“evaluation of conflict management skills:...
TRANSCRIPT
“EVALUATION OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SKILLS: DEVELOPING A MODEL
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS”
By
Abdul Ghaffar PhD Scholar (Education)
Qurtuba University of Science and Information Technology KPK (Peshawar and DI Khan)
Pakistan, 2011
ii
“EVALUATION OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SKILLS: DEVELOPING A MODEL
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS”
A Dissertation Presented to
Department of Education Qurtuba University, D.I.Khan ________________________
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree
Of Doctor of Philosophy in Education ______________________
By Abdul Ghaffar
April, 2011
Qurtuba University of Science and Information Technology KPK (Peshawar and DI Khan)
Pakistan
iii
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
This is to certify that the Doctoral Dissertation of
Mr. Abdul Ghaffar
“Evaluation of Conflict Management Skills: Developing a Model for Secondary
School Principals”
has been approved by the Supervisory Committee for the dissertation requirement for the
Doctor of Philosophy degree in
Education, April, 2011
Name: -------------- Name: --------------- CHAIR, Supervisory Committee Member, Supervisory Committee Name: ---------- Name: ---------- Member, Supervisory Committee Member, Supervisory Committee Name: ---------------
Dean of Social Sciences /Sciences
iv
ABSTRACT:
Conflict among staff is a natural phenomena or a part of daily school life. If these are not
handled in a positive way, they can affect the staff interpersonal relations which will negatively
affect the whole school climate. Different approaches have been in practice for handling conflicts
in the schools, e.g. Mediation, Negotiation, Avoidance, Collaboration etc. Acquiring the basic
working knowledge of these skills may provide the school teachers and principal with the
necessary tools to solve their interpersonal problems/conflicts in a more responsible and
productive way.
The main focus of this study was to review the existence of conflicts in schools, its nature, types
and different conflict resolution strategies which have been adopted by the schools’ principals.
A descriptive research design was utilized for collection of data, population of the study
consisted of 357 secondary schools of selected districts of KPK in which 250 schools’ teachers
and principals were selected. For data analysis Kendall’s Tau B and Kendall’s Tau C were
utilized in which teachers and principals’ responses were compared. Findings of the study show
that conflicts exist in all the schools which testify the fact that adequate measures need to be
taken for its management. Furthermore findings of the study reflect that compromising,
collaboration and accommodation styles were preferred by most of the principals.
Recommendations are made on the basis of research findings that educators and all the principals
should be properly trained in conflict management strategies.
Key Words: Conflict and Conflict management, Mediation, Negotiation, Avoidance,
Collaboration, School life, Conflict Resolution skills, Conflict Resolution Model
v
DEDICATION
This feeble Endeavour is dedicated to
The Holy Prophet of Islam Muhammad (S.A.W)
Whose Life enlightened the lives of millions of People and
Whose Life will remain a source of inspiration for
All the devotees of Islam
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
With great reverence, I thank Almighty Allah Who showed His compassion in granting upon me
the opportunity to complete my thesis in time.
I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Umar Ali Khan for all the hope and courage he has put on
me. He has enlightened me through his wide knowledge of education theory and practice and his
own approach and command over research proved instrumental for timely execution of this
work. It would be unfair if I don’t mention the names of teachers the charismatic Dr. S.A
Ghaffar, the icon and expert in philosophy Dr. Salim and the vigilant and responsive Dr. A. Q
Baloch; I have been extremely indebted for their help and comments on this work.
This PhD research would not have been completed without the prayers of my loving mother who
has been praying for successful completion of my PhD work, constant motivation and
encouragement from the memories of my late father for a successful life and the fruits of which
sadly, he did not live to see. I don’t find words of thanks and gratitude for the moral and
unending support, perpetual encouragement of my brothers Dr. F.H Khattak, Fazal Amin khattak
and Fazli Alim and I’m equally thankful to my sisters whose prayers never let me down at any
stage of my life.
Special thanks to my wife who actively supported me on every stage of PhD studies and who
always proved to be responsible for managing all the domestic affairs and for the care she took
of my ailing mother. I would mention the smiling faces of my children Sadia, Hashir and Afia
who remained a great source of encouragement for me in undertaking this research assignment. I
would like to thank my nephew Adnan, and my friend Shafiq for their assistance in data analysis.
Special thanks to Higher Education Commission of Pakistan for funding my PhD, due to which I
successfully pursued and completed my PhD in time.
Abdul Ghaffar
PhD Scholar
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page ……………………………………………………………………………i
Approval Sheet ……………………………………………………………………...ii
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………..iii
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………….iv
Acknowledgement ………………………………………………………………….v
Table of contents ……………………………………………………………………vi
Table of figures and illustrations ……………………………………………………xi
1. CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………1
1.1 Background/ Rationale of the study ………………………………………..1
1.2 Statement of the problem …………………………………………………...4
1.3 Objectives …………………………………………………………………..4
1.4 Significance of the Study …………………………………………………..4
1.5 Assumptions/ Research Questions …………………………………………6
1.6 Limitation of the study …………………………………………………….6
1.7 Delimitation of the study ………………………………………………….6
1.8 Definition of Terms …………………………………………………….…7
viii
2. CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………...16
2.1 Management ……………………………………………………………….16
2.1.1 Definition of General Management ……………………………………….16
2.1.2 Definition of Educational Management …………………………………..16
2.2 Conflict Management ……………………………………………………………...17
2.2.1 Conflict Management in School …………………………………………..18
2.3 Functional and Dysfunctional conflict ……………………………………………19
2.4 Types of conflicts …………………………………………………………………23
2.4.1 Intrapersonal Conflict and its Sources ……………………………………23
2.4.2 Interpersonal Conflict and its Sources …………………………………...24
2.4.3 Intragroup Conflict and its Sources ……………………………………..25
2.4.4 Intergroup Conflict and its Sources ……………………………………..26
2.4.5 Conflict of Interests ……………………………………………………...27
2.5 Sources of Conflict ………………………………………………………………27
2.6 Causes/ Factors leading to conflict ………………………………………………28
2.7 Conflict Resolution Skills/ Strategies ……………………………………………30
2.8 Principal’s role in conflict management …………………………………………32
2.9 Various Conflict Resolution Strategies/Models …………………………………35
ix
2.9.1 Negotiation and Mediation ………………………………………………..35
2.9.2 Model of Two styles ………………………………………………………36
2.9.3 Model of Three styles ……………………………………………………..36
2.9.4 Model of Four styles ………………………………………………………36
2.9.5 Model of Five styles ………………………………………………………37
2.10 Conflict Management Styles ……………………………………………………37
2.10.1 Avoidance or withdrawal ………………………………………………...37
2.10.2 The dominating response I win/you lose ………………………………...38
2.10.3 Integrative/collaborating, powerful-powerful, win-win ………………...38
2.10.4 The obliging response “I lose/you win” ………………………………...38
2.10.5 Compromise win-lose-win-lose ………………………………………...39
2.11 The Holton Model for Conflict Management …….…………………………..40
2.11.1 Identify the Conflict …………………………………………………...40
2.11.2 Identify Solutions ………………………………………………...……41
2.11.3 Implement Solutions ………………………………………………...…42
2.12 Analysis of these models …………………………………………………….43
x
3. CHAPTER METHOD & PROCEDURE……………………………………….57
3.1 Nature of the study …………………………………………………………..57
3.2 Population ………………………………………………………………………...57
3.3 Sample ……………………………………………………………………………57
3.4 Methodology …………………………………………………………………….58
3.4.1 Research design …………………………………………………………...58
3.4.2 Procedure for data collection……………………………………………...59
3.4.3 Instrument of data collection …………………………………………….59
3.5 Variables ……………………………………………………………………..….60
3.5.1 Demographic Information ……………………………………….....60
3.6 Conflict Management Style ……………………………………………..…60
3.7 Data Analyses …………………………………………………………..….61
3.8 Pilot sample and sampling …………………………………………….…...61
3.9 Selection of Research sample and sampling procedure …………………...62
3.10 Piloting and Modification of Questionnaire …………………………..…..62
3.11 Issues of reliability and validity …………………………………….…….64
3.12 Reliability …………………………………………………………………64
3.13 Validity ……………………………………………………………………65
3.14 Issues of instrument validity and reliability ……………………………….65
3.15 Reliability of Teachers’ Questionnaires …………………………………...67
xi
3.16 Reliability of Principals’ Questionnaires …………………………………68
3.17 Summary ………………………………………………………………….68
4. CHAPTER DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ……………………….72
4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….72
4.2 Demographic Variables ……………………………………………………73
4.3 Information about Teachers ……………………………………………….77
4.4. Information about Principals ………………………………………………81
4.5 Conflict …………………………………………………………………….85
4.6 Conflict Management ………………………………………………………130
4.7. Conflict Resolution Model (CRM) ………………………………………..179
4.8. Diagrammatic Presentation of CRM ………………………………………180
5. CHAPTER SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………….182
5.1. Summary …………………………………………………………………...182
5.2. Findings of the study ………………………………………………………183
5.3. Limitations …………………………………………………………………187
5.4. Recommendations for Practice ……………………………………………188
5.5. Recommendations for Further Study/ies ………………………………….189
xii
5.6. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………..190
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………….191
Appendices ……………………………………………………………………202
TABLE OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
CONTENTS Page N0
1. Demographic Variables ……………………………………………………..73
2. No of Schools ……………………………………………………………….73
3. District & Urban/Rural-wise detail of Selected Schools …………………...74
4. Sample selected …………………………………………………………….75
5. Return Rate ………………………………………………………………...76
6. Teachers’ Qualification (Acad+Prof) ……………………………………...77
7. Length of service …….…………………………………………………….78
8. Teachers' Age in years …………………………………………………….79
9. Teachers by post held ……………………………………………………..80
10. Information about Principals …………………………………………….81
11. Principals' Qualifications ………………………………………………..81
12. Principals by Service ……………………………………………………82
13. Principals by Age ……………………………………………………….83
14. Principals' Experience …………………………………………………..84
15. Conflict Resolution Model …………………………………………..179-80
16. Questionnaire for Principals (Appendix A) ……………………………202 17. Questionnaire for Teachers (Appendix B) ……………………………..209
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
‘Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and
memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep like
passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving.1’
John Dewey
1.1 Background/ Rationale of the study:
Different views are held about conflict in schools and other organizations. One view about
conflict is that it is a negative situation which needs to be avoided. While some others see it as a
catalyst which necessitates management function whereas some considers it as an exciting
opportunity for personal and professional growth2. The word ''conflict'', for many people,
suggests negative situations such as war, destruction, aggression, violence, and competition3.
Stephen P. Hencley (1961) argues that enough evidence is available about existence of conflict
between school principal and his reference group4, these conflicts are evident in practice as well
as in theory.
Coser, L. (1967) says that conflict is "a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power,
and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure, or eliminate the
rivals." 5
Conflict is a potential force with its constructive as well as destructive attributes. Most educators
are concerned about the potentially destructive outcomes (such as violence) from conflicts in
schools; most theories of conflict posit that conflict is a necessary and positive aspect of human
development and relation-ships6.
The word “Conflict” has been confused by the group of people who are interested in studying
this in their relevant field of study. There has never been a single and agreed definition of
conflict; different people define it differently according to their own subject area.
