Source: Volkema and Bergmann (1989)

They grouped these responses into six categories:  (1) Problem solving (2) Forcing  (3) Short-term Avoidance (4) Withdrawal or Exit or Long Term Avoidance  (5) Emotive Responses (6) Third-Party Sensemaking.

(1)   Problem solving: (a.) Discuss with the person. b. Convince the person c. Listen to the person. 

(2)   Forcing:  (a). Use my authority (b) Form alliance (c) go to higher up.”

(3)   Long Term Avoidance or withdrawal category: (a). Leave the job (resign) (b). Transfer Hirshman (1970) includes these responses under the heading of ‘Exit’. In this article, the term Exit is used to refer these responses.

(4)   Short-Term avoidance: (a) Avoid a person (b) Don’t talk to the person. (c) Talk behind the person.”  In the table 2, this strategy is termed as ‘avoidance’.

(5)   Emotive category: (a) Sabotage the person’s work (b) Throw things (c) Push strike or punch the person (d) Cry (e) try to get even (e) Take a drink or pill and forget about it (f) try to get the person to leave their job or the company. They mentioned that the ‘shout at the person’ response appeared to be fit in the same category.

(6)   Third-party sensemaking: involving third person in a conflict situation. This category first time appeared in Velkoma, Farquhar and Bergmann (1996).

They again conducted similar study in 1995 where they indicated overall frequency of each response. Two hundred two participants responded this study. The statistical overall frequency of each response from Volkema and Bergmann’s (1995) investigation is given in Table 2. In this study, they added two more responses, which were not included in their first study in 1989. These two added responses are (1) Make a joke and (2) Quietly do not cooperate with the person. They have not indicated where these two responses would fit in the broad categories as they did in their previous study of 1989, so the above two responses will be excluded later in this analysis. It is interesting that they had claimed in their article that they measured 24 responses whereas they provided statistics only for 23 responses. The frequency of choice of each response is given below in Table 2.

Table 2: Overall Frequency of each response

The statistics from Velkoma and Bergman (1989), which are given in Table 1, are reproduced with modifications in Table 3. In this table, the mean value has not changed for any column. However, The column ‘might use’ from Table 1 has been excluded in Table 3 because it has little relevance with the rest of the discussion. The mean values of the two columns “B” and “C” are merged and sum of these columns is shown in column ‘D’ in the Table 3. The reason of merger is that both columns B and C suggest that the responses were or are being employed. Thus, it is logical to treat them as one. The total mean value is obtained by adding ‘mean value’ of each response, which has become the ‘ mean value’ of the category. Virtually, the analysis of column ‘D’ is in the interest of this article.

The statistics from Velkoma and Bergman (1995), which are reported above in Table 2, have reproduced with modifications in Table 4. In Table 4, mean value is calculated based on frequency of responses (frequency of response divided by total number of respondents). The number of respondents in study was 202. The mean value of responses has added in each category, which represents the total mean value of each category. They do not provide information in which of the category they have included these two responses, (1) Make a joke and (2) Quietly do not cooperate with the person, therefore, they are excluded from the table 4.

Table 4: Overall frequency and mean for each response & category

Based on the total mean value of the Table 3, each category is ranked in Table 5.  The total mean value of Problem solving is 1.531 and stands first at the ranking table. The second most popular category is Third-Party Sensemaking with total Mean value of 1.370.  Avoidance is ranked third with the total mean value of 1.221. Forcing has total mean value of .632 and stands 4^th on the ranking Table 5. The other two categories Emotive and Exit are ranked fifth and sixth with the mean value of .377 and .123, respectively.

The mean value (Table 4 Column B) for each response has calculated on the basis of overall frequency (column A) of each response as reported by Velkoma and Bergmann (1995). The results in Table 6 are same to the results of Table 5. Problem solving is at the top with mean score 1.979. Next is Third-Party Sensemaking with the mean score 1.524. Mean value of Avoidance is .943 and ranked third. Forcing is ranked fourth with mean score .677. Emotive and Exit categories are ranked fifth and sixth with mean value .327 and .177 respectively.

