Gender role orientation, ethical and interpersonal conflicts, and conflict handling styles of female managers

Sex Roles, Vol. 3L Nos. 11/12, 1994

Gender Role Orientation, Ethical and Interpersonal Conflicts, and Conflict Handling Styles of Female Managers 1

Jacqueline Y. Portello and Bonita C. Long 2 University of British Columbia

This study examines the influences of socialization and structural variables on relations among gender role orientations, interpersonal and ethical conflicts, and conflict handling styles. The data were collected from 134 female federal and provincial government supervisors and managers (M age 40.1). Results of mult ivariate analyses of variance indicated that managers with high-instrumental traits are likely to indicate that they would use a dominating conflict handling style, and androgynous managers (high-expressive and high-instrumental traits) are more likely to indicate that they would use an integrating style. Managers did not report that they would use different conflict handling styles for ethical and interpersonal conflicts. Moreover, nonsignificant interaction effects indicated that the nature of the conflict did not moderate the gender role orientation and conflict handling style relationship.

Skepticism surrounding women's ability to adopt managerial roles and re- sponsibilities has prevailed since the advent of women within the corporate hierarchy. Conflict handling styles, one important component of a manager's role, are of particular concern because "perceptions of how females handle crisis and conflict are cited as blocks to female manager's ascent to the 'executive suite'" (Shockley-Zalabak, 1981, p. 289). Although female managers view successful middle managers as possessing traits attributed to both men and women, male managers perceive effective managers as

tThis article is based on the first author's M.A. thesis completed under the supervision of the second author.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at 2125 Main Mall, Counselling Psychology Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4.

683

0360-0025/94/1200--0683507.00/0 © 1994 Plenum Publishing Corporation

684 Po~eHo and Long

possessing characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors more typically ascribed to men than to women (Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989). Thus, Con- ventional wisdom suggests that conflict handling behaviors more commonly ascribed to women than to men are not widely accepted or valued in male- dominated contexts, such as organizational cultures (cf. Marshall, 1993). However, conflict handling styles that are characteristic of the female gender role stereotype (e.g., compromising and avoiding) are not the only means by which female managers resolve conflicts. The demands of the job may influence which conflict handling styles are used (Kanter, 1977) and thus offset gender role socialization influences.

The dominant theoretical perspectives in gender role research are the socialization point of view (Henning & Jardim, 1977) and the social learning or structuralist perspective (Kanter, 1977; Spence & Helmreich, 1980). The socialization theory asserts that individuals manifest congruent gender role stereotypical personality traits (e.g., instrumental, expressive traits) and behaviors (e.g., problem-solving, avoidance, negotiating behaviors) that are not readily amenable to change. According to this perspective, women who are socialized to exhibit stereotypical feminine characteristics will also be- have in a more stereotypical feminine manner. Research on gender differences suggests that gender role orientation is an effective explanation and predictor of some behaviors (Arkkelin & Simmons, 1985).

The structuralist view argues that gender role traits and gender role behaviors are relatively independent due to situational influences. Kanter (1977), for example, contends that gender differences in work attitudes and behaviors are influenced by organizational variables, such as job description, position in the hierarchy, and status. Although, the focus of this study was not an examination of gender differences, according to the structural perspective (Mischel, 1966), a female manager's choice of conflict handling styles would be determined by various characteristics in her work context.

In summary, socialization theory predicts that the strongest relationships may emerge between gender role traits and behaviors, whereas the structuralist perspective predicts that contextual characteristics play a strong moderating role in the relationship between personal characteristics and behaviors. However, evidence has accrued that both socialization and structural processes reciprocally influence behaviors (cf. Long, 1990). Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine variables relevant to both theories and specifically to determine whether female managers' gender role orientation were related to conflict handling styles used in particular work contexts (e.g., different types of workplace conflicts).

The term gender role orientation is used to refer to the extent to which individuals describe themselves according to personality attributes of instrumentality and expressiveness (Bem, 1981; Spence & Helmreich, 1980).

Gender, Conflicts, and Handling Styles 685

Attributes considered instrumental in nature include being independent, goal oriented, objective, assertive, competitive, and logical; whereas stereotypical expressive characteristics include such traits as emotionality, nurtur- ance, and sensitivity to others (Bern, 1981; I. Broverman, Vogel, D. Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972; Orlofsky & Stake, 1981). An- drogyny is the extent to which individuals describe themselves as possessing high levels of both instrumental and expressive traits (Bem, 1977).