Tedeschi et al. (1973) take a middle position, defining conflict as “an interactive state in which
the behaviors or goals of one actor are to some degree incompatible with the behaviors or goals
of some other actor or actors”7. Conflict is “a situation in which the conditions, practices, or
goals for the different participants are inherently incompatible”8. Another definition of conflict is
2
“a type of behavior which occurs when two or more parties are in position or in battle as a result
of a perceived relative deprivation from the activities of or interacting with another person or
group” 9 (Litterer, 1966).
Kreisberg (1973), for example, defines conflict as a "relationship between two or more parties
who... believe they have incompatible goals.10" Another view about conflict is that it should not
be discouraged but that ''organization's goal should be to control conflict rather than to eliminate
it''11. Incompatibility of goals is a precondition for conflict, this incompatible position occurs
among the conflicting parties. Another situation for conflict arises when there is an opportunity
for goal obstruction. Conflict may take various forms and manifest itself at various levels.
Kennard (1988), for example, states that three types of conflict situation occur in an
organization. First, conflict may occur within an individual, hence, an intrapersonal conflict.
Many situations are responsible for these types of conflict. They range from conflicting needs,
frustrating situations, failing to achieve aspired goals. Second, there are situations which bring
many individuals close together in workplaces, while at work the individuals compete for limited
resources, hence such type of conflict is called interpersonal conflict. Third, conflict may occur
at the level of groups. There are several situations that may turn groups into rivals. These include
situations where groups have to compete for limited resources such as money, personnel and
equipment or when communication difficulties occur12. Groups may also experience
confrontations because they promote different interests and goals.
Conflict is viewed as a catalyst, positive force or a strong stimulus for individual and
organizational change, growth and innovation.13 Principles of organization" can encourage
conflict as well as provide mechanisms for its reduction14.
Conflicts occur at various levels in the schools, in order to ascertain the level of conflict in
school ODE and the partner agencies in 2000 conducted a survey in the school settings. The
respondents’ identified the following which are common in the schools15;
School board and school community
Building and district
Teacher and teacher
Teacher and staff
Teacher and student
3
Teacher and parent
Teacher and administrator
Student and student
Conflict management is not only limited to school settings but it can also be linked to many
disciplines. There is a fair amount of literature available in education which links conflict
management to the secondary school principal16.
Bailey (1971) believes that although conflict exists both in theory and practice but while
developing conflict management skills it is imperative that field experience should be utilized.
Principals should actively participate in field practice in order to acquaint themselves with the
management skills that are needed in the schools. He offers some ideas on managing conflict to
the school administrator. First, the administrator should be able to recognize and respond to
grievances by colleagues, teachers, and students. Second, collective judgment should be
substituted wherever possible for personal discretion. Third, when conflicts have gone beyond
logical negotiation, then one should estimate one's resources, estimate one’s enemy's resources,
judge one's plan of action, implement one’s judgment , persuade one's leaders of the plan's merit,
and mass one's forces for attack. Last, the administrator should be very realistic about his/her
limits to managing conflict17.
Whether conflicts are positive or negative depend on the situations on the way these are handled,
in institutions like schools conflicts have always been discouraged, these have always been
termed as bad for the schools. In effect, managers often were evaluated for the absence or
presence of conflict.18
Ivancevich and Matteson (1990) contend that in educational institutions conflict has been
discouraged, teachers were held responsible for conflict in schools and if there were no conflict
in the schools then both the school teacher and children were rewarded. Similarly school
principals were also judged for the lack of conflict in the schools19.
In a nutshell, all available literature on conflict in the schools testifies that three concepts are
implicit in the whole literature; they are:
1) Conflict is not a limited term but it’s a very broad, all-encompassing term.
2) Conflict is the raw material of school administration.
3) Conflict is desirable and necessary for growth and change in education20.
4
1.2 Statement of the problem: Conflict is a powerful tool/force for change in any
organization, depending on the situation whether the conflict is positive or negative. Schools, as
a miniature society, are replete with various conflicting situations and the school members
remain in conflict with each other on different issues. For smooth running of the organization, it
becomes imperative that all conflicts need to be handled delicately. Management of conflicts in
order to make it growth-oriented for the school and for all the staff remains major responsibility
of the school’s principal.
The problem under study is to “Evaluate different conflict management skills and development
of a conflict resolution model for secondary schools’ principals”.
1.3 Objectives of the study: The main focused area of the study was;
1. To identify conflict and its various types in the schools;
2. To investigate causes of conflicts;
3. To probe into various conflict management skills/strategies;
4. To analyze principals’ role in conflict resolution in the schools;
5. To develop a conflict resolution model for secondary school principals.
1.4 Significance/ Contribution of the study: Conflict and conflict management has been the
subject of discussion mainly in business and management sciences. In schools, it has never been
given due consideration especially in third world countries. Rahim (2000b) stated, “Managing
conflict involves designing effective strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and
maximize the constructive functions of conflicts in order to enhance learning and effectiveness in
an organization” 21.
Achoka (1990), states that the school principal must accept that conflict is part and parcel of all
social organizations. The school principal must, above all, have virtuosity, technical skill and
artistic insight into conflict resolution22.
Principals who are in a better position to understand conflict, its nature and conflict management
would handle conflicts more constructively than those who never faced conflicts in their schools.
They will offer timely assistance to their subordinates in conflict resolution. It was anticipated
5
that the data from this study would provide schools’ teachers, principals, and the policy makers
an insight to consider the importance of conflict management in schools so that they would be in
a better position to handle conflict, to know about the positive as well as negative effects of
conflicts. This study would also give an insight into various conflict management strategies as
per the requirement of the situation.
Secondary education occupies a central role because it is the first step to higher education as well
as it provides work force for the economy. Teachers play important role in the provision of
education to the students. Good working environment is a necessary factor for teaching learning
in a school. The present study aims at identifying various conflicting situations in the school,
therefore this research will prove of immense value to the education administrators in dealing
with problem situation in a school. Development of a conflict resolution model for school heads
will facilitate work of a principal on one hand and will open new venues for other researchers to
explore this area on the other.
Schools play major role as social institutions because these are the main springs of teaching and
learning. Taking its importance into consideration it is imperative that problems which affect the
teaching learning process in the school need to be carefully examined. Strategic decisions need
to be taken in order to overcome disruptive problems. Besides, educational leaders by virtue of
their position as administrator and head of the institution are key people for smooth running of
schools. They are no doubt in constant interaction with the school staff and can only achieve
maximum efficiency when their relations with each other are cordial and are at a satisfactory
level. Therefore, harmonious relations and peaceful coexistence between teachers and principals
should be encouraged so as to set up conducive environment for teaching and learning process.
Therefore, it is hoped that the study would be of immense significance and is expected to
contribute to the following.
1. This study will facilitate the concerned authorities to know about the magnitude and various
sources of conflict in the school so that they can take necessary measures to handle the problem.
2. It is anticipated that the data used in this study would provide help for further in depth study of
conflict and conflict management in the schools.
3. It may also help practitioners to know the techniques of avoiding undesirable conflicts and to
exploit the benefits of positive conflicts.
6
4. It will help to recommend possible solutions.
1.5 Assumptions/ Research Questions: The study was subjected to the following research
questions;
1. What is the nature of conflict in the schools?
2. What are the causes of conflicts?
3. How conflicts are handled in the schools?
4. Are educators trained for taking any conflict faced by them in the schools?
5. What is the role of schools’ principals in conflict management?
6. What skills/strategies are used by principals in handling conflicts?
7. Are principals assisted/facilitated in conflict management?
1.6 Limitation of the study: Following were some of the main limitations of the study;
Schools are an amalgam of a variety of conflicts ranging from students’ conflicts to that of
principals and teachers conflicts. These conflicts occur among students-students, students-
teachers, teachers-teachers, teachers-principals and sometimes school and the community. The
present study aims only at organizational conflict which occurs among different teachers-
teachers and teachers-principals.
Conflicts also occur at individual, group and organizational level i.e. intrapersonal conflicts,
interpersonal conflicts, intra-organizational and inter-organizational conflicts. This study focuses
only on interpersonal conflicts that occur at individual and group level. Other limitations of the
study are methodology related, these are;
This study focused only on principals’ conflict management styles, it does not offer any scale for
measurement of conflict.
1.7 Delimitation of the study:
1. The study was delimited only to selected distts of Mardan and Peshawar divisions.
2. Male secondary schools were selected for the study.
3. Only questionnaire was utilized for collection of information.
7
1.9 Definition of Terms:
1. Negotiation: It is a process by which persons who have shared and opposed interests and
want to come to an agreement try to work out a settlement23 (D. W. Johnson & F.
Johnson, 1997). Negotiation refers to voluntary problem solving or bargaining carried out
directly between the disputing parties to reach a joint agreement on common concerns.
2. Mediation: It is a structured process in which a neutral and impartial third party (known
as the mediator) assists two or more people in negotiating an integrative resolution to
their conflict24(D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1995c).
3. Strategy: Fraser and Hipel (1984) refer to a strategy as "any set of options that can be
taken by a particular player (participant)" 25.
4. Conflict: Conflict refers to “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent
parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and interference with the other
party in achieving their goals” 26(Hocker & Wilmot, 1991).
5. Conflict Resolution: Conflict resolution is “the process used by parties in conflict to
reach a settlement”27(Sweeney and Caruthers, 1996). Bodine and Crawford (1998) define
conflict resolution as “a generic term that covers negotiation, mediation, peer mediation,
and collaborative problem solving” 28(p. 15).
6. Conflict Management: Conflict management is “a philosophy and a set of skills that
assist individuals and groups in better understanding and dealing with conflict as it arises
in all aspects of their lives” 29(Tschannen-Moran, 2001).
7. Conflict Management Style: Conflict management styles are patterned responses to a
conflict and are usually assessed in research by having an individual disclose what he or
she usually does in a conflict situation. Conflict management style can be viewed as a
function of the interaction of two variables: (a) the degree of concern an individual shows
for relationships with others and (b) the degree of concern the individual shows for
achieving personal goals30 (Filley, 1975; Hall, 1969).
8
8. Intrapersonal conflict: According to Kroon (1991), conflict within the individual
(intrapersonal), can indicate the presence of simultaneous, opposing, divergent and
conflicting ideas, feelings and activities31. Characteristics of such tension are uncertainty,
hesitation, stress, anxiety, depression and insomnia. For example, a principal might be
task orientated at the expense of human relations. This can cause stress within the
principal if he/she has to decide whether to admonish an educator whose work is not up
to standard.
9. Interpersonal Conflict: Interpersonal conflict represents conflict between two
individuals. Barki and Hartwick (2001) define interpersonal conflict, as a phenomenon
that occurs between interdependent parties as they experience negative emotional
reactions to perceived disagreements and interference with the attainment of their goals32.
10. Intra-organizational conflict: Intra-organizational conflict occurs when management
and staff disagree about working conditions, goals, authority and decisions33 (Swart,
2001:368). While Van der Westhuizen (1991) states that this type of conflict can also
originate between certain groups in a school or school system it can occur between
members of a certain subject interest group, for example between history teachers,
concerning a certain approach to the work. When more than one person is involved,
coalitions are created within the interest groups34.