The total mean values of the Tables 5 and 6 are again added to get cumulative mean value (CMV) as shown in Table 7. The CMV indicates that the Problem Solving (CMV 3.510) is again the most common reaction in conflict situations. The other strategies of conflict handling, problem solving (cmv 2.894), avoidance (2.164), Forcing (1.309) emotive response (0.704) and exit (0.3) stand out second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respectively. The ranking of categories is shown in the table 7.

Table 9. Ranking of Responses from Table

1.      It may be appropriate to contend on the basis of the above ranking that response to conflict may be sequential selection rather than a random choice. This analysis also supports that individuals employ a mix of strategies than a single strategy (Rahim 1985; Vliert, Euwema and Huisman 1995). The choice of response may be depended more upon the nature and length of conflict. It may also be plausible to suggest that individuals do not take extreme actions at the start of the conflict. Velkome and Bergmann (1995) agree that individual may act in more socially accepted manner than one’s own style. Individuals’ behavior can vary if the conflict is unresolved for a long term. Following hypothetical story of two individuals, Zed and Lee, may illustrate better to understand as to how individuals might traverse from one choice to another when they are in conflict.

Zed and Lee developed a conflict at work. The first step is to comprehend and evaluate the nature of conflict, for example, intensity, importance and consequences of the conflict. It may be helpful to talk to others to comprehend the nature of conflict cognitively. So, they went back into their own groups and talked about the conflict (third-party sense-making-ranked 1st).

After third-party sensemaking, they are left with three options to get on with their routine life: (1) problem solving, (2) avoidance (3) and forcing. Forcing is generally not, normatively or/and legally, accepted at the first instance unless a person is very authoritarian or the problem demands immediate attention (see Rahim (19) for information when authoritarian style is appropriate). Similarly, avoidance is also not possible in organizational life because it cannot only hamper productivity but also would not be permitted by the organization. Practically, they are left with an option to initiate a dialogue with each other.

 So, as a second step, it seems it is more appropriate for Zed and Lee to begins to talk about their conflict (Problem Solving-ranked 2nd). However, it is understandable that negotiations do not always succeed. We assume that this is the case with Zed and Lee. In this case, so, they should either avoid or force each other to settle the issue (see Rahim for information when avoidance is appropriate).

It is possible that Zed and Lee might prefer to avoid (ranked 3^rd) each other, if circumstances allows. Avoidance (ranked third) serves multiple purposes: (a) give time to rethink; (b) give time to cool down the tense atmosphere; (3) and enable to reorganize the conflict cognitively.

In organizations, individuals are inter-dependent and they cannot avoid each other for a long time. We assume that Zed and Lee work in the same department on key positions and they cannot pending decision for a long time.  So, the time has come either Zed or Lee consider to take strong actions to force the other to find a solution or follow a response from the exit strategy.  In most of cases, either transfer or leaving the job is not an easy decision. Therefore, we assume that the fourth would-be rational step for Zed and Lee is to adopt behaviour from the forcing category (forcing-ranked 4th).

The literature on conflict shows that forcing brings a win-lose situation. If Zed and Lee involve themselves in the forcing strategy, it is very likely that one of them would lose and the other wins. The loser may follow a response from the exit strategy (ranked 5th) if he is highly dissatisfied with the situation.  

Let us suppose it is not possible to follow the exit strategy due to some reasons. This situation can break the loser, emotionally. It would not be a surprise, if the loser chooses a response that falls in the emotive category (ranked 6th).

2.      The difference between Velkoma and Bergmann’s study of conflict responses and the ‘five style model’ of resolving conflict is that the model of resolving conflict treats styles of resolving conflict as static strategies and consistent behavior of individuals to resolve conflict. Velkoma and Bergmann (1989, 1995) have registered individuals’ responses that they have shown during an event. Moreover, they do not discuss consequence of each response on individuals’ intrapersonal relationship or/and organization.

3.      Although, the third-party sensmaking category is ranked at the top, it is still debatable whether or not this category should be treated as a conflict resolving technique. It does not include any response, which can be considered as a method to handle conflict. The response ‘talking with others’ is a natural human reaction either to reduce stress or to gain time to assess available options to handle conflicts. It does not resolve conflict. Volkema, Farwuhar and Bergmann (1996) agree that the third-party sensmaking provides other functions such as cognitive organizing about conflict, reduces ambiguity, and behavioural adjustment in conflict situations.