Few empirical studies have specifically addressed the area of gender role orientation and conflict handling styles within the workplace (Korabik & Ayman, 1987). However, the way people resolve conflict in interpersonal relationships provides some insight into this issue (Baxter & Shepherd, 1978; Falbo, 1982; Yelsma & Brown, 1985) . Several studies support the socialization perspective; for example, Korabik and Ayman (1987) found that for both male and female managers instrumentality was associated with a competitive conflict handling style (e.g., dominant, persuasive, and forceful). Moreover, studies that examined either male and female managers, college students, or community residents have found that expressiveness is associated with accommodating (e.g., cooperating, obliging), compromising (e.g., forming mutually acceptable decisions, exchanging concessions), and avoiding (e.g., withdrawing, sidestepping conflict issues) conflict handling styles (Falbo, 1982; Korabik & Ayman, 1987; Lyons, 1988). Finally, androgyny, assessed by the additive approach (Bern, 1977), has been associated with an integrating style (e.g., collaborative, negotiable, and creative problem solving) among male and female marital partners (Yelsma & Brown, 1985). Additional support for the socialization theory comes from the work of Gilligan (1982), who suggests that women are socialized to remain con- nected to others when engaged in ethical dilemmas and that this tendency is reflected in how women approach interpersonal conflicts.

In contrast, according to a structural perspective (Kanter, 1977; Mis- chel, 1966), conflict handling styles may vary across different contexts. Bax- ter and Shepherd (1978) found that the relationship between gender role orientation and conflict handling styles of college students varied according to specific characteristics of the conflict situation, such as whether the person involved in the conflict was liked. Thus, the particular type of conflict experienced may be an important factor in how it is handled, e.g., whether the conflict is ethical or interpersonal in nature. Ethical conflicts are thought to be associated with adherence to values and core beliefs more so than interpersonal conflicts (cf. Kurtines, 1986). In ethical dilemmas the conflict is intrapersonal, that is, "decisions about a person have to be made between two unpleasant alternatives (e.g., to abide by a rule and hurt some- one or to break the rule and protect the person from h u r t ) . . . In interpersonal conflicts there is always an opposition between interactors"

686 Portello and Long

(Miller, 1991, p. 16). Gever (1988) found that in work settings, compared with other settings, a justice conflict handling style was more frequently used to resolve interpersonal conflicts. Thus, the type of conflict may moderate the relationship between conflict handling styles and gender role orientation.

Much of previous research has failed to discriminate between boss-, peer-, and subordinate-directed conflict, yet individuals report using different conflict handling styles according to the relative status or power of the person with whom they are in conflict (Utley, Richardson, & Pilkington, 1989). Consequently, female managers may respond to boss-directed conflicts differently than they do to conflicts with others due to the power differential in the boss-subordinate relationship. Therefore, in this study we focused on boss-directed conflicts that were defined as situations in which a manager perceives conflict to occur in an interactive manner between herself and her supervisor.

Existing studies of the relationship between gender role orientation and conflict handling styles provide support for both the socialization (see Falbo, 1982; Korabik & Ayman, 1987; Yelsma & Brown, 1985) and structural perspectives (see Baxter & Shephard, 1978). Socialization theory predicts that gender role orientation (e.g., instrumental and expressive traits) would influence the extent to which conflict handling behaviors are gender role stereotypic (e.g., dominating, avoiding, or integrating behaviors), whereas structuralist theory predicts that gender role orientation and conflict handling styles would be moderated by contextual characteristics (e.g., type of conflict). Because evidence generally supports the influence of both orientations (cf. Long, 1990) and we relied on retrospective recall of conflict handling behaviors rather than observations of conflict handling behaviors, we framed the hypotheses in an exploratory manner.

We first examined the relationship between gender role personality traits and conflict handling styles, hypothesizing that high levels of instrumental traits would be associated with greater use of a male stereotypic conflict handling style (i.e., dominating conflict style), and that high levels of expressive traits would be associated with greater overall use of female stereotypic conflict handling styles (i.e., compromising, obliging, and avoiding). In addition, androgynous managers (high on both instrumentality and expressiveness) were expected to use a more integrating approach. We conducted a preliminary analysis to examine the influence of structural variables such as organizational level, work experience, income, and boss's gender on conflict handling styles. Finally, the effect of conflict type was tested as a main effect and as a moderator of gender role orientation and conflict styles.


METHOD

Participants

Respondents included 134 female volunteers in supervisory and management positions from 12 federal government branches and 25 provincial government ministries and offices, spanning British Columbia and the Yu- kon Territories. Eligibility criteria included having held a managerial or supervisory position for a minimum of 12 months. Respondents ranged in age from 26 to 65 years (M = 40.1, SD = 7.0). The average number of years that respondents were employed full time in their current position was 3.9 (range 1 to 17). Approximately 59% of respondents had college or more formal education. Job levels ranged from lower level management (66%), to middle management (31%), to top level management (2%). Ap- proximately 4% of respondents reported their combined annual income as $40,000 CDN or less; 36% reported between $41,000 and $60,000; with the balance of 60% reporting above that. Thus, the typical respondent in this study was a 40-year-old, college educated, lower level manager with approximately 4 years experience in her current position, and from a middle- to-upper socioeconomic class (annual family income >$60,000). Although we did not record ethnicity, and this information is not available to us from the agencies, both provincial and federal employers engage in employment equity practices.