11. Intragroup conflict: Saddler (1998) describes intragroup conflict as largely
interpersonal conflict between persons in a group. Interpersonal conflict is always present
in groups because individuals differ in terms of values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours.
As a result some people are more attracted to some than to others. Better the underlying
relationships; the easier it is for people to work together. Conflicts in small groups can,
however, play a constructive role since it can stimulate creativity and renewal in that they
start to communicate and work together as a unit35.
12. Intergroup conflict: Intergroup conflict occurs between different groups in the school,
such as different departments, especially if they are competing for scarce resources like
9
number of educators, time allocation for extramural activities, textbooks and other
learning material, teaching aids and so on36(Van der Bank, 1995:168).
10
End Notes:
1 John Dewey (2008), John Dewey Quote, p.1,
http://www.quotelucy.com/quotations/7372/204372-john-dewey-quote.html,
Retrieved on 10/04/10
2 Karen, L. F, The Conflict Management Styles and Strategies of Educational Managers,
(A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication 1987), p.1
3 Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W, Management (3rd Ed) (London: Wesley Publishing
Company 1982), p.637
4 Hencley, S.P. The School Superintendent and His Role: A Conflict Typology,
Educational Research Bulletin Vol. XL, No. 3 pp. 57 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stable 1961) URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1475060 Accessed: 06/12/2008 10:42
5 Coser, L., Continuities in the study of social conflict. (New York: Free Press 1967), p.8
6 Johnson, D.W & Johnson, R.T, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, No. 4,
(American Educational Research Association 1996), pp. 463
7 Tedeschi, J.T, Conflict, power and games:The experimental study of interpersonal
relations (Chicago: Aldine 1973), p. 232.
8 Smith, Clagett C, “A comparative analysis of some conditions and consequences of intra-
organizational conflict." (Administrative Science Quarterly 10 March 196), p.511
9 Litterer, J. A, Conflict in organization: A re-examination. Academy of Management
Journal, 9, 1966), p.180
10 Kreisberg, Louis, Sociology of Social Conflicts, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1973), P.17
11
11 Huber, W, Human Behavior in Organizations (3rd Ed) (Lincinnate: South West
publishing Co, 1986), p.238
12 Kennard. J, Management, (Toronto: D.C. Health and company 1988), PP 304-307
13 Campbell, R.F., Carnally, J.E., & Mustard, R.O, Introduction to Educational
Administration (6th Ed) (Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc 1983), P.183
14 Corwin, Ronald G, "Education and the sociology of complex organizations." in Donald
A. Hansen and Joel E. Gerstl (eds.), On Education - Sociological Perspectives. (New
York: John Wiley & Sons 1967), P.189
15 Jennifer. B, Institutionalizing Conflict Resolution Education: The Ohio Model of conflict
Resolution Education Quarterly, vol: 19, no. 4, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2002), PP.482-83
16 Karen, L. F, (1987), ibid, p.16
17 Bailey, Stephen K. Preparing administrators for conflict resolution .Educational Record
52, 3 (Summer1971): p.229
18 Robbins. S, Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications (4th Ed)
(New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India, 1989), p.368
19 Ivancevich, J.M and Matteson, M.T, Organizational Behavior and Management (2nd Ed).
(Boston: R.R Donnelley & sons Company, 1990), p.307
20 Schofield. D, Conflict management-what principals should know about it." (NASSP
Bulletin 61, 409, 1990), Pp 8-15.
21 Rahim, M. A, Empirical studies on managing conflict. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 11(1), 5-9, (EBSCO host research database (2000b), p.5, Retrieved March
13, 2010
22 Achoka. J, Conflict resolution: The need for virtuosity. (Education Canada 30 (1), 1990)
p.46
12
23 Johnson, D. W & Johnson. F, Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th Ed)
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997)
24 Johnson, D. W, Johnson. R, Dudley. B, Ward. M, & Magnuson. D, Impact of peer
mediation training on the management of school and home conflicts. (American
Educational Research Journal, 32, 1995), Pp 829-844.
25 Fraser, N. M & Hipel, K.W, Conflict Analysis (New York: North-Holland 1984), P.7
26 Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W, Interpersonal conflict (3rd Ed), (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.
Brown 1985, 1991) P.23
27 Sweeney, B. & Caruthers, W. L, Conflict resolution: History, philosophy, theory and
educational applications. (School Counselor, Vol: 43, 1996), p.237
28 Bodine, R. J., & Crawford, D. K, The handbook of conflict resolution education: A guide
to building quality programs in schools. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers 1998),
P.15
29 Tschannen-Moran, M, The effects of a state-wide conflict management initiative in
schools. (American Secondary Education, 29, 2001), pp 2-32
30 Filley, A. C. (1975). Interpersonal conflict resolution Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and
Co
31 Kroon, General management: Planning, Organizing, Activating and Control. 1st Ed.
(Pretoria: Haum Tertiary 1991), p.437
32 Henri Barki & Jon Hartwick, Interpersonal Conflict and Its Management in
Information System Development, Volume 25, Issue 2, 2001), p.197
33 Swart. M, Advanced communication skills, (Pretoria Haum 2001), p.368
13
34 Van Der Westhuizen, P.C, Effective educational management. 3rd Ed. (Pretoria, 1991),
p.306
35 Saddler. P, Conflict management and leadership (London: Coopers and Lybrand, 1998),
p.18
36 Van Der Bank. A, Education Management, OWB 402. (Pretoria University, 1995), p.168
14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conflict in a working environment and social interaction is somewhat natural and an unavoidable
phenomenon. Conflict somehow continues to be a factor in academic life. Schools frequently
appear to be centers of tension; on occasion, they are perhaps a manifestation of problems in the
community1. The term conflict is viewed in a variety of ways because of its confusion with those
conditions which lead to situations of different conflict.2 Thomas (1976) defines conflict as “the
process which begins when one party perceives that the other has frustrated, or is about to
frustrate, some concern of his” 3.
Its occurrence and subsequent resolution testifies that all conflicts even though inevitable can be
resolved amicably. Conflict, is basically the perception of differences of interests among
different groups of people”4. Coser (1972) argued that "Conflict and order, disruption and
integration are fundamental social processes which, though in different proportions and
admixtures are part of a cohesive social system" 5. How far we are successful in operating within
these psycho-social and moral tensions is indicative of the maturity of our mind and our
professional acumen.
Conflict involves situations in which differences are expressed by interdependent people in the
process of achieving their needs and goals, and it arises when a difference between two or more
people necessitates change in at least one person in order for their engagement to continue and
develop.6 Thomas (1992) revised his definition of conflict to mean: “the process that begins
when one party perceives that the other has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect
something that he or she cares about” 7.
Robbins (1998) maintains that conflict is ". . . a process that begins when one party perceives
that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first
party cares about.8" All definitions of conflict lays stress on differences among the individuals of
group members. Conflicts can be turned into cooperation when differences are reduced or
softened among the conflicting parties. 9
Conflict occurs when one party’s action which is incompatible with the opponent party prevents,
obstructs or in some way makes the whole working environment less effective. In retaliation the
15
opponent party too hinders his adversary’s goal attainment, hence a conflict of interests arise
between the parties.10
Because of diverse and varied definitions of conflict, attitudes towards it and images of its role
are also varied. Conflict in schools takes different forms; for example teachers seem reluctant to
obey the principals, they do not seem to follow rules or accept extra work, they do not easily get
along with their principals. Principals too adopt an authoritative approach, for example they
pressurize teachers for an uninterrupted working of the school activities. It, therefore, becomes
common that conflict between teachers and the school principal occur frequently at any time in
the school.11In institutions, conflict occurs between various individuals because of their frequent
interaction with each others. Conflict is an expression of hostility, antagonism and
misunderstanding between the staff members. 12
Glatter, et-al (1958) argues that ''professionals, it has been claimed, are unreasonably resistant to
administrative control. Conflict can also originate from a number of different sources13.
Conflict arises when two or more values, perspectives and opinions are contradictory in nature
and haven't been aligned or agreed about yet, including:
1. Within yourself when you're not living according to your values;
2. When your values and perspectives are threatened; or
3. Discomfort from fear of the unknown or from lack of fulfillment.
Conflict is inevitable and often good, for example, good teams always go through a "form, storm,
norm and perform" period. Getting the most out of diversity means often-contradictory values,
perspectives and opinions.
Conflict is often needed. It:
1. Helps to raise and address problems.
2. Energizes work to be on the most appropriate issues.
3. Helps people "be real", for example, it motivates them to participate.
4. Helps people learn how to recognize and benefit from their differences.
Conflict is not the same as discomfort. The conflict isn't the problem - it is when conflict is
poorly managed; that is the problem.
Conflict is a problem when it:
(1) Hampers productivity. (2) Lowers morale.
(3) Causes more and continued conflicts. (4) Causes inappropriate behaviors31.
16
2.1 Management:
2.1.1 Definition of General Management:
Management is a set of activities directed towards efficient and effective utilization of
organizational resources in order to achieve organizational goals14. Management does not refer to
any relationship in the organization i.e. there is no mention of super ordinate goal attainment. But
maximum efficiency should remain the mission statement of management which means that this
efficiency should be reflected in the achievement of objectives.15
Cuban (1988) provides one of the clearest distinctions between leadership and management. He
links leadership with change, while management is seen as maintenance of activity. He also
stresses the importance of both dimensions of organizational activity:
“By leadership, I mean influencing others’ actions in achieving desirable ends. Leaders
are people who shape the goals, motivations, and actions of others. Frequently they initiate
change to reach existing and new goals …Leadership … takes … much ingenuity, energy and
skill”.
“Managing is maintaining efficiently and effectively current organizational arrangements.
While managing well often exhibits leadership skills, the overall function is toward maintenance
rather than change. I prize both managing and leading and attach no special value to either since
different settings and times call for varied responses”. 16 (p.20)
2.1.2 Definition of Educational Management:
Bolam (1999) defines educational management as ‘an executive function for carrying out agreed
policy’17. Management is distinguished from educational administration which has to do with the
formulation of policy and thereof to transfer it where appropriate. It is also argued that
management studies are concerned with ‘the internal operation of educational institutions, and
also with their relationships with their environment, that is, the communities in which they are
set, and with the governing bodies to which they are formally responsible’18.