4.      Whether or not emotive reactions should be considered means to handle conflicts is also a question. It may be plausible to argue that these responses are abrupt and uncontrolled emotional reactions about on-going situation. There is hardly any evidence in the literature that individuals use these responses to handle conflicts in organizations.

5.      The analysis of Velkoma and Bergmann 1989 and 1995 also depicts that rating of responses is likely to change when more responses are added in the research. This may also be likely to change when respondents of the study are changed. The tables 8 and 9 demonstrate that ranking of the responses changed in both studies. One of the reasons could be that they increased number of responses in their later study.

6.       It is debatable whether or not all responses in Velkoma and Bergmann (1989) should be considered as styles to resolve conflicts. For example, a response ‘crying’ can be taken as spontaneous overwhelmed reaction of a person instead of taking it as a chosen response to resolve conflict. The responses such as ‘discuss the conflict with the co-worker, discuss conflict outside, and talk behind the person’ are similar responses, which they have treated differently. Again, they should have treated ‘take a drink or pill and forget about it’ as two different responses instead of treating them as one.

The author has ranked the conflict strategies and responses by using statistics of Velkoma and Bergmann (1989; 1995). It is argued that employing of strategies or responses can be sequentially related, which has not receive adequate attention from the researchers in the past. In addition, some shortcomings and methodological errors of Velkoma and Bergmann ‘s (1989; 1995) studies have also pointed out.

It may be plausible to suggest that the adoption of strategies to handle conflict is also related to vicarious learning, which is not investigated in the studies of conflict. According to Bandura (1977), individuals learn through observation and other’s experiences to maximize favourable outcomes. Similarly, studies on organizational culture support the argument of vicarious learning. These studies show that organizational culture develops through individuals’ interaction (Schein 1985; Roche 1994). These theories imply that human beings learn and imitate each other. So, it may be useful to study as to how organizational culture and structure influence the individuals’ choice of choosing a strategy to resolve conflict.  

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964) The mangerial grid: key orientation  for achieving production through people. Houston; Gulf Publishing Co.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964) The new mangerial grid Houston; Gulf Publishing Co.

Bandura, A (19770: Social Learning theory. Englewood Cliff; Prentice-Hall.

Deutsch, M (1994): Constructive conflict resolution: principles, training and research. Journal of Social Issues. Vol.50;no.1;p.13-32.

Hirshman, A.O. (1970): Exit, oice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge;Harvard University Press.

Rahim A. M (1985): A strategy for managing conflict in complex organizations. Human Relations; vol.38;no1; p.81-89.

Robbins, S.P (1993): Organizational Behaviour (6^th ed.) New Jersy, Prentice Hall.

Roche, de C.P (1994): On the edge of regionalization: management styles and the construction of conflict in organizational change. Human organization; vol.53;no.3;p.209-219.

Rubin, J.Z. (1994): Models of conflict management. Journal of social issues; vol.50;no.1;p.33-35.

 Schein, E.H. (1985): Organizational culture and leadership. San Francicco; Joss Bass Publishers.

Thomas, T.W. (1976): Conflict and conflict management. In M.D. Dunnette: Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago; Rand McNally.

Thomas, T.W. (1992): Conflict and negotiation process in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette and M.H. Leaetta, : Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2^nd Ed. Vol.3.) Palo Alto; Consulting Psychologists Press. Inc.

 Tjosvold, D and Chia, L.C. (1989) Conflict between managers and workers: the role of cooperation and competition. The journal of social psychology; vol.129; no.2; p.235-247.

 Vliert, Van de E., Euwema, M.C., Huisman, S.E. (1995): Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: effectiveness of conglomerated behaviour. Journal of Applied psychology. Vol.80; no. 2; p.271-281.

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

 Volkema, R.J. and Bergmann, T.J. (1995): Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in interpersonal conflicts. Journal of social psychology. vol.135; no.1; p.5-15.

 Volkema, R.J., Farquhar, K. and Bergmann, T.J. (1996): Third-party sensemaking in interpersonal conflicts at work: a theoretical framework. Human Relations; vol.49; no. 11; p. 1437-1454.