Procedure

Federal government organizations provided mailing lists of 245 female supervisors and managers employed in their Western Region. Question- naire packages were distributed via each federal government organization's internal mailing system. In addition, the provincial government's Centre for Managers and Executives provided a random sample of 200 names and addresses of female managers employed throughout the province. Ques- tionnaire packages in this group were distributed through the postal system.

Respondents were sent a covering letter requesting their participation in the study. General instructions for completing the questionnaires were provided and informed the respondents that the completed questionnaire would be taken as their consent to participate in the study. The questionnaire consisted of the following components: (a) general demographic ques- tions; (b) the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1981); and (c) Form A of the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROCI-II; Rahim, 1983a), specifying an interpersonal conflict; and (d) Form A of the ROCI-


II, specifying an ethical conflict. Respondents were requested to return the completed survey in a self-addressed stamped envelope. The ROCI-II questionnaire was counterbalanced for the interpersonal and ethical conflicts to ensure that any directional bias effects were controlled.

Of the 445 questionnaires distributed, 185 (94 from federal and 91 from provincial government agencies) were returned, resulting in a 42% return rate. Of the returned questionnaires, 134 were used in data analyses (66 and 68, respectively, were from federal and provincial respondents). A chi-square test of association indicated no significant difference in the proportion of federal (38%) and provincial (47%) government respondents, ~2(1, N = 185) = 3.66, p > .05. Fifty-one questionnaires were unusable primarily due to incomplete or missing data (39) or failure to fulfill eligibility requirements (12). Examples of unusable data included failure to meet criteria of minimum time employed in present position, and failure to complete both parts of the questionnaire or to provide a short written description of the conflict.

Independent Measures

Gender Role Orientation. Instrumentality and expressiveness dimen- sions were measured by the BSRI (Bem, 1981), which requires individuals to rate the extent to which they identify with each of 20 masculine (instrumental), 20 feminine (expressive), and 20 filler neutral adjectives. Bern (1974) defines instrumentality and expressiveness as stable attributes that an individual incorporates into his or her identity. However, it has been argued that the BSRI measures socially desirable instrumental and expressive traits and is related to gender role preferences that call on instrumental or expressive capacities (Spence & Helmreich, 1980). Respondents were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale, ranging from (1) never or almost never to (7) always or almost always true, the degree to which each characteristic was "true of them." The responses on each 20-item instrumental and expressive scale are summed so that the higher score the greater the attribute.

Bern (1981) reported acceptable psychometric properties with test-retest reliabilities over 1-month periods ranging from .78 to .84. Instrumental and expressive scores derived from the BSRI have also been shown to be uncorrelated (Bern, 1974). The BSRI has adequate construct validity, as demonstrated by several experiments using the instrument to measure instrumental and expressive characteristics (Bieger, 1988). For this sample of female managers, moderate internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were obtained for expressiveness (.76) and high coefficients were found for instrumentality (.84).


Respondents were classified for analysis as high or low instrumental or high or low expressive according to the median item scores for each trait. Our assessment of androgyny was based on Taylor and Hall (1982) and Bem's (1977) additive or "main effects" interpretation of androgyny. Individuals who score high on both instrumental and expressive traits are considered androgynous, that is, individuals high in both instrumental and expressive attributes will have the additive beneficial effects of both gender roles compared to those who have access to only one gender role. However, by using Taylor and Hall's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach we were able to simultaneously test both the main effect approach (significant main effects on both instrumentality and expressiveness), the balance approach (a significant interaction), and the emergent approach (significant main and interaction effects) (Hall & Taylor, 1985).

Conflict Types. Interpersonal and ethical conflicts were the focus of this study. Form A of the ROCI-II (Rahim, 1983a), which contains 28 items related to conflict situations directed at one's boss, was adapted for this study. The items were completed twice. Respondents were required to identify an interpersonal conflict they had had with their current or former supervisor (i.e., "disagreements originating from the people involved, such as differences in communication style, personality, or manner of decision- making") and respond to the items according to the conflict experienced. They were also required to respond to the same items according to an ethical conflict they had had with their current or former supervisor (i.e., "disagreements regarding principles or core beliefs, such as company ethics or procedures, employee rights and discrimination, or personnel selection criteria"). A validity check was incorporated into each form, and the interpersonal and ethical conflict forms were counterbalanced to control for order effects. Respondents were asked to briefly describe the interpersonal and ethical conflict experienced, and to explain why it was an interpersonal or ethical conflict. Working separately, two independent raters classified the descriptions of the conflict episodes on the basis of content into two predetermined categories--interpersonal or ethical conflict. Agreement between the two raters was 87%. Based on these results we concluded that the managers were able to distinguish between interpersonal and ethical conflicts. For analysis, conflict type was considered as an independent variable and a repeated measures factor.