Leadership is a process of influence leading to the achievement of desired purposes. It involves
inspiring and supporting others towards the achievement of a vision for the school that is based
on clear personal and professional values. Management is the implementation of school policies
and the efficient and effective maintenance of the school’s current activities.19 Leadership and
17
management at all levels in the school should be judged by their effect on the quality and
standards of the school. Leadership should provide the drive and direction for raising
achievement, while management should make best use of the resources and processes to make
this happen. Management includes effective evaluation, planning, performance management and
staff development. Inspectors should consider the extent to which leadership is embedded
throughout the school and not vested solely in the senior staff. They should explore how well the
leadership team creates a climate for learning and whether the school is an effective teaching-
learning organization. 20
From its importance it is stressed that the basic task of management is to provide a supportive
framework for teaching and learning in the school settings.21 Educational management has
always remained an end in itself. Although management is an essential aspect of all the
education processes, but the promotion of teaching-learning has always remained vital
responsibility of good management. Management task is to create/provide such conditions in
which both teachers and students feel at ease to continue teaching-learning process in a favorable
way. The achievement of effective learning then becomes a criterion through which quality of
management is judged. 22
Leadership and management are distinct in principal but are equally important, if schools are
managed well but under led, then it loses its vigour and purpose. Organizations with poor
management and strong charismatic leadership may soar high but may also crash at the same
speed. 23
2.2 Conflict Management:
Robbins (1974) believes that conflict management is a "planning and evaluating of conflict
levels” 24. Conflict management refers to any social process by which people or groups handle
grievances about each other's behaviors, conflict management consists of diagnostic processes,
interpersonal (between individuals) styles, negotiating strategies, and other interventions that are
designed to avoid unnecessary conflict and reduce or resolve excessive conflict25. Conflict
management is an approach which functions as a catalyst and a strong stimulant for
organizational innovation. At this stage the leader does not consider resolving conflict but he
looks for ways which manage conflict in such ways which necessitates change, flexibility and
responsiveness in the individuals. 26
18
Rabie (1994) is also a strong advocate of conflict management, he argues that, “Conflict can
never be eliminated; it can only be managed to minimize its negative impact, reduce its intensity,
and facilitate its positive role in human development. Management of conflict and its resolution
is not a routine task of the organization but it often is contained and regulated. 27
People while handling conflict are aware of the fact that they compete for scarce resources or the
reason of their conflict is goal oriented. Conflict management styles are therefore, a result of
one’s concern for accomplishing one’s goals and one’s concern about the other person’s
accomplishing his/her goals. Conflict management has often been ignored by the researcher as
well as an important aspect of the school principal28. Conflict management is a philosophy and a
set of skills which individuals and groups try to understand, adopt and consequently deal with
conflict whenever it occurs in the schools29.
Although of great value and importance for individual and organizational goal, there is little
literature available in education on conflict and conflict management skills/strategies. A great
deal of literature is derived from the business world. Conflict management is frequently also
broken into categories such as conflict management styles and conflict management strategies. 30
2.2.1 Conflict Management in School:
The better educators and students understand the nature of conflict, the better able they are to
manage conflicts constructively32. Moran (2001) sees conflict management as “a philosophy and
a set of skills that assist individuals and groups in better understanding and dealing with conflict
as it arises in all aspects of their lives” 33. Conflicts as a concept never remain positive or
negative but it has always been seen as a basic and result oriented part of school life.34
Conflicts offer competitive as well as cooperative context in the organization but it varies
according to the situation. Problems exist in managing conflicts when the context is
competitive/individualistic or when the context and the conflict resolution procedures are
incongruent. The effectiveness of a conflict resolution and peer mediation program may be
limited when the classroom and school context is competitive35.
Hocker and Wilmot (1985) have listed adverse effects of conflict situation in the organization,
these assumptions are;
19
a. Harmony is normal and conflict is abnormal.
b. Conflicts and disagreements are not different but always one and the same phenomena.
c. Measures must be initiated to decrease negative effects of conflict so that it may not be
escalated.
d. Conflicts occur whenever there is a clash of personality in the organization.
e. There is a difference between emotions and genuine conflict. 36
Deetz and Stevenson (1986) also list negative assumptions about conflict that are
prevalent. They include:
(a) Conflict is an unnatural departure from human sociability.
(b) Conflict can and should be avoided in most situations.
(c) Conflict is largely a result of a communication failure, i.e. misunderstanding leads to
conflicting situations between the parties. 37
2.3 Functional and Dysfunctional conflict:
Gordon (1996: 375) stressed that conflict may have positive and negative outcomes, that is,
functional and dysfunctional outcomes. Functional conflict has the potential of resolving serious
as well as other long standing issues on which parties have disagreements. These conflicts prove
beneficial both for individual and organizational growth. On the other hand, conflict may also be
dysfunctional which leads to poor performance of the individual, low morale and mental
degradation of the persons involved, dissatisfaction on the part of the administrator and a lower
grade achievement of the students39.
The orthodox and traditional view of structural-functionalist perspective holds that conflict is a
dysfunctional phenomenon that should be prevented, eliminated, or suppressed40. Conflict
management is essential for the smooth functioning of organization as “its proper management
usually minimizes negative effects and maximizes positive effects''41.
In her article “A Nested Theory of Conflict” (1996), Maire Dugan describes four types or levels
of conflict: issue-specific, relational, structural-subsystem, and structural-system. According to
Dugan, issue specific conflict is the simplest and most frequent type between or among
individuals or groups. The source is often disagreement over information (such as rumors) or
over possession of personal items. With relational conflict, the source is not the issue itself, but
rather problems in the interaction between parties and their feelings toward each other. Structural
20
conflict goes beyond the relationship of the parties and may be built into the larger social system,
as with gender, race, or socioeconomic inequity. Structural conflict can be further broken down
to include subsystem and system levels. For example, if the subsystem level is an individual
organization, the system could be the surrounding community42.
Johnson & Johnson (1996) has discussed about the contexts of conflict that is cooperative and
competitive. First, cooperation is the state that conflict resolution procedures seek to restore. By
definition, the resolution of a conflict is only constructive if the disputants can coordinate their
efforts to maximize joint gain and establish a relationship that allows them to work together
cooperatively in the future. Second, cooperation provides a context that influences the course of
conflict resolution efforts by focusing participants on long-term integrative rather than short-term
distributive strategies and resolutions. When conflicts occur in an ongoing cooperative context
(such as a family, career organization, community, society, world), conflict tends to be
constructive, because disputants recognize that their long-term interests in their future ability to
work together is more important than their immediate interests in the issue in dispute43.
Competitive situations often promote conflict in which the individuals involved work for the
achievement of their respective goals which directly or indirectly minimizes the goal attainment
of the other party. Competition, in conflict, is based on scarcity of resources44.
Hunt (1992) generally listed six points with regard to the negative aspects of conflict. These are;
conflict may: 1) Prevent members from 'seeing' task at all; 2) Dislocate the entire group and
produce polarizations; 3) Subvert the objectives in favour of sub-goals; 4) Lead people to use
defensive and blocking behavior in their group; 5) Result in the disintegration of the entire
group; and 6) Stimulate a win-lose conflict, where reason is secondary to emotion45. Gray and
Starke (1984) also identified three negative outcomes of conflict listed as follows; 1) A decline
in communication between the conflicting parties 2) Hostility and aggression development 3)
Over conformity to group demands46. Positive or functional conflicts are good because they
result in an urge for excellence and creativity. Such conflicts take the form of healthy
competition (interpersonal or intergroup competition) 47. Another view of conflict is that better
ideas are produced, people are forced to search for new approaches, long standing problems are
dealt with people and are forced to clarify their ideas, and the tension stimulates interest and
creativity. Conflict and disagreement between decision makers can improve organizational
outcome48.
21
Billisbery (1999) has delineated the following three positive aspects of conflict.
1. Conflict improves interpersonal relation: Work load is a cause of tension in the work place
between the individuals which naturally affects their mutual relationship. Conflict proves good
because during conflicts arguments take place, individuals’ likes and dislikes come into open and
the parties involved in conflicts find the opportunity for releasing their strong feelings (such as
angers). Bringing all the issues in open is healthier than hiding their anger or resentment.
2. Conflict improves group dynamics: Conflicts are important because whenever these occur in
the organizations, they result in the improvement of group dynamics which further reveal
personal agendas and lay the foundation for appropriate group goals, norms and procedures.
3. Conflict improves ideas and practices: Problems/issues are never resolved with one suggestion
but there are always more than one alternative which enable the parties involved to arrive at a
better solution to the problem at hand49.
Gray and Starke (1984) also identified the positive outcomes of conflict and are listed as follows.
(1) Individuals as well as group find it as a source of increase in energy which promotes their
inner work potential; (2) Conflict increases group cohesion; (3) When conflicts occur in the
organization, problems are made known during conflict; (4) It is a force for group motivation
which clarify their objectives, and consequently this increases the group's awareness of its
purpose; (5) It also encourages the group to protect all those values they think are important for
individual, group and the organization as well; (6) with occurrence both the individuals as well
as groups are motivated to mobilize information that is relevant to the conflict and this develops
additional information that can be helpful in resolving the problem; (7) Conflicts are not only
limited to the benefits of individual and group but they also increase an organization's overall
effectiveness because it forces groups or individuals to adapt to the changing external
environment that the organization faces50.
Conflict has also congruent and incongruent context in that the procedure used to manage a
conflict and the context in which the conflict occurs can be congruent or incongruent. When the
context and the conflict resolution procedure are congruent (an integrative procedure used in a
cooperative context or a distributive procedure used in a competitive context), conflicts may tend
to be managed more easily. When the context and the conflict resolution procedure are
incongruent (an integrative procedure used in a competitive context or a distributive procedure
used in a cooperative context), managing conflicts may tend to be more difficult, and destructive
22
outcomes may tend to result51. Hocker and Wilmot (1985) argue that “Conflict can have highly
desirable productive functions in a relationship” 52.
Deetz and Stevenson (1986) are of the view that; (1) Conflict is natural. (2) Conflict is good and
necessary, and that (3) Most conflicts are based on real differences53.
Conflicts should neither be taken too serious nor should it be taken on its face value, because
conflicts are normal due to two factors. First, conflict is "inherent in the fact that authority is
problematic. Second, conflict is promoted by inconsistent goals, success criteria, and
heterogeneity of the clientele"54. It should be recognized that conflicts are part and parcel of
organizational settings therefore "the objective of conflict management should be to see that
conflict remains on the creative and useful side of an invisible but critically important line that
separates the good or natural conflict from that which is bad or unnatural55."
Even more succinct is Thomas (1971) definition of conflict management as "a process of
cooperative confrontation. 56"
Blake and Mouton (in Karen L. Fleetwood) list eight activities that constitute conflict
management:
(1) Definition of the problem, (2) Review of the problem, (3) Development of the range of
alternatives, (4) Debate of alternatives, (5) Reaching of solutions, (6) Explanation and evaluation
of solutions, (7) Weighing alternative solutions, (8) Selection of the appropriate solution57.
Effective problem solving has the following important characteristics:
a. Effective problem-solving lays stress on the administrator to solve the problem and not to
accommodate different points of view;
b. Effective solution of the problem recognizes the fact that conflict is frequently a
relationship between groups,
c. Problem-solving should facilitate the parties involved in the conflict to consider all issues
in a broader sense and to see the potential for cooperation58.
23
2.4 Types of conflicts:
Conflicts are of various types that take place within the individual, between the individuals in an
organization, between groups in an organization. Luthan (1981:371) identified two types of
conflict. These are:
1) Intrapersonal conflict (which includes frustration, goal conflict, role conflict and ambiguity).
