 3, the situations 1 (68%), 2 (58%), 3 (52%), 7 (69%) and 9 (77%) are strong conflict situations. The situations 4 (79%), 5 (72%), 6 (99%) and 8 (60%) are mild for most of the respondents. The results of the situation 2 (S=58%, M=42%) and 3 (S=52%, M=48%) are insignificant in declaring a situation as mild or strong. The results correspond with the hypothesis that some situations are inherently strong or mild for most of people, if not for all. These results also support that subjective feelings affect perception about the situation.

The combined results show that both male and female respondents view situations quite similarly. Both genders view situations 1 (m=59%, f=75%), 2 (m=56%, f=59%), 3 (m=51%, f=53%), 7 (m=67%, f=71%), and 9 (m=79%, f=75%) as strong conflict situations where as situations 4 (m=79%,f=79%), 5 (m=75%, f=70%), 6 (m=95%, f=98%) and 8 (m=69%, f=47%) as mild conflict situations. The statistics do not support that male and female view a conflict situations differently, which means that a strong or mild conflict will be viewed similarly by the both genders.
 
However, the analysis from another angle shows an interesting feature in relation to situation 1 (f=75%m=59) where females are in considerable majority who consider this situation as strong compare to male respondents. So, we find slight gender difference from this perspective. Conclusively, nothing can be said as to why such a large difference of opinion was found this particular situation, except that females themselves are not accepting superiority of women as a boss.

Table1: Perception of conflict situations

 

Finland & Pakistan

 

Male

Female

Aggregate

 Situation

Mild

Strong

Mild

Strong

Mild

Strong

41%

59%

25%

75%

32%

68%

 2

44%

56%

41%

59%

42%

58%

 3

49%

51%

47%

53%

48%

52%

 4

79%

21%

79%

21%

79%

21%

 5

75%

25%

70%

30%

72%

28%

 6

95%

5%

98%

2%

97%

3%

 7

33%

67%

29%

71%

31%

69%

 8

69%

31%

53%

47%

60%

40%

 9

21%

79%

25%

75%

23%

77%

N.R*

88

61

149

*N.R=Number of Respondents

Finland


In Table 2, the results of the data collected from Finland are presented. It indicates that situations 1 (76%), 2 (57%), 3 (55%), 7 (68%) and 9 (74%) are strong conflict situations where as situation 4 (79%), 5 (78%), 6 (99%) and 8 (58%) are mild conflict situations for most of the respondents. It also shows, in the case of Finland, that the male and female respondents’ percentage is very close to each other those who considered the situation 2 (S=57%, M=43%) and 3 (S=55%, M=45%) as mild or strong. The results from Finland correspond with the combined results as shown earlier in the table 1 that some situations are inherently strong or mild for most respondents.

The results of Table 2 are quite similar as shown earlier in the table 1. The Table 2 shows that both finish male and female respondents view situation 1 (m=65%, f=83%), 3 (m=51%, f=57%), 7 (m=62%, f=72%), and 9 (m=76%, f=73%) as strong conflict situations where as the situations 4 (m=78%, f=80%), 5 (m=86%, f=73%), 6 (m=97%, f=100%) and 8 (m=70%, f=52%) as mild conflicting situations. The results in the table 2 also show that both male and female respondents view the situation 2 differently. Most of the males (54%) consider the situation 2 as mild whereas it is mild for most of females (64%). It may be correct to argue, in the context of Finland, gender difference slightly exists in viewing conflict situations but not very strong. Again, it can be argued that it is possible that where two females are in a position of superordinate and subordinate, they might not be very accepting this relationship. This needs further research to find out the reasons, if this is true. It is also interesting to note that majority of female respondents is significantly larger than male respondents who considered situation 1 (f=83% m=65%) as strong situation.

Table 2: Perception of Situations (Finland)

 

 

Finland

 

Male

Female

Aggregate

Situation

Mild

Strong

Mild

Strong

Mild

Strong

1

35%

65%

17%

83%

24%

76%

2

54%

46%

36%

64%

43%

57%

3

49%

51%

43%

57%

45%

55%

4

78%

22%

80%

30%

79%

21%

5

86%

14%

73%

27%

78%

22%

6

97%

3%

100%

0%

99%

1%

7

38%

62%

28%

72%

32%

68%

8

70%

30%

52%

48%

58%

42%

9

24%

76%

27%

73%

26%

74%

N.R*

37

64

101

*N.R.=Number of Respondents

Pakistan  

The table 3 (below) presents results from Pakistan. It shows that the situation 1 (52%), 2 (58%), 7 (71%) and 9 (81%) are strong conflict and the situations 3 (54%), 4 (79%), 5 (60%), 6 (92%) and 8 (63%) are mild conflict situations for most of the respondents from Pakistan. The results of the situations 1(=52%, M=48%), 2 (S=52%, M=48%) and 3(S=46%, M=54%) are not significant since the respondents’ percentage is very close to each. The data from Pakistan also confirms that some situations are inherently strong or mild for most of people.