For exploratory purposes, respondents were also requested to indicate the gender of the boss with whom they were in conflict. Prior to the study, the questionnaire was piloted on 9 working females, 7 of whom were managers, in order to ensure that respondents were able to understand instructions, differentiate between interpersonal and ethical conflict concepts, and provide descriptions of each conflict type. No one indicated that they were


unable to distinguish between conflicts, and all were able to provide descriptions of the conflicts that were identifiable as either ethical or interpersonal.

Dependent Measures

Conflict Handling Styles. The 28-item ROCI-II (Rahim, 1983a) consists of five major styles of handling conflict: integrating (7 items), dominating (5 items), compromising (4 items), avoiding (6 items), and obliging (6 items). See the appendix for sample items. An integrating conflict handling style involves negotiating, problem solving, and collaborating, whereas a dominating style is considered competitive, persuasive, and forceful. A compromising style involves making mutually acceptable decisions and exchanging concessions. An obliging style is cooperative and accommodating, and seeks to smooth differences between the persons in conflict. An avoiding style involves withdrawing from and sidestepping conflict situations. Re- sponses to the items were scored on a 5-point scale, from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. Respondents completed the five subscales twice, once for an interpersonal conflict and once for an ethical conflict. Mean scores for each conflict handling style range from 1 to 5, with high scores indicating greater use of the particular conflict handling style.

ROCI-II test-retest reliabilities (1-week intervals) range from .60 to .83, with the mean being .76 (Rahim, 1983b). Factor analyses were performed during test development to explore the instrument's construct validity. Thornton (1989) reported that the intercorrelations between the scales were very low, ranging from .08 to .31 (median of .12), thus indicating that the ROCI-II is measuring distinct conflict styles. Moreover, confirma- tory factor analysis (1219 managers) provided support for the convergent and discriminant validities of this instrument (Rahim & Magner, 1994). In- ternal consistency coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) for the present study, for interpersonal and ethical conflicts, respectively, were slightly higher (integrating, .82, .82; dominating, .76, .77; compromising, .81, .80; avoiding, .83, .81; and obliging, .82, .86) than those reported in Rahim's sample, which ranged from .72 to .77.

Data Analysis

Preliminary analysis included descriptive data, such as means, medians, standard deviations, frequencies, and Pearson product-moment correlations. To examine the hypothesized relationships of gender role orientation and conflict handling styles, and the moderating effect of conflict type, a


2 x 2 x 2 (high vs. low instrumentality x high vs. low expressiveness x interpersonal and ethical conflict type) multivariate analysis of variance (MA- NOVA) was performed using gender role categories derived from the BSRI (Bern, 1981). Conflict type was used as a repeated measures factor because it was assessed twice (interpersonal and ethical conflict). There were five dependent measures (integrating, dominating, compromising, avoiding, and obliging conflict handling styles). Due to unequal cell sizes, the weighted means analysis was employed with the assigned weights proportional to cell size. Participants' data were divided into four categories according to their instrumental and expressive scores: high and low instrumental, high and low expressive. The median split of each scale was used as cutoff scores for this classification. This 2 × 2 classification procedure was chosen to test Bem's (1977) main effect theory of androgyny.

RESULTS

Preliminary Descriptive Analysis

The means and standard deviations for conflict handling styles (dependent variables) by gender role orientation (high vs. low instrumental and high vs. low expressive), collapsed across conflict type, appear in Table I.

Table L Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables by Gender Role Orientation (Instrumentality and Expressiveness) (N = 134)

High Low instrumentality instrumentality

Variable M SD M SD

High expressiveness n -- 33 (25%) n = 36 (27%)

Integrating 4.29 .43 4.10 .40 Dominating 3.36 .77 3.04 .68 Compromising 3.60 .71 3.83 .54 Avoiding 2.61 ,65 3.16 .80 Obliging 3.24 .70 3.55 .63

Low expressiveness n = 35 (26%) n = 30 (22%)

Integrating 4.06 .60 3.88 .55 Dominating 3.51 .79 3.14 .52 Compromising 3.59 .75 3.55 .66 Avoiding 2.77 .80 3.00 .88 Obliging 3.26 .76 3.14 .76