2) Interpersonal conflict (which results when two or more persons are interacting with one
another) 59. Rue and Byars (1989) divided conflict into two types: internal (within the individual)
and external (outside to the individual) 60. While there have also been identified conflicts at three
levels i.e. intrapersonal and interpersonal, intragroup and intergroup, intra organizational and
inter organizational61. School conflicts may be leveled out, as intrapersonal, interpersonal,
intragroup, and intergroup conflicts.62 Communication failure has been labeled as a vital element
in all conflicts, especially it is the main cause of interpersonal conflict.63
These conflicts’ types have been delineated in detail in the following paragraphs; 2.4.1 Intrapersonal Conflict and its Sources:
This type of conflict occurs within the individual, its causes are many; for example (1) the poor
person- environment fit, (2) poor time management, (3) underestimation or over estimation of
skills, and (4) assigned tasks that do not bring much goals, interests, values or abilities, lack of
confidence, feeling of powerlessness etc64. The primary sources of this type of conflict include;
conflicting needs, role ambiguity, incompatibility of organizational and personal values65. Taken
at the individual level the personality has been defined as a proper organization of all the
individual needs which he expects from the environment to be entertained66. In school
environment because of the personalities’ differences, these needs are perceived differently.
There are three basic types of intrapersonal conflicts as indicated by Kundu and Tutoo
(1989:539). These are:
(1) Approach-Approach conflict: It refers to the type of conflict between positive valences that
are equal in strength, which brings the individual to a state of indecision whether to opt for a
particular task or leave it.
2) Approach- Avoidance: It refers to a situation when a person confronts positive as well as
negative aspects. In such situation the individual is amazed to leave the situation or take it.
24
3) Avoidance-Avoidance conflict: This type of conflict demands opting for either of the
alternative leads the individual to negative consequences 67. The individual worried about the
consequences leave the situation altogether.
Intrapersonal conflict exists within an individual him/her self. It arises from conflicting goals and
interests, lack of required ability for a particular job, lack of facilities, rules and regulations and
when his/ her path is blocked by other people. Such conflicts can cause a person frustrations,
tension and anxiety68.
In general, the sources of intrapersonal conflict are mainly structural; they are situational
imposed, and these are mainly characterized in the form of five identified antecedents (sources)
of intrapersonal conflicts. Rahim's (1986) survey report identifies the major causes of such
conflict as: 1) Mis-assignment and goal incongruous, 2) Inappropriate demand on capacity,
3) Organizational structure (i.e. creating conflicting goals, policies, and delayed decisions),
4) Supervisory styles, and 5) Position69.
2.4.2 Interpersonal Conflict and its Sources:
Barki and Hartwick (2001) define interpersonal conflict “as a phenomenon that occurs between
interdependent parties as they experience negative emotional reactions to perceived
disagreements and interference with the attainment of their goals” 70.
Interpersonal conflict occurs between one individual and another who are brought together in
work places or elsewhere. In organizational settings the individuals are often faced with one or
other type of conflict because they have to compete for limited resources71. Most employees are
concerned about their position, status, power etc, within the organization and resent any
encroachment on them. Besides these causes the individual compete with each other for each
other for recognition, approval and promotion72.
Jandt (1976) wrote: If we survey people’s attitude toward interpersonal conflict, we might find
that conflict— quarreling, arguing, fighting—is disruptive and should be avoided. However, we
must keep in mind that while conflict may be inevitable, it is through conflict that existing norms
and practices are challenged and changed and through conflict that we are frequently most
creative and innovative. Since conflict can be either destructive or productive, how to avoid
conflict is not the issue. Rather, managing interpersonal conflict for maximum benefits and
minimum costs is the skill to be developed.73
25
Kinard (1988:309) identified three primary sources of interpersonal conflict. These are 1)
Personality difference, 2) Power struggles, and 3) Competition. Interpersonal conflict involves
conflict between two or more individuals and is probably the most common and most recognized
conflict74. This may involve conflict between two departmental managers who are competing for
limited capital and manpower resources. Likewise, interpersonal conflicts can develop when
there are three equally deserving professors and they are all up for promotion, but only one of
them can be promoted because of budget and positional constraints75. According to him,
interpersonal conflicts can also be expressed by disagreements over goals and objectives of the
organization. For example, some members of a school board may like to offer courses in sex
education while others may find this proposal morally reprehensive and thus causing conflict.
Hunt (1979) also described about the occurrence of interpersonal conflict. He said. It occurs
between two or more persons when attitudes, motives, values, expectations, or activities are
incompatible and if the individuals perceive themselves to be in disagreement76.
Interpersonal conflict is caused by; (1) disagreement over policies, practices, plans and; 2)
emotional issues involving negative feelings, such as anger, distrust, fear, rejection, and
resentment77. Deer (1972) also pointed out that interpersonal conflict is common to any
organization. He argues that this type of conflict arises because of different orientations, power
struggles, role competition and other events that involve two or more persons''78.
2.4.3 Intragroup Conflict and its Sources:
Intragroup conflict refers to disagreements of differences among the members of a group or its
subgroups regarding the goals, functions, or activities of the group79. Members of the same group
(department, or two or more subgroups within a group) develop conflict either substantive or
affective one, based on intellectual disagreement or on emotional responses to a situation80.
Regarding its sources major factors, leadership style of the school administrator is prominent
one. Other sources of intragroup conflict include composition/chemistry of group and its size,
group cohesiveness, group think, external threats and their outcomes81.
26
2.4.4 Intergroup Conflict and its Sources:
Man’s desire for self-recognition aspire him for further struggle and for the attainment of
individual and organizational goals. “The roots of inter group conflict lie in the basic human
need for identity”82. This type of conflict arises because of the differences and clashes between
the groups, department to department, or various divisions within an organization.
According to Hellriegel and Slocum (1982), the causes of intergroup conflicts are: 1) task
interdependency; 2) task dependencies; 3) inconsistent performance criteria and rewards; 4)
intergroup differences; and 5) problems in sharing scarce common resources83.
Ivancevich and Matteson (1990:307) suggested that there are causes of inter group conflict.
These are: 1) Interdependence (pooled, sequential and reciprocal) 2) Difference in goals, and 3)
Difference in perceptions84. Similarly, Organ and Bateman (1991:505) indicated three major
factors that contribute to intergroup conflicts in organizations. First, the need for joint decision
making creates potential for conflict. This refers to the dependence and interdependence over and
between groups dictated by the systems nature of organizations. Second; the difference in goals:
- multiple goals exist within the same organization. This is because different individuals and
groups develop different goals by virtue of internally inconsistent reward systems, competition
for scarce resources, etc85. Organizational goals are so subjective and are open to different
interpretations. These complications give rise to the third factor contributing to intergroup
conflict, difference in perceptions, which are also exacerbated by departmentalization and
different flows of information to different organizational sub units.
Rashid and Archer (1983) argue that perhaps the most important type of intergroup conflict that
takes place within most business and educational organizations is between the management
group and the trade union. Both groups have well defined roles, objectives and tactics. Such a
conflict is intensified not only by factors in the organization's internal environment (excessive
overtime, unfair treatment etc), but also by factors in the external environment86.
In a similar manner, line and staff members in schools, have different time horizons, goals,
interpersonal orientations, and approaches to problems. Allen in stoner and Freeman (1989)
asserts that, '' These differences enable line and staff members to accomplish their respective
tasks effectively; but the differences also increase the potential for conflict between them''87.
Hence, the conflict between line and staff members in school organizations is examples of
intergroup conflicts. In general, it is obvious for intergroup conflict to occur between groups or
27
units in organizations and the managing bodies who head them. Miner (1985:259) pointed out
some of the conditions or causes that raise intergroup conflicts listed as follows.
(1) The presence of individuals who particularly prone to the expression of aggression or who
because of their non conformity, creativity, and the like tend to elicit aggression in others.
(2) The presence of individuals who are experiencing major dissatisfactions with aspect of their
roles in the organization.
(3) Interdependence between the work of individuals and groups requiring that decisions be
made jointly.
(4) Sharp competition between groups having differing objectives and goals
(5) Individuals and groups possessing differing perceptions regarding aspects of the work
situation especially if these perceptions are rooted in strongly held values
(6) Considerable loose-lying power with the result that authority allocations are not well
established and their considerable ambiguity regarding roles88.
At last, but not least, Kinard (1988) summarized that there are four primary sources of intergroup
conflict. These are: 1) Limited resources; 2) Communication problems; 3) Conflicting interests;
and 4) Over lapping tasks89.
2.4.5 Conflict of Interests:
David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson (1996) argue that Conflict of interests occurs when the
actions of one person attempting to reach his or her goals prevent, block, or interfere with the
actions of another person attempting to reach his or her goals90.
E. M. Beck and Michael Betz (1975) summarize that the proposition that conflicts of interests
and values are cultivated by structural arrangements within organizations is neither novel nor
new91. Organizational principles lead the staff to encourage conflict as well as develop
techniques for its reduction92.
2.5 Sources of Conflict:
The possible sources of conflict are poor communication, competition for common but scarce
resources, incompatible goals and the like93. Fisher (1997) notes, “…both individuals and groups
have undeniable needs for identity, dignity, security, equity, participation in decisions that affect
them. Frustration of these basic needs becomes a source of social conflict”.94
28
According to Plankett and Attner (1989), the sources of conflict include; shared resources,
differences in goals, difference in perceptions and values, disagreements in the role
requirements, nature of work activities, individual approaches, and the stage of organizational
development95. Gray and Stark (1984) suggested that there are six sources of conflict.
These are: 1) Limited resources; 2) Interdependent work activities; 3) Differentiation of
activities; 4) Communication problems; 5) Differences in perceptions; 6) The environment of the
organization. According to these writers, conflict can also arise from a number of other sources,
such as:1) Individual differences (some people enjoy conflict while others don't); 2) Unclear
authority structures (people don't know how far their authority extends); 3) Differences in
attitudes; 4) Task symmetries (one group is more powerful than another and the weaker group
tries to change the situation; 5) Difference in time horizons96 (some departments have a long-run
view and others have a short -run view). Another author Deutch in camp bell et-al (1983:187)
identified a list of sources of conflict. These are; control over resources, preferences and
nuisances, values, beliefs, and the nature of relationships between the parties97.
The classification of conflict is often made on the basis of the antecedent conditions that lead to
conflict. Conflict may originate from a number of sources, such as tasks, values, goals, and so
on. It has been found appropriate to classify conflict on the basis of these sources for proper
understanding of its nature and implications. Following is a brief description of this
classification.
2.6 Causes/ Factors leading to conflict:
2.6.1 Affective Conflict:
Pelled et al. defined it as “a condition in which group members have interpersonal clashes
characterized by anger, frustration, and other negative feelings” 98.
2.6.2 Substantive Conflict:
Jehn (1997b) characterized this type of conflict as “disagreements among group members’ ideas
and opinions about the task being performed, such as disagreement regarding an organization’s
current strategic position or determining the correct data to include in a report” 99.
29
2.6.3 Conflict of Interest:
This is defined as an inconsistency between two parties in their preferences for the allocation of a
scarce resource. This type of conflict occurs “when each party, sharing the same understanding
of the situation, prefers a different and somewhat incompatible solution to a problem involving
either a distribution of scarce resources between them or a decision to share the work of solving
it” 100
2.6.4 Conflict of Values:
This occurs when two social entities differ in their values or ideologies on certain issues101. This
is also called ideological conflict.
2.6.5 Goal Conflict:
This occurs when a preferred outcome or an end-state of two social entities is inconsistent. In
rare cases “it may involve divergent preferences over all of the decision outcomes, constituting a
zero-sum game” 102.