In the Table 1 shows that the data from Pakistan corresponds with the combined results as shown earlier in the table 1 except the situation 3, which is considered mild instead of strong by most of Pakistani respondents. The comparison of the aggregate results with Finland (Table 2) shows the same trend. The situation 1,2,7 and 9 are strong conflict situations and 4,5,6 and 8 are mild situations except situation 3 for most of the respondents.

The results in Table 3 show that there is a gender difference in viewing conflict situations. The situation 9 is the only situation where both genders show agreement that the situation is strong (m=83%, f=79%). The situations 1 and 3 are strong and mild respectively for females’ respondents but 50% male respondents considered both situations as strong and 50% judged them mild. Opposite to finish respondents, Pakistani female respondents consider the situation 2 as mild whereas male respondents consider it as strong. However, both genders consider the conflict situation 4 (m=79%, 79%), 5 (m=58%, f=63%), 6 (m=92%,f= 92% ) and 8 (m=67% f=58%) as mild conflict situations. In relation to Pakistan, it may be more plausible to argue that the statistics strongly support the hypothesis that gender difference influences the perception of viewing the conflict situation.  The difference of results in relation to gender may also reflect that Pakistan is more heterogeneous society than Finland. Another possibility of difference of gender could be that females have recently started to enter in work force compare to their Finnish counterpart. The results of situation 2 also show that Pakistani females are in harmony when they are working in a relationship of superordinate and subordinate. Situation 2 also reflects that male superiors are tend to be more bossy than females.

Table 3: Perception of Situations (Pakistan)

 

Pakistan

 

Male

Female

Aggregate

 Situation

Mild

Strong

Mild

Strong

Mild

Strong

 1

50%

50%

46%

54%

48%

52%

 2

29%

71%

54%

46%

42%

58%

 3

50%

50%

58%

42%

54%

48%

 4

79%

21%

79%

21%

79%

21%

 5

58%

42%

63%

37%

60%

40%

 6

92%

8%

92%

8%

92%

8%

 7

25%

75%

33%

67%

29%

71%

 8

67%

33%

58%

42%

63%

37%

 9

17%

83%

21%

79%

19%

81%

 

24

24

48

*N.R.=Number of Respondents

Comparison between Finnish and Pakistani Females

There is almost consensus between Pakistani and Finnish females in considering situations 4 (F=80%, P=79%), 5 (F=73%, P=63%), 6 (F=100%, 92%), and 8 (F=52%, P=58%) as mild conflict situations and the situations 1 (F=83%, P=54%) and 9 F=73%, P=79%) as strong conflict situations (see Table 4).

The interesting feature in relation to situation 1 is that very large majority of Finnish females (83%) consider it a strong situation whereas a small majority of Pakistani females consider the same situation as strong (S=54%, M=46%). Moreover, they quite differ from each other on situation 2 and 3. Finish females (64%) consider situation 2 is strong whereas majority of Pakistani females (54%) consider it mild. The similar results are for the situation 3 where gossip does not disturb Pakistani female. Why this is so, needs further investigations. However, the possibilities are that culturally Pakistani women are primarily house-wives and they have more time and tendency for gossiping than the finish women. It is also possible that they are more realistic that they are accepting the reality of life because gossiping is found in all cultures whether one likes it or not. So far results of this survey are concerned, cultural difference is apparent in Finnish and Pakistani females.  

Table 4: Female: Perception of Situations

 

 

Female

Finland

Pakistan

 Situation

Mild

Strong

Mild

Strong

 1

17%

83%

46%

54%

 2

36%

64%

54%

46%

 3

43%

57%

58%

42%

 4

80%

30%

79%

21%

 5

73%

27%

63%

37%

 6

100%

0%

92%

8%

 7

28%

72%

33%

67%

 8

52%

48%

58%

42%

 9

27%

73%

21%

79%

N.R*

64

24

*N.R.=Number of Respondents

Comparison between Finnish and Pakistani Males

It is shown in the table 5 that Pakistani and Finnish males consider situations 4 (F=78%, P=79%), 5 (F=86%, P=58%), 6 (F=97%, P=92%), and 8 (F=70%, P=67%) as mild and the situations 7 (F=62%, P=75%) and 9 F=76%, P=83%) as strong.