Because of a low return rate, we compared female managers who returned complete questionnaires (n = 134) with those who returned incomplete questionnaires (n = 47) on demographic information. Chi-square tests of independence revealed that there were no differences in the proportion of female managers with complete and incomplete data by income level, ~2(2, N = 181) = 3.7, p > .15; type of position, ~2(5, N = 181) = 4.96, p > .41; and organizational level, 22(1, N = 181) = 1.94, p > .16. (Some of the initial categories were collapsed in order to meet the assumptions of chi-square analysis.) In addition, ANOVA indicated that the groups did not differ on age (F < 1) or months of experience (F < 1). Results of MANOVA indicated that the groups did not differ on instrumental or expressive traits, F(2,177) = 1.31, p > .27. Missing data precluded a comparison on the conflict handling styles measures. In conclusion, there was little evidence to suggest that managers who completed the questionnaires differed systematically from those who returned incomplete data.

Prior to combining data from federal and provincial managers, analyses were performed to compare respondents on demographic information and independent and dependent variables. Chi-square tests of independence revealed that there were no differences in the proportion of federal and provincial government respondents by income level, %2(2, N = 134) = 0.35, p > .83; type of position, ~z(5, N = 134) = 9.85, p > .07; and organizational level, 22(1, N = 134) = 0.18, p > .66. In addition, ANOVA indicated that the groups did not differ on mean levels of months of experience, F < 1, or age, F(1,132) = 1.20, p > .27. Results of MA- NOVA revealed that the groups did not differ on instrumental or expressive traits, F < 1, or on reported use of conflict handling styles, F < 1. Based on these results, we concluded that the federal government respondents were not characteristically different from provincial government respondents.

As a preliminary step in the data analysis we compared the variables with other normative samples. The medians (5.2, SD = .58; 4.8, SD = .49) for instrumental and expressive attributes varied slightly from the BSRI female normative sample scores of 4.8 (Md) for instrumentality and 5.1 (Md) for expressiveness (Bern, 1981). However, the medians were very simi- lar to BSRI instrumental and expressive scores (Md = 5.3, 4.7, respectively) for female middle to upper level managers in Korabik and Ayman's study (1987). The proportion of respondents (see Table I) in the instrumental category was higher, and the expressive lower, than Bem's (1981) normative college female sample (12% instrumental, 39% expressive, 30% androgynous, and 18% undifferentiated persons). These differences are reflected in the types of samples used but were not believed to be of any conse- quence in determining the results. The means for the conflict handling


styles compared favorably to Rahim's (1983b) managerial reference group norms, which ranged from a mean of 2.6 for the avoiding conflict handling style to a mean of 4.3 for the integrating conflict handling style. These comparisons support the validity of these measures for this sample.

Intercorrelations for dependent and independent variables are shown in Table II. There were no significant correlations between any of the conflict handling styles and instrumentality and expressiveness.

Preliminary analyses were also performed to determine whether it was necessary to control for other structural variables, such as organizational level, length of experience in current position, combined family income, and boss's gender. Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980), for example, suggest that job status may account for differences in influence tactics. Simi- larly, Ragins and Sundstrom (1990) contend that level of organizational power impacts managerial strategy and performance. Thus, more experienced individuals in high-level management positions may have more flexibility to negotiate when involved in conflicts.

Two-way MANOVAs (Structural Variables x Conflict Type as a repeated measure), were conducted with organizational level (lower vs. middle and higher levels), work experience (less than 2.5 years vs. greater than 2.5 years), and income (<$60,000 vs. >$60,000) as the independent variables. The five conflict handling styles for both ethical and interpersonal conflicts were the dependent variables. Overall main effects and interactions were all nonsignificant for these structural variables. MANOVA was used to analyze boss's gender separately for the ethical and interpersonal conflicts. The main effects were nonsignificant. Because no significant differences were found, these structural variables were not included in further analyses.

Socialization Perspective

Female managers who scored high on instrumental attributes were expected to report greater overall means on the dominating conflict handling style. The MANOVA analysis yielded support for this hypothesis (see Table III). A significant overall effect was found for instrumentality, F(5,126) = 4.98, p < .0003. The univariate analysis, F(1,130) = 10.20, p < .002, indicated that high-instrumental managers were more likely to use a dominating conflict handling style (M = 3.4, SD = .78), compared with low-instrumental managers (M = 3.1, SD = .61).