2.6.6 Realistic versus Nonrealistic Conflict:
Realistic conflict is associated with “mostly rational or goal-oriented” disagreement, nonrealistic
conflict “is an end in itself having little to do with group or organizational goals”103.
2.6.7 Institutionalized versus Non-institutionalized Conflict:
The former is characterized by situations in which actors follow explicit rules, and display
predictable behavior, and their relationship has continuity, as in the case of line–staff conflict or
labor–management negotiations. Most racial conflict is non-institutionalized where these three
conditions are nonexistent.
2.6.8 Retributive Conflict:
This conflict is characterized by a situation where the conflicting entities feel the need for a
drawn-out conflict to punish the opponent. In other words, each party determines its gains, in
part, by incurring costs to the other party104.
30
2.6.9 Misattributed Conflict
This relates to the incorrect assignment of causes (behaviors, parties, or issues) to conflict. For
example, an employee may wrongly attribute to his or her supervisor a cut in the employee’s
department budget, which may have been done by higher-level managers over the protest of the
supervisor. 105
2.6.10 Displaced Conflict:
This type of conflict occurs when the conflicting parties either direct their frustrations or
hostilities to social entities that are not involved in conflict or argue over secondary, not major,
issues106.
2.7 Conflict Resolution Skills/ Strategies:
David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson (1996) hold that Conflict resolution and peer mediation
programs are often promoted as a way to reduce violence (and destructively managed conflicts)
in schools38. Management of conflict is a human relations concept long recognized in business
and industry as a necessary component of the developmental process107. Sweeney and Caruthers
(1996) define conflict resolution in a most general and concise way, “the process used by parties
in conflict to reach a settlement” 108.
Hocker and Wilmot (1985) initially discuss conflict management styles in terms of assumptions.
Their assumptions are:
1) People develop patterned response to conflict.
2) People develop conflict styles for reasons that make sense to them.
3) No one style is automatically better than another.
4) People's styles undergo change in order to adapt to the demands of new situations109.
Robbins (1974) concentrates on strategies specifically labeled as resolution techniques. He lists
eight techniques as follows:
(1) Problem solving (2) Super ordinate goals (3) Avoidance (4) Smoothing (5) Compromise
(6) Authoritative command (7) Altering the human variable (8) Altering structural variables110.
Thomas (1971) examines conflict management strategies by focusing on general strategies used
by administrators in an educational setting. In his research he points out that there is no
31
difference between management and leadership; hence, manager is synonymous with leader.
Thomas eight strategies for management are:
(1) Citizens advisories (2) Confrontation sessions (3) Sensitivity training (4) Process
involvement (5) Educational pluralism (6) Volunteerism (7) Cooperative studies (8) Failure 111.
Since conflict is seemingly unavoidable, particularly in a scholarly setting, it is obviously
necessary for administrators to be able to recognize conflict, to view its constructive as well as
destructive potential, to learn how to manage conflict, and to apply conflict management
strategies in a practical way112.
Jhonson & Jhonson (1996) state that Conflicts are resolved constructively when they (a) result in
an outcome that all disputants are satisfied with, (b) improve the relationship between the
disputants, and (c) improve the ability of disputants to resolve future conflicts in a constructive
manner113. Conflict Resolution Education (CRE) and Ohio Department of Education (ODE)
define conflict resolution as a philosophy and set of skills that assist individuals and groups to
better understand and deal with conflict as it arises in all aspects of their lives. 114
Peretomode (1995) has stressed that intervention conflict management strategies are those in
which managers of organizations or school administrators being aware of the existence of
conflict situation intervene to modify or settle conflict between the parties involved. Among the
intervention strategies identified by Peretomode are:
(a) Smoothing (b) forcing (c) detraction (d) encripsulation (e) arbitration (f) majority rule
(g) Changing the individuals involved (h) restructuring the organization (i) expansion of
resource115.
Pondy (1967) identifies three types of latent conflict-producing situations which provide the
necessary environment for the development of conflict within formal organizations: (1) scarce
goods within the organization, (2) moves toward autonomy in the organization's authority
structure, and (3) the inconsistency of goals within the organization's structure116. Focusing on
these latent conditions, Pondy notes that three conceptual models of organizational conflict have
been explored in the literature: the bargaining model which attempts to describe conflict arising
over competition for organizationally scarce resources; the bureaucratic model that is often
employed to handle conflict among superior and subordinate authority positions within the
organization; and the systems model which focuses on conflict generated by the need to
coordinate the functionally interdependent parts of the organization.
32
Conflicts that are external in origin are often ambiguous and complex, and are not likely to be
resolved through simple rule-based resolution117.
Jhonson & Jhonson (1996) state that, Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs focus on
managing conflicts of interest constructively118.
Karen L. Fleetwood A, (1987) has discussed five conflict handling styles, these are;
1. The first conflict management style is that of the competitor or tough battler,
2. The second is that of the collaborator or problem solver,
3. The third is compromiser or maneuvering conciliator,
4. The fourth one is called accommodator or friendly helper,
5. The last one is that of the avoider or impersonal complier. 119
Hall (in Fleetwood 1987) discusses five conflict handling modes. These styles are labeled in
terms of the administrator's concern as goal oriented and people oriented in the organization. The
first type is called team management style which exhibits concern both for goals and people. The
middle-of-the road management is the second one which is similar, but more moderate. The third
style task management which concentrates on organizational goals rather than people in the
organization. The fourth one is the opposite of third one which emphasizes people ignoring
organizational goals. The last one is a manager whose conflict management style ignores both
goals and people in the organization is said to display an impoverished management style. 120
Hocker and Wilmot (1985) discuss the reasons why looking at individual conflict styles can be
disadvantageous. They are:
1) Perceptions of style differ according to one's vantage point.
2) Views of styles from questionnaires are not process-oriented.
3) Conflict-measuring instruments assume situational consistency.
4) The focus is on the individual and not in the pattern of communication in the relationship.
5) We often assume that one's style of conflict is a clear reflection of an underlying motivation.
6) The conceptual classification of styles is subject to alteration121.
33
2.8 Principal’s role in conflict management:
Blackman and Fenwick (2000) argue that the school principal has a variety of assignments on his
part to perform. He is expected to be a team leader, servant leader, organizational and social
architect, administrator, manager, educator, moral agent, a mediator, negotiator, a social worker,
a child advocate and an active community member. All these functions should be centered round
the child’s moral, mental and physical development 122.
The frequency and severity of conflicts seems to be increasing, so that for the first time ever, the
category fighting, violence, and gangs has been found to be tied with lack of discipline for the
biggest problem confronting local public schools123. Educational managers, many of whom are
under such demands as diverse as budget-trimming and extracurricular supervision, need to be
aware of conflict management, particularly such avenues as style and strategy. This is necessary
so that schools may become or continue to be places of growth and vitality124.
School principal occupies a very responsible position because all the good and ugly things
happening in the schools give credit to him as being a good administrator or otherwise.
Welch (1978) likens principals to sin eaters -- those who symbolically eat the sins of the dead for
payment, sin-eating "is the conscious voluntary accepting of the transgressions of others."125
Tye (1972) says: Conflict most often arises because of differences in values, philosophies, or
perceptions. The typical administrator tends to suppress or avoid conflict, assuming that it will
go away. Suppressing conflict, however, usually results in some type of confrontation at a later
date. Often, such confrontations, in turn, result in irreparable damage to the organization.
Conflict of ideas is healthy in a changing organization, for it frequently leads to new and better
ideas. In a communicative school climate, the principal and others are able to deal with
differences in points of view, while still maintaining a common purpose. 126
Kelley (1979) proposes a number of considerations for school administrators in dealing with
conflict. He directs principals to simply be optimistic and to be realistic in viewing conflict and
their ability to manage it. A principal should also regard any change (temporary or permanent)
within the school, community, or society as having the potential for conflict and plan
accordingly. Fourth, an administrator should identify the basis of the values as represented in the
opposing points of a conflict. Realization that a conflict can't always be solved is necessary.
34
Fifth, Kelley (1979) admonishes administrators to identify their own toleration spans. He points
to dissonance theory, which says that one becomes more convinced that he/she is right when
faced with discrepant information. A principal should also "identify the role source of the
conflict127. One frequent role conflict juxtaposes the role as spouse/parent to the large amount of
time demanded by educational administration. The administrator should be skilled in predicting
possible (and probable) conflict outcomes and be able to pinpoint the positions of each party in a
conflict. And lastly, principal should listen to the view points of all the parties before making a
final decision.
Nebgen (1979) says that unmanaged or mismanaged conflicts can drain the school organization
of the energy it should be directing toward achievement of its goals. The effective management
of conflict, then, becomes one of the most important, if not the most important, function of the
school administrator128. The secret of a good and successful conflict management lies in the
administrator’s power of perception of situation and if he intervenes at proper time.129
Administrator ability lies in the fact that he should be able enough to understand the causes of
conflict and thereof to control it as well as ensure the organization progress.130
Educational administrators and other organizational managers must foresee that conflict may be
harmful and they must differentiate between constructive and disruptive conflicts 131.
Campbell et-al (1983) opines that educational leaders must be aware of the fact whether the
conflict is beneficial or harmful to the organization. If the conflicting situation proves to be of
some value to the organization it must be encouraged and its output must be accumulated. And if
the situation presents an adverse effect on the employees and organizational goal achievement it
must be discouraged and if possible must be eliminated 132.
Williams (1978) argue that good and effective administrators should solve the problems
whatever its intensity might be. He should not avoid problems but should face it boldly and cash
its positive results for the staff and institution as well33. This is because they accept problems as
challenges and as an opportunity to prove their worthiness for advancement.
Owens (1998) state that since educational/organizational objectives cannot be achieved without
proper cooperation, harmony and collaboration of the staff, it is essential that the administrator
must foster cooperation among the staff.134
Educational administrators try to influence their subordinates’ behaviour, they try to have full
control of their staff but the administrator’s influence varies from situation to situation.
35
Educational administrators have different leadership styles which are classified into autocratic,
participative and laissez-faire style.135
Starratt (1996) states that educational administrators are like teachers of autobiography, in which
he tries to teach his students his own life history. In this autobiography, he conveys the message
that how we live, how we take administrative decision and how we resolve various issues and
problems of our life. In solving the problem the whole process is coloured by our personal likes
and dislikes. Our feelings of others and behaviour towards other people and the situation is
marred by our personalities. 136
In general, the above cited leadership behaviors of educational managers may one way or the
other contributes a great significance to the effective implementation of conflict management in
school settings. Finally, it is hoped that most of the research reviewed in this chapter provide a
theoretical framework for identifying the nature of conflict (views), the types of conflicts, the
sources of conflicts, techniques of resolving conflicts and the leadership roles of educational
managers to manage conflicts in school organizations. Thus, on the basis of these theoretical
considerations, further investigations will be carried out to answer the basic questions of the
study.
2.9 Various Conflict Resolution Strategies/Models:
Some common strategies/models used for conflict management are;
2.9.1 Negotiation and Mediation:
Bodin and Crawford (1999) maintains that since school is an entity which composes of different
people with different generational gaps and that negotiation and mediation must be identified as
the best strategies for mitigating conflicts137. Three types of situations demand from the
negotiator to face and find solution to them; these situations are task and relationship oriented
conflict, intellectual and emotion oriented conflict and compromise and win-win conflict138.