However they quite differ from each other on situation 1 and 2. As far as situation 1 is concerned, Finnish males (65%) consider it a strong conflict situation and whereas Pakistani males are evenly divided 50-50%. The situation 1 reflects that Finnish males are more assertive at work than the Pakistani Males. The situation 2 clearly demonstrates difference between Finish and Pakistani males, which shows that Pakistani superiors easily get disturbed if the subordinates do not listen to them that further indicates of their bossy tendency than the Finish counterparts.  

Table 5: Male: Perception of Situations

 

 

Male

Finland

Pakistan

 Situation

Mild

Strong

Mild

Strong

 1

35%

65%

50%

50%

 2

54%

46%

29%

71%

 3

49%

51%

50%

50%

 4

78%

22%

79%

21%

 5

86%

14%

58%

42%

 6

97%

3%

92%

8%

 7

38%

62%

25%

75%

 8

70%

30%

67%

33%

 9

24%

76%

17%

83%

N.R*

37

24

*N.R.=Number of Respondents

 

Discussion

The research provided useful information and partially fulfilled the objectives. Although the results show that some conflict situations are inherently strong or mild for most of the people, it may be still hard to claim that any situation can be used as a standard conflict situation in future investigations on styles of handling conflict. The research supports the argument that strongness and mildness of a situation also depends upon individuals’ subjective feelings. It is found existence of gender differences are less in Finland than Pakistan. We also found subtle cultural differences in viewing conflict situations but it the investigations also emphasize that overemphasis on cultural differences is incorrect. Human beings are intelligent and does not blindly influence by cultural differences. This investigation reflects that it is unreasonable to argue that two different cultures operate completely under different paradigms therefore human nature and the developed cognitive processes are completely different from each other. Other salient features of the research are further elaborated in the following points.

The results of the survey show that none of the situation is mild or strong for all people. However the situation 6 in relation to Finnish females is exception where 100% considered it a mild conflict situation (in general, only a few respondent treated it as a significant situation for a conflict). In spite of that the respondents differ in considering as to which of the situations is mild or strong, still it may be correct to argue that at least some conflicting situations are either strong or mild for a large majority of people, if not for all. It is peculiar that all tables show that situations 7 & 9 are strong and the situations 4,5,6 are mild conflict situations by a significant of majority of male and female respondents in both countries.

The results for rest of the situations 1,2,3,8 are quite mixed.  The conflict situation 1 is strong for the significant majority of Finnish respondents but the same situation is strong for a relatively small majority of Pakistani respondents. The significant majority of Finnish females and Pakistani males consider the conflict situation 2 is strong but the same cannot be said for Finnish males and Pakistani Females. The percentage difference is not very significant who considered the conflict situation 3 as mild or strong. The considerable majority of male respondents from Finland and Pakistan considered the situation 8 as a mild conflict situation, however the percentage difference of females from both countries is not significant who considered the situation as strong or mild.

Although these situations support that culture and gender difference exists, it also highlights a very important aspect that we should not expect culture and gender difference in all situations whether conflicting or not. There is a very subtle line where a culture and gender play their roles. The further analysis of the data has highlighted this point elsewhere in this article.

Moreover, the situations 1,2,3,8 draw our attention to another important and complex factor that this is difficult to draw a straight line between conflict and no conflict. The data shows that more or less 50% of respondents have considered these situations as strong conflict situation but approximate the same numbers of respondents considered them mild. The readers may agree with the author that such situations can be more critical in real life where it is hard to know as to how the concerned parties perceive intensity of a given conflict situation.

The situations 2 and 9 are similar in contents but results are different. It may be plausible to infer from the situation 2 that the Pakistani males and Finnish females appear to be more dominating in handling their subordinates when they do not obey their orders. The situation 2 has viewed a strong conflicting situation by 71% Pakistani males and 64% Finnish females when subordinate do not follow their orders. Majority of Finnish Males (54%) and Pakistani females (54%) has considered the situation 2 as mild. So we find cultural and gender difference in the said situation. However, we do not find significant cultural or gender difference when it comes to following the safety rules of the company in the situation 9.

It is interesting to note that majority of females (Finnish =83%, Pakistani 54%) compare to males (Finnish 65%, Pakistani 50%) appears to be more assertive in their respective cultures in a situation where personal gains are at stake. They find the situation is more conflicting when they believe that they deserve the promotion (see situation 1). In this situation we find a gender difference in both countries. At the cultural level, the statistics show that Finnish females (Finnish=83%, Pakistani 54%) are more assertive than Pakistani females and Finnish males (Finnish= 65%, Pakistani=50%) are more assertive than Pakistani males.