Managers who scored high on expressiveness were expected to report greater overall means on the compromising, obliging, and avoiding conflict handling styles This hypothesis was not supported. Although the multivari-


11

¢ )

0

{ g

• o

I ~ ~. ~ ~ • I "

I" I " I" I" 1" "

• o • " " I I I I

• " " I " I " °

• " " I" I"

• I" " I" " "

. . . . . I " I" I " I" I" I"

.~.~ o.. . ~ I~ o ~ o o

o,.o = ~ = E ~ E ~ ~ . o - ~ ~.~'~ ' - ~ . ~ . o ~.~'~-~.~.-r~-~

It

o

II


Table IH. Instrumental and Expressive Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance for Conflict Handling Styles (N -- 134) a

F ratio

Effects MANOVA Integrating Dominating Compromising Avoiding Obliging

Instrumental 4.98 b 6.21 e 10.20 c 1.26 10.38 c 1.12 Expressive 2.900 9.26 c 1.64 2.30 0.02 3.34

adf for MANOVA 5,126 and 1,130 for ANOVA terms. bp < .05. Cp < .01.

ate F test was significant for the overall effect for expressiveness, F(5,126) = 2.90, p < .02, the univariate tests for compromising, obliging, and avoiding conflict styles were nonsignificant, Fs(1,130) = 2.30, p > .13, 3.34, p < .06; and F < 1, respectively.

Although not predicted, we did find that high-instrumental traits were associated with significantly less use of an avoiding conflict handling style, F(1,130) = 10.38, p < .01 (M = 2.69, SD = .73, M = 3.08, SD = .84; high and low instrumentality, respectively).

Finally, androgynous managers were expected to report using a significantly greater integrating style. The univariate tests for the integrating style were significant for both instrumental and expressive managers, Fs(1,130) = 6.21, 9.26, ps < .01, respectively. High-instrumental managers reported greater use of the integrating style (M = 4.18, SD = .52), compared with low-instrumental managers (M = 3.99, SD = .48). High-expressive managers also reported greater use of the integrating style (M = 4.20, SD -- .42), compared with low-expressive managers (M = 3.97, SD = .58). Thus the presence of both types of attributes (instrumental and expressive) was associated with an integrating conflict handling style. These findings (i.e., significant differences on high and low levels of both instrumental and expressive traits), support the additive or "main effects" approach to androgyny.

Structural Perspective

Differences in conflict handling styles were expected to depend on the type of conflict confronting the manager (interpersonal vs. ethical). The multivariate effect was nonsignificant, F(5,126) = 1.98, p < .08, indicating that there were no differences in conflict handling styles for either the interpersonal or ethical conflicts.


Conflict type was expected to moderate the gender role orientation and conflict handling styles relationships. Thus the interactions, Conflict Type x Instrumental, Conflict Type x Expressive, and Conflict Type x In- strumental x Expressive, were examined. Multivariate effects were nonsignificant, F(5, 126) = 1.25, p > .28; F < 1; F < 1, respectively, indicating that the type of conflict did not serve a moderating function.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the gender role orientation of female managers and the ways in which they report having handled both interpersonal and ethical conflicts with their bosses. The results are valuable in examining the extent to which socialization and structural variables are associated with conflict handling styles, particularly because previous research has failed to include both socialization and structural influences in one study. The results indicated that socialization variables were more relevant than structural variables in determining self-reported use of conflict handling styles.

Consistent with the gender role socialization expectations (e.g., Bem, 1981; Gilligan, 1982) and previous findings (e.g., Korabik & Ayman, 1987), there was a congruence between gender role orientation and conflict handling styles. High-instrumental managers indicated that they would use sig- n i f i can t ly g r e a t e r d o m i n a t i n g conf l ic t hand l ing styles than did low-instrumental managers. In addition, although not hypothesized, high- instrumental managers also indicated that they would use significantly fewer avoidant (e.g., withdrawing, unassertive) ways of handling conflicts.

Additional support for socialization expectations was found in the analysis of androgynous attributes. The results indicated that managers with androgynous traits (i.e., high-instrumental and high-expressive traits) reported that they would use an integrating conflict handling style for both interpersonal and ethical conflicts. Female managers who perceived themselves as possessing high expressive and instrumental characteristics did not indicate that they would rely on stereotypic feminine or masculine conflict handling styles. Other interpretations of androgyny were not supported, i.e., the balance or emergent properties theories (Taylor & Hall, 1982). Al- though there is often little support for the androgyny theory (for reviews, see Taylor & Hall, 1982; Whittle, 1984) these results are consistent with Yelsma and Brown's (1985) study of marital paitners.

In contrast, expressive traits were not associated with significantly greater reported use of female stereotypic conflict handling styles (e.g., compromising, obliging, and avoiding styles). These findings are inconsis- tent with earlier studies (Falbo, 1982; Korabik & Ayman, 1987; Lyons,


1988) and may be due to the use of different measures or to the characteristics of the sample. For example, Korabik and Ayman found congruence between expressive traits and accommodating conflict handling styles. Their sample, however, was mostly middle to uppe r level managers whereas our sample was mostly lower level managers, presumably with less organizational power. Although our preliminary analysis indicated that organizational level did not moderate the relationship between conflict type and conflict handling styles, future research should examine the role of both organizational power and perceived personal power in conflict resolution (for a review, see Ragins & Sundstrom, 1990) .