Conflict management is deemed to be successful if it has achieved its goal by reaching a win-
win, or approach-approach or consensual agreement which is accepted by both parties.
Mediation is another way of conflict management used today. Bentley (1996) describes
mediation as a form of problem solving process where a neutral third party assists disputants to
reach a mutually acceptable agreement139. Mediation proves as an effective method because it
involves a democratic and structured process that enables disputants to see things more clearly
36
and thus resolve their own conflict, with the assistance of trained peers140. Deutsch (2005) argues
that mediators follow these steps:
(a) They establish a working alliance with the competing parties, (b) they improve the climate
between the parties, (c) they address the issues, and (d) they apply pressure for settlement141.
Mediators should adopt the following skills in order to handle conflict, namely;
a. They must be able to establish a working relation with each of the conflicting parties,
b. They must be able to establish a cooperative problem-solving attitude among the
parties,
c. They must be able to develop a creative group process and group decision making,
and
d. They must gather considerable substantive knowledge about the problems around
which the conflict centers142.
Disputants’ conflict management style is very important to reach an acceptable solution of the
problem. Some of the models adopted for conflict resolution are delineated below:
2.9.2 Model of Two styles:
This model, is presented by Deutch, (in Rahim, 2001), is a simple two factor model i.e.
cooperative-competitive and is chiefly derived from research on social conflict143. In
competitive-cooperative context/situation, the leader has no other option but he is strictly bound
to follow one or second style for handling conflict i.e. he will resort only to cooperative or
competitive approach. Deutch and his associates (in Rahim, 2001) maintain that managing
conflict with cooperative approach is more result oriented than a competitive style144.
2.9.3 Model of Three styles:
This model of handling interpersonal conflict is based on three factors i.e. confrontation
(obliging), solution-orientation (integrating), and control (dominating). 145 (Putnam & Wilson in
Rahim, 2001)
Lawrence & Larsch (in Rahim) concluded that there three instead of five modes of managing
conflict, i.e. forcing, smoothing and confrontation. A major drawback of this model is that it does
not provide any relationship between the conflict management style and individual, group or
organizational performance146.
37
2.9.4 Model of Four styles:
This model is developed by Pruitt (1993) and is based on two dimensions i.e. concern for self
(high or low) and concern for others (high or low) 147. This depicts four styles of handling
conflict that is yielding, problem solving, inaction and contending. Problem solving approach is
regarded as best for managing conflict effectively.
2.9.5 Model of Five styles:
Mary, P. Follet (1940) conceptualized this model, for handling interpersonal conflict for the first
time that is dominating, compromising, integrating, avoidance and suppression148.
This model was later developed by Blake & Mouton (1964) into forcing, withdrawing,
smoothing, compromising and problem solving. They presented their model from an
organizational point of view i.e. concern for people and concern for organization.
Rahim (1983a) and Rahim & Bonoma (1979) ignored the organization perspective and contend
that conflict management styles should take into account people’s interest. They discuss two
dimensions i.e. concern for self and concern for others.
2.10 Conflict Management Styles (Kroon, 1991:404)
High
↑
Concern for others
↑
Low
Low → Concern for self → high
The above model or framework will be discussed briefly.
Obliging Integrating
Compromising
Avoiding Dominating
38
2.10.1 Avoidance or withdrawal:
Withdrawal or avoidance is one of the simplest of all conflict management styles. It means to do
nothing in any conflicting situation; it assumes that by ignoring the conflict it will be resolved by
itself. Avoidance is not a successful method for achieving a long-term solution since the original
cause of the conflict remains149 (Truter, 2003)
Principal can utilize this style when he perceives that; when the parties involved regard that the
issue is minor one, and when both parties require additional time to cool off.
2.10.2 The dominating response I win/you lose:
This management style seems an undesirable one because of the outcomes for various situations,
particularly in a high school when the stakes are high for both the conflict parties. This leads to
destructive results because the conflict is not resolved and there is the possibility of its further
escalation. This conflict management style is disruptive in nature as it always involves the use of
power and aggressive behaviour in attaining self-concerns. Such behaviour ignores the lack of
respect for the rights and feelings of the opposite party. Tactics and strategies include attacking
others’ ideas and beliefs, offering derogatory remarks, and demanding concessions from others.
Nonverbal behaviour includes glaring or condescending eye contact, an attacking or threatening
body posture, and hostile facial expressions i.e. to have the feelings of a victor and the
vanquished150.
The principal can use this style when he feels that there is in an emergency situation and quick
decisions are needed; he thinks that unpopular changes need to be implemented; and that all
other methods have failed for resolving the issue.
2.10.3 Integrative/collaborative, powerful-powerful, win-win:
This conflict management style is replete with mutual differences, but both the parties consider
that conflict is natural and healthy. Objective behaviour of both the parties is a positive point in
reaching a mutually agreed solution of the problem. Because of objectivity involved, this style is
termed as one of co-operation and win-win.
The educational leader plays a dynamic management role in creating the correct climate for co-
operation, and training people in communication skills and group dynamics151.
The principal take this style when he understands that;
39
There is a need to merge the feeling and experience of people from different backgrounds,
perspectives and perceptions;
There is a felt need to resolve a long–standing issue, which may negatively affect the working
relationship; and when he/she understands that the staff has got creative solutions for specific
problems. 152
2.10.4 The obliging response “I lose/you win”:
This style displays one party’s self-sacrifice for resolving the dispute. The obliging person can’t
say “No” to others’ unreasonable requests and also has guilt feelings. Its effects for the obliging
person are long-term because he’ll become a pushover in all future conflicts. The obligor tends to
avoid eye contact, display nervous body movement, and maintains a closed body posture 153.
The principal use this style when he sees that; the relationship with the school staff is more
important; the person is important not the issue; and the principal deems it important that the
other person should express his/her point of view.
2.10.5 Compromise win-lose-win-lose:
This style stresses at reaching a solution, by both the parties, of the problem by mutual give and
take. This always involves bargaining by both the conflicting parties and is successful when the
situation provides an equal chance to both the parties to be in a better position or at least in no
worse position after the conflict is resolved. With compromise each person wins some major
issues and loses others154.
Donald, Lazarus and Lolwana (1997) argue that the way in which people respond to conflict
tends to be a reflection of both their assertiveness and their tendency to collaborate. A person
who tends to be non collaborative and non-assertive will try to avoid conflict. Also, a person who
is collaborative and non-assertive will tend to oblige, and a person who is collaborative and
assertive, will tend to negotiate and problem-solve155.
This style is adopted by the principal when he considers that the parties involved have equal
power; and that he prefers to reach a temporary settlement in complex matters.
Conflict resolution education “models and teaches, in culturally meaningful ways, a variety of
processes, practices and skills that help address individual, interpersonal, and institutional
conflicts, and create safe and welcoming communities” 156 (Association for Conflict Resolution,
2002, p. 1).
40
The competing style is assertive and uncooperative and could be regarded as utilizing personal or
positional power. Accommodating is regarded as unassertive and cooperative, a style wherein the
individual allows the other party to dominate. Avoiding is both unassertive and uncooperative,
and is normally characterized by the individual actively avoiding any type of action
Collaborating is assertive and cooperative and represents direct attempts at conflict resolution.
Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperation, and is designed to partially
satisfy the needs of both parties157.
2.11 The Holton Model for Conflict Management:
The Holton Model for Conflict Management is one which can be used in any conflict in any
setting158. With the following three steps of the Holton Conflict Management process, any
conflict which you face can be managed.
(1) Identify/Diagnose the conflict (2) Identify solutions (3) Implement solutions
2.11.1 Identify/ Diagnose the Conflict:
The identification phase of conflict management is a six-step phase, and all of the steps are
necessary to understand the conflict159.
Who Is Involved?
Identify all of the parties who are involved in the conflict, as well as all who are not directly
involved but may be affected by it. What is the relationship of those who are involved? In what
ways are they interdependent?
What Is the Conflict?
What happened? What are the specific, observable data about the conflict? What are the feelings
and emotions surrounding the conflict? What are the presenting issues? What are the secondary
(and tertiary) issues?
When Did It Happen?
When did the conflict begin? Is there a specific incident which can be identified as the turning
point? Is it ongoing? Is it cyclical? Is it intermittent? Does it escalate or die down?
41
Where Did It Happen?
Where physically did the conflict occur? Where, within the organizational structure, did it occur?
What Management Attempts Have Been Made?
What attempts have been made to manage the conflict? If it is a recurring conflict, what attempts
have been made in the past? In what ways were they successful? In what ways were they not?
What Are the Consequences of the Conflict?
What will happen if the conflict is not managed? What will happen if it is? What gains and losses
are perceived to exist as a result of solutions?
2.11.2 Identify Solutions:
The development of solutions is rarely a simple process. Setting the stage and getting parties to
communicate and work together is a necessary part of this phase of the conflict management
process. 160
Develop a Positive Attitude
Unless those involved in a conflict are willing to work together toward a mutually agreeable
solution, no management is possible. And so the first step is to work with the parties so as to
develop a positive attitude.
Establish Ground Rules
Conflict produces a feeling of stress and chaos. It is therefore important to work with the parties
to establish ground rules for the conflict management. Ground rules typically include agreements
on communication and structure.
Identify Interests of the Parties
Parties must understand their priorities and the outcome(s) that may follow from their respective
stance. Fisher and Ury (1981) have written extensively about the importance of interests versus
positions.
42
Develop Alternatives
Now that the issues of the conflict are understood, it is important to identify alternative solutions
for managing it. Brainstorming is the best process to develop alternatives. In an environment of
trust (usually facilitated by the neutral third party), disputants can work together to develop
multiple alternatives. It is also helpful to identify ways that similar issues have been managed in
other situations.
Identify Criteria
Not all of the ideas generated during the previous stage will be appropriate to manage this
conflict, so it is necessary to identify appropriate criteria and use those criteria to determine the
best solutions. First, there are often objective criteria, given the nature of the conflict. Some
criteria are also subjective. These are often overlooked to the peril of the conflict management.
Weigh Solutions against Criteria
The solutions should be weighed against the prioritized criteria, and a best solution will result. It
is important to determine whether that solution is, in fact, felt to be the best by all parties. Too
often, after a solution has been agreed upon, parties realize that they left out some important
criteria. They may, for example, have identified only rational, logical criteria and ignored any
emotional aspects of the decision. Or they may agree on a solution, but realize that they don't
have the time to implement it.
2.11.3 Implement Solutions:
Even when significant time is spent on identification of the conflict and identification of
potential solutions, the implementation phase is too often rushed. To have a successful conflict
management, the parties must be diligent about the implementation phase. 161
Develop a Plan of Action
It is not enough to agree to a nebulous solution; all stake holders must agree to the specifics. The
plan of action should include:
• Who is going to be involved in the implementation of the solutions? If some people outside
the immediate system of the parties are involved, how are they going to be brought in to
the solution phase?
43
• What exactly is to be done? Be as specific as possible about the actions that are envisioned?
When the parties are going to act? By what date will the complete solution be in place?