The situations 1 and 7 are quite similar except a variable that the current boss is ex-peer in the situation 7 with whom the respondent had good relationship. The results show a change in attitude, especially in Pakistani respondents, when a subordinate has personal friendly relationship with the boss. Pakistani respondents view a situation more conflicting when they have a relationship with a boss and unable to get a promotion. In the situation 1, only 52% Pakistani respondents view the situation 1 as a strong conflict situation but this percentage rises drastically to 71% for the situation 7. The same effect is noted for both genders in Pakistan. However, the results are different in relation to Finnish respondents. They view the situation is slightly less conflicting when ‘a relation’ is a boss. Seventy six percent (76%) of Finnish respondents view the situation 1 as a strong conflict situation but this percentage decreases to sixty eight percent in the situation 7 when ‘a relation’ becomes a boss. This difference between Finnish and Pakistani respondents may be due to cultural fiber of the countries. Pakistan in cultural studies is seen as collectivist society, which more relies on relationships and Finnish society is seen as individualistic society.

Although gossiping (see situation 3) is not seen a very strong reason to have a conflict with peers by large majority of respondents, it seems Finnish females (57%) compare to Pakistani females (42%) are slightly more sensitive about this behavior and declare the situation 3 as strong conflicting situation. As far as Finnish and Pakistani males are concerned, approximately 50% of males (51% Finnish and 50% Pakistani) considered it a strong conflict situation. Indeed results in relation to mild and strong are not significant but it indicates a very important aspect that we cannot be sure that which conflict is strong and which is mild. It shows that individual perception and feelings influence on the intensity of the situation.

The aggregate data from Finland and Pakistan (Table 2 and 3) shows that the Finnish respondents view 5 out of 9 situations as strong conflict situations whereas Pakistani respondents consider 4 out of 9. The difference could be due to cultural or the difference in number of respondents in each country

Conclusion

The research has shown that at least some situations are inherently either mild or strong. However, it appears to be true that perception of mildness and strongness is also subjective phenomenon of a person. The data also showed that gender and culture influence in viewing conflict situations. These results may be important for those researchers who use instruments to measure styles of handling conflicts. As mentioned above, the definition of conflict is not very simple, therefore, it is important for researchers to find out how a conflict is viewed by respondents before determining their style of conflict.

References

Bell, E.C., Blakeney, R.N. (1977): Personality correlates of conflicts modes. Human relations, 30 (9). Pp.849-857.

Carroll, P. B. (1991): Akers to IBM Employees: wake up!. The Wall street Journal, May 29.

Chasnoff R. and Muniz, P. (1985): Training to manage conflicts. Training and development journal, pp. 49-53.

Thomas, K.W. (1992): Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations in Dunnette, M.D and Hough, L.M. (EDS) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed. Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA, 651-717.

Tjosvold, D (1993): Learning to manage conflict: getting people to work together productively. N.Y. Maxwell Macmillan International.

Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A; Giebels, E and Janssen, O. (1999): Constructive conflict at work; Journal of Organizational Behavior; Issue 20; 475-491.

Pondy, L.R (1967): Organizational conflict: concept and models. Administrative science quarterly; vol. P.297-320

Putnam, L.L.Wilson, C. (1987): Organiztional communication conflict instrument (OCCI).

Thomas W. K and Kilmann (1988): Thomas-Kilmann conflict modfe Instrument; Aicom, Incorporated.

Volkoma R.J. and Bergmann, T.J (1989): Interpersonal conflict at work: an analysis of behavioral response. Human relations; vol.42. no.9. pp. 757-770.

Appendix

Instructions: Please read instructions carefully before filling out the survey.

  • For methodological reason it is important that you put yourself in conflict/disagreement situation as it happens to you at your work place with a person who has the same gender.

  • You will rate intensity of each conflict/disagreement situation according to your own subjective/personal feelings/opinion.

  • There is no right or wrong ‘personal reflection’ to any situation. Personal reflection to the situation varies from person to person. 

  •  Please rate each situation on the dimensions of ‘mild’ and ‘strong’ conflict/disagreement.

  • When you have marked your opinions on one page, please go to the next page. Do not return to a page, which you have already marked. There are nine conflict/disagreement situations to respond to, three per page.

    Definition of conflict in organizational context

    Conflict is defined as a disagreement when, at least, one of the persons (groups) considers that his/her behavior(s) or view(s) does not match with the other party.  The research shows that this mismatch of behaviors or views in organizations can be strong or weak, which are termed here as strong and mild conflicts/disagreements.

Strong conflict/disagreement is where an interactive situation between people creates a relatively large (strong) degree of personal anxiety, tension, frustration, hostility and so on.

Mild conflict/disagreement is where an interactive situation between people where parties are aware of conflict/disagreement but it creates a relatively weak (mild) degree of personal anxiety, tension, frustration, hostility and so on.

Situation 1:

Conflict/disagreement between you and your superior

Consider that the following conflict/disagreement occurs in the organization where you are currently employed:

There is a promotion opening in your company. You and your supervisor have the same gender. You strongly believe that you are highly qualified and competent for the position. However, your promotion depends upon the recommendation of your immediate boss. Your immediate boss does not want to recommend you for the position since he/she considers that you do not deserve promotion.

How would you rate intensity of this conflict/disagreement situation?

Mild  

Strong

Situation 2:

Conflict/disagreement between you and your subordinate

Consider that the following conflict/disagreement occurs in the organization where you are currently employed:

You have a subordinate in your company. You and your subordinate have the same gender. You strongly believe that your subordinate does not pay much attention and respect to your advice, plan and suggestions.

How would you intensity of rate this conflict/disagreement situation?

Mild

Strong

Situation 3:

Conflict/disagreement between you and peer

Consider that the following conflict/disagreement occurs in the organization where you are currently employed:

One of your colleagues gossips about you and pass on negative comments behind your back about your competence and ability. You and your peer have the same gender.

How would you rate intensity of this conflict/disagreement situation?

Mild

Strong

Situation 4:

Conflict/disagreement between you and your superior

Consider that the following conflict/disagreement occurs in the organization where you are currently employed:

You and your supervisor have the same gender. Your superior intends to introduce a bonus policy. According to the policy that those who meet the standard of the company can earn quarterly 50 to 100% bonus equal to their salary. There is no penalty for low achiever. You are a high achiever but disagree with the policy.

How would you rate intensity of this conflict/disagreement situation?

Mild

Strong

Situation 5:

Conflict/disagreement between you and your subordinate

Consider that the following conflict/disagreement occurs in the organization where you are currently employed:

Your subordinate ‘X’ has the same gender as you. Your subordinate is a high achiever and meets deadlines. However, X often comes late into the office, which you do not like. You fear that your other subordinates might follow his/her footsteps. You have mentioned your concern to X and advised him/her to come on time but X has not changed his/her behavior.

How would you rate intensity of this conflict/disagreement situation?

Mild

Strong

Situation 6:

Conflict/disagreement between you and your peer

Consider that the following conflict/disagreement occurs in the organization where you are currently employed:

Your organization is celebrating a platinum jubilee. A meeting is called to select the venue for the party where dignitaries of the city will come. You want that the party should be arranged in the five star hotel ‘Rex’ because you like its service and décor but your peer ‘X’ suggests another five star hotel ‘XiX’ to hold the party.

How would you rate intensity of this conflict/disagreement situation?

 Mild

Strong

Situation 7:

Conflict/disagreement between you and your superior

Consider that the following conflict/disagreement occurs in the organization where you are currently employed:

You and your current supervisor 'X' have the same gender.  Your X supervisor was your peer a year ago. X got a promotion and became your immediate boss. You have a good relationship with him/her. There is a promotion opening in your company. Your promotion depends upon the recommendation of your current boss, X.  You strongly consider that you are highly qualified for the position. Moreover, you expect that X would recommend you because he/she was your colleague. . You did not get the promotion and later learn that X did not want to recommend you for the position.

How would you rate intensity of this conflict/disagreement situation?

Mild

Strong

Situation 8:

Conflict/disagreement between you and your peer

Consider that the following conflict/disagreement occurs in the organization where you are currently employed:

You and your peer have the same gender. His/her job is to control quality and your job is production. He/she rejects production even if he/she finds small deviation from the standard. This is the reason that either you cannot meet the production target or have to work overtime (without pay) to meet the target.

How would you rate intensity of this conflict/disagreement situation?

Mild

Strong

Situation 9

Conflict/disagreement between you and your subordinate

Consider that the following conflict/disagreement occurs in the organization where you are currently employed:

You and your subordinate have the same gender. You are irritated that your subordinate does not follow strictly the safety rules of the company. You suggested to him/her that he/she should not ignore the company’s safety rules but he/she hardly paid any attention your advice.

How would you rate intensity of this conflict/disagreement situation?

Mild

Strong

 

  
   

http://management.corporatemanagementsolution.com