It should be noted, however, that the integrating (i.e., collaborative) conflict handling style was the most frequently reported conflict style overall and may reflect the demands of managerial roles in which collaborative and creative problem-solving approaches to conflict are widely accepted and encouraged. However, nonsignificant main effects and interactions for conflict type indicated that the nature of the conflict did not effect the reported use of conflict handling styles. Moreover, the results of the pre-

.liminary analyses indicated that organizational and job variables characteristic of the structural perspective were not associated with the way female managers reported that they had handled conflicts with their bosses.

The pattern of results may have been influenced by several variables specific to the types of organizations that we examined but did not assess. First, it is possible that many or all of the federal or provincial government branches have homogeneous organizational climates that affect managers' intended use of conflict handling styles. Mainiero (1986) recommends that future research control for organizational culture or climate in order to assess its effect on managerial behavior. For example, each federal and provincial government branch has introduced a women's employment equity program to its organization, which suggests that these organizations are concerned with women's roles and advancement in the workplace. Con- sequently, they may offer women more flexibility in their positions and managerial styles than those organizations without a strong equal fights mandate. In order to determine whether the presence of specific programs impacts managerial style and organizational climate, it may be useful to compare organizations that have women's programs in place to those organizations that do not.

An examination of significant correlations between the conflict styles reveals an alternate explanation for the pattern of results. Although judges were able to distinguish between interpersonal and ethical conflicts, correlations between conflict styles reported for ethical and interpersonal conflicts suggest that dominating (r = .63), compromising (r = .46), avoiding (r = .68), and obliging (r = .51) conflict styles may be used irrespective of

698 Portelio and Long

conflict type. Further research might examine whether factors common to ethical and interpersonal conflicts do not require the use of different conflict handling styles. Finally, the instrument (ROCI-II) used to measure conflict handling styles may not have been sensitive enough to distinguish between these types of conflicts.

A final interpretation of the study's failure to find significant differences between interpersonal and ethical conflicts may have been due to the way ethical conflict was defined. Jones' (1991) issue-contingent model of ethical decision making in organizations suggests that conflict behavior varies according to the intensity level that specific ethical issues provoke. Jones contends that factors such as immediacy, proximity, and conse- quences of actions are more important determinants of ethical decision making than characteristics of the decision maker (i.e., one's level of moral development) and organizational variables (i.e., corporate culture and poli- cies).

An important aspect of this study was the focus on a boss-directed conflict. Many previous studies have failed to take into account power dif- ferentials of work interactions, despite evidence to suggest that managers' use of conflict handling styles varies depending on the relative status of the target person involved in the conflict (cf. Utley et al., 1989). Although our preliminary analysis did not fred that male or female bosses differen- tially related to self-reported conflict handling styles, more detailed examination of the characteristics of the boss and the processes that occur between managers and their bosses would facilitate a better understanding of the way female managers handle conflicts with their bosses. For example, it is possible that the gender combination of the manager and his or her boss is a more important determinant of conflict handling behavior than the gender of either individual. The boss-subordinate relationship is a com- plex one and should be examined further in order to determine its full impact on behavior.

The study's findings are limited to provincial and federal government female managers. It is possible that a more representative sample of women across contrasting levels of responsibility among several private and public sector organizations would yield different findings with respect to conflict handling styles used in interpersonal and ethical conflicts. Additional con- cerns about the representativeness of the sample include the relatively low response rate and lack of comparative information about nonrespondents. However, a comparison of respondents' data who completed the questionnaires with those whose data were incomplete on demographic information and the gender role orientation measures revealed no significant differences between these groups. In addition, because questionnaires were sent to the manager's work address, one can speculate that respondents may


have had less time or inclination to complete the questionnaires, thus po- tentially contributing to the relatively low return rate. Although the cover letter indicated support from the organization, employees were not given permission to complete the questionnaire during working hours, a consid- eration for future studies. A final limitation is that the conflict styles data were derived from retrospective self-reports. In particular, self-reported conflict handling styles may not reflect actual behaviors but rather behavioral intentions. Therefore results should be interpreted with some caution and require replication with behavioral indicators of conflict management behaviors.

In summary, some support was found for a socialization explanation for the relationship between gender role orientation the way female managers report resolving boss-related conflicts. However, this relationship held only for instrumental and androgynous attributes. Because expressive traits were not associated with female stereotypic behaviors, it may be that as- pects of the work environment that moderated this relationship were not identified. Although we recommend replications of this study, we also note that further research should examine how structural factors such as conflict type (assessed multidimensionally), organizational power and climate, and the relationship between the supervisor and subordinate impact conflict handling behaviors, and the extent to which gender role orientation mod- erates biological sex. This knowledge may then be integrated into organizational programs so that managerial personnel may have the opportunity to understand their conflict handling behavior, to develop more effective strategies for resolving conflict, and to enhance the quality of working relationships.