Include in the timeline some check-in dates, when the parties will get together to talk
about the solution, about the progress that is being made, and work with any issues that
arise during the implementation phase.
• Who is responsible for mediating any differences between the parties during the
implementation phase? The plan of action should be written up and signed by all parties,
including any neutral third party. This document will be more valuable if every aspect of
the agreement is clearly spelled out, in terms that will not be debatable down the line.
2.12 Analysis of these models:
Conflict management styles are essential in order to utilize them for handling conflicts in the
schools. Prominent conflict handling styles include; competing, avoiding, collaborating,
compromising and accommodating. Competing style characterizes assertiveness and
uncooperativeness and it occurs when the parties involved work for their respective gains at the
expense of opposite party. This style is described as power-focused style and might is right
approach can best summarize this approach. Second style is avoiding which is both unassertive
and uncooperative; in this the person involved work neither for his own benefit nor bothers about
the other party. This is sometimes considered as best because it works on the principle of leave
well alone. Collaborating approach is opposite of avoiding and is characterized by both
assertiveness and cooperativeness. This style focuses on satisfying the needs of both parties
involved. In this both parties agree on working together. A collaborative approach to conflict
management, we argue, may enhance levels of trust and cooperation between the president and
the board. Collaboration may be an especially useful strategy for resolving and/or regulating
conflicts and loosening the grip of dissension where confrontation involves stakeholders with
differential power and resource162. Compromising style is a mid way approach for conflict
management, it adopts an intermediate course between assertiveness and cooperativeness and it
is effective when both parties agree on sacrificing some concerns for achieving a solution.
Finally, accommodating style is characterized by both unassertiveness and cooperativeness and it
44
is the opposite of competing style. In this style an individual gives up some of his concerns so as
to accommodate the needs of his adversary.
There is still, however, a long way to go before conflict resolution and peer mediation training is
managed constructively in every classroom and school163 (Johnson & Johnson, p 498).
45
End Notes:
1 Karen L. F, The Conflict Management Styles And Strategies Of Educational Managers,
(A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication 1987)
2 E M. Beck and Michael. B, A Comparative Analysis of Organizational Conflict in
Schools Sociology of Education, Vol. 48, No. 1, (American Sociological Association
1975), p 60.
3 Thomas. K, Conflict and Conflict management In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (Chicago: Rand McNally1976), pp. 889-935
4 Thompson. L, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall 1998), P.4
5 Coser. L, 'Introduction'(Journal of Social Issues 28, 1972), pp. 1-10
6 Denohue, W. A. and B. Kott, Managing Interpersonal Conflict. (Newbury, Park Calif.:
Sage Publication 1992)
7 Thomas, K.W, Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette &
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 3 (2nd
ed.,), (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press 1992), pp. 651-717
8 Robbins S. P, Organizational behaviour. (New Jersey: Simon & Schuster 1998), p.434
9 Brinkman.R & Kirshner.R, Dealing with Difficult People (McGraw-Hill New York
Chicago San Francisco Lisbon 2003), P 18
10 Deutsch. M, "Conflicts: productive and destructive." In Conflict resolution through
communication, Ed by F. E. Jandt (New York: Harper and Row 1973), p.156
11 Gebretensay Tesfay, A Study of factors that generate conflict between government
secondary school teachers and educational managers in Addis Ababa Administrative
Region, (A Thesis presented to The School of Graduate Studies Addis Ababa University
2002), p.3
46
12 Chandan. Jet, Organizational Behavior, (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House pvt. Ltd
1994), P.271
13 Glatter, R. et.al, Understanding School management, (Philadelphia: Open University
Educational Enterprises Ltd 1988), P.6
14 Sapre. P, ‘Realizing the potential of educational management in India’, Educational
Management and Administration, 30(1): 2002, p.102
15 Newman. J and Clarke. J, ‘Going about our business? The managerialism of public
services’, in J. Clarke, A. Cochrane and E. McLaughlin (Ed), Managing School Policy.
(London: Sage 1994), p.29
16 Cuban. L, The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools.
(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press 1988), P.20
17 Bolam. R, ‘Educational administration, leadership and management: towards a research
agenda’, in T. Bush, L. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter and P. Ribbins (ed), Educational
Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practice. (London, Paul Chapman
Publishing. 1999), P.194
18 Glatter, R. et.al (1988), op.cit. p.16
19 Bush. T & Glover. D, School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence, (Nottingham: NCSL
2003), p.10
20 Bush. T & Glover. D, Ibid, p.10
21 Tony. B, Leadership and Management Development in Education, (SAGE Publications
Ltd 1 Oliver's Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP 2008), p.103
22 Tony. B, Ibid, p.27
23 Bolman. L & Deal. T, Reframing Organizations, 2nd Ed, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
1997), Pp.113-14
24 Robbins. S.P, Managing organizational conflict. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc 1974), PP.67-73
47
25 Hellriegel, Don, Slocum, John W. & Woodman, Richard W, Organizational Behavior,
8th Ed. (South- Western College Publishing, USA 1998), P.363
26 Jay R. Dee, Alan B. Henkin, Fred B. Holman, Reconciling Differences: Conflict
Management Strategies of Catholic College and University Presidents: Higher Education,
Vol. 47, No. 2 (Published by: Springer Stable 2004), pp.177-196 URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151538 Accessed: 06/12/2008 10:30
27 Rabie. M, Conflict resolution and ethnicity (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers 1994),
P.50
28 Nebgen, M. K. Conflict management in schools. Administrators Notebook 26, 6 1978),
PP 1-4.
29 Tschannen-Moran, M. The effects of a state-wide conflict management initiative in
schools (American Secondary Education, 29 2001), p.3
30 Karen L. Fleetwood (1987), op.cit, p.20
31 Carter McNamara, Basics of Conflict Management, Adapted from the Field Guide to
Leadership and Supervision. Retrieved from
http://managementhelp.org/intrpsnl/basics.htm, dated: 15-3-2010
32 David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, No.
4, (American Educational Research Association 1996), pp. 459-506
33 Tschannen-Moran. M, op.cit, p.3
34 Kinard. J, Management, (Toronto: D.C. Health and company 1988), P. 303
35 Jhonson & Jhonson, op.cit, p.498
36 Hocker, J. L., and W. W. Wilmot, Interpersonal conflict (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown
Publishers 1985), Pp 7-9
37 Deetz, Stanley A., and Sheryl L. Stevenson, Managing interpersonal communication.
(New York: Harper and ROW 1986), p 205
48
38 Jhonson & Jhonson, op.cit, p.461
39 Gordon, J.K, Organizational Behaviour, A Diagnostic Approach. (Upper Saddle River
New Jersey: Prentice Hall 1996), p.375
40 Jay R. Dee, et.al, op.cit, p.180
41 Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W, Management (3rd ed) (London: Wesley Publishing
company 1982), p.637
42 Dugan, M. A, “A Nested Theory of Conflict.” Leadership journal: Women in Leadership-
Sharing the Vision, I (I), 1996, pp. 9-20
43 Jhonson & Jhonson, op.cit, p.470
44 Ibid, p.471
45 Hunt, J.W, Managing people at work: A Manager Guide to Behavior in Organizations. 3rd
ed (London: McGraw-Hill Book Company 1992), p.101
46 Gray, J.L and Strake, F.A, Organizational Behavior-Concepts and Applications (3rd ed)
(Columbus Bell and Howell Company 1984), p.489
47 Gebretensay Tesfay (2002), op.cit, p.20
48 Pareek. U, Managing Conflict and Collaboration (New Delhi: Oxford and IBH publishing
Co 1982), p.85
49 Billisberry, J. Power And Managing Conflict (Bk 4), (London: The Open University
Printing Press 1999), p.30
50 Gray, J.L and Strake, F.A. (1984), ibid, pp.488-489
51 Ibid, p.472
52 Hocker, J. L., and W. Wilmot (1985), op.cit, p.32
53 Deetz, Stanley A., and Sheryl L. Stevenson. (1986), ibid, pp.205-207
49
54 Corwin, R. G., and R. A. Edelfelt, Perspectives on organizations. (Washington, D.C
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education 1977), p 76
55 Kahn. R. L and Elise. B, Power and conflict in organizations. (New York: Basic Books,
Inc 1964), pp 75-76
56 Thomas. D, Decentralization as a management tool. Paper presented to the American
Management Association Annual Conference and Exposition, (New York City, New
York 1971), p. 1
57 Karen L. Fleetwood, (1987), op.cit, p.12
58 Huseman, Richard C., C. M. Logue, and D. L. Freshly, Readings in interpersonal and
organizational communication. (Boston: Holbrook Press, Inc. 1977), p.230
59 Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior 3rd Ed, (New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company
1981), p.371
60 Rue, L.W. and Byars, L.L, Supervision: Key Link to Productivity. (Boston: Homewood
1989), p.142
61 Gordon, J.R, A Diagnostic approach to Organizational Behavior. 2nd ed (Boston Allyn
and Bacon, Inc 1987), p.475
62 Rahim, A.M, Managing Conflict in Organizations (New York Praeger Publishers 1986),
pp. 16-17
63 Hocker, J. L., and W. W. Wilmot (1985), op.cit, p.20
64 Hanson, E.M, Educational Administration and Organizational Behavior (3rd ed), (Boston:
Allynard Bacon 1991), P.271
65 Kinard. J, Management, (Toronto: D.C. Health and company 1988), P. 326
66 Campbell, R.F., Carbally, J.E., and Nustrand, R.O, Introduction to Educational
Administration (6th edition). (Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc 1983), P.194
50
67 Kundu, C.L. and Tutoo, D.N. (1989). Educational Psychology. New Delhi: Sterling
Publishers private Limited, P.539
68 Rashid, S.A and Archer. M, Organizational Behavior (Toronto: Methven 1983), p.312
69 Rahim, A.M. (1986), op.cit, pp. 49-50
70 Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. Interpersonal conflict and its management in information
system development. (MIS Quarterly, 25 2001), p.197
71 Kinard, J. (1988). Op.cit, p. 305
72 Rashid and Archer (1983). Op.cit, p. 317
73 Jandt, F. E. The process of interpersonal communications (New York: Harper & Row
1976), p.165
74 Kinard, J. (1988). Op.cit, p. 309
75 Chandan, Jet. (1994), op.cit, p.274
76 Hunt, J.W. Managing People at work: A managers Guide to Behavior in Organizations.
(London: McGraw-Hill Book Company 1979), pp.73-74
77 Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W. (1982), op.cit, p.654
78 Deer, C.B. "Conflict Resolution in Organizations: Views from the Field of Educational
Administration", (Public Administration Review, vol 32, No.5 1972), p.496
79 Rahim, A.M. and Bonoma, T.V, ''Managing organizational conflict'', (The Journal of
psychological Report. Vol: 44, No.3 1979), PP 1332
80 Gordon, J.R (1987). Op.cit, pp.475-476
81 Foder, E.m, ''Group stress Authoritarian Style of Control and use of power'', (Journal of
Applied Psychology Vol. 61 No.3 1976), PP 313-317
51
82 Folger, J., Poole, M., and Stutman, R. Working through conflict (Addison-Wesley
Educational Publishers Inc. 1997), New York, p.34
83 Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W. (1982), op.cit, p.662
84 Ivancevich, J.M and Matteson