APPENDIX

Sample Items from the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II 3

Directions: You may have incompatabilities, disagreements, or differences (i.e., conflict) with your peers. [Throughout the instrument, the word peers was replaced with boss.] Rank each of the statements to indicate how you handle your conflict with your peers. Try to recall as many recent conflict situations as possible in ranking these statements. Mark your responses in the appropriate boxes on your answer sheets. These are no right or

3Modified and reproduced by special permission of the publisher, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA 94303, from Rah/m Organizational Conflict Inventory-II by M. Afzalur Rahim. Copyright 1990 by Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. All fights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without the publisher's written consent.


wrong answers. The response which is most characteristic of your behavior in a situation of conflict with your peer is the best answer. Any other answer, which may be considered as more desirable or acceptable, will simple lead to misleading information.

1. I avoid an encounter with my peers. 2. I use my authority to make a decision in my favor. 3. I usually allow concessions to my peers. 4. I am generally f'trm in pursuing my side of the issue. 5. I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse. 6. I use "give and take" so that a compromise can be made.

REFERENCES

Arkkelin, D., & Simmons, R. (1985). The "good manager": Sex-typed, androgynous, or likable? Sex Roles, 12, 1187-1198.

Baxter, L. A., & Shepherd, T. L. (1978). Gender role identity, sex of other, and affective relationship as determinants of interpersonal conflict management styles. Sex Roles, 4, 813-825.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bern, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternate procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634-643.

Bern, S. L. (1981). Bern sex role inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press,

Bieger, G. R. (1988). Bem sex role inventory. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol. III, pp. 51-57). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.

Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Jouma~ 32, 662-669.

Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.

Falbo, T. (1982). PAQ types and power strategies used in intimate relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 399-405.

Gever, S. (1988). Gender differences in interpersonal conflict (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts Intemationa~ 49, 2884B.

GiUigan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hall, J. A., & Taylor, M. C. (1985). Psychological androgyny and the masculinity x femininity

interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 429-435. Henning, M., & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. New York: Pocket Books. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An

issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 2, 366-395. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics:

Exploration in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452. Korabik, IC, & Ayman, R. (1987, August). Androgyny and leadership: A conceptual synthesis.

A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.

Kurtines, W. M. (1986). Moral behavior as rule governed behavior Person and situation effects on moral decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 784- 791.


Long, B. C. (1990). Relation between coping strategies, sex-typed traits, and environmental characteristics: A comparison of male and female managers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 185-194.

Lyons, N. P. (1988). Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and morality. In C. Gilligan (Ed.), Mapping the moral domain: A contribution to women's thinking to psychological theory and education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mainiero, L. A. (1986). Coping with powerlessness: The relationship of gender and job dependency to empowerment-strategy usage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 633-653.

Marshall, J. (1993). Patterns of cultural awareness: Coping strategies for women managers. In B. C. Long & S. E. Kahn (Eds.), Women, work, and coping: A multidisciplinary approach. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Miller, J. B. (1991). Women's and men's scripts for interpersonal conflict. Psychology of Women Quarter~, 15, 15-29.

Mischel, W. (1966). A social-learning view of sex-differancas in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Orlofsky, J. L , & Stake, J. E, (1981). Psychological masculinity and femininity: Relationship to striving and self-concept in the achievement and interpersonal domains. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 218-233.

Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1990). Gender and perceived power in manager-subordinate relations, fournal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 273-287.

Rahim, A. (1983a). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory I & IL" Forms A, B, & C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Rahim, A. (1983b). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory I & 11: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Rahim, A., & Magner, N. (1994). Convergent and discriminant validity of the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II. Psychological Reports, 74, 35-38.

Shevelson, R. J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1981). The effects of sex differences on the preference for utilization of conflict styles of managers in a work setting: An exploratory study. Public Personnel Management Journa~ 10, 289-295.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relatignships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarter~,, 5, 147-1153.

Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A, (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 9~ 347-366.

Thornton, G. C. (1989). Review of the Rahim organizational conflict inventories. In J. C. Conoley & J. J. Kramer (Eds.), The tenth mental measurement yearbook. Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.

Utley, M. E., Richardson, D. R., & Pilkington, C. J. (1989). Personality and interpersonal conflict management. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 287-293.

Whittle, B. E. (1984). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 765-778.

Yelsma, P., & Brown, C. T. (1985). Gender roles, biological sex, and predisposition to conflict management. Sex Roles, 12, 731-747.

Documents

Gender role orientation, ethical and interpersonal conflicts, and conflict handling styles of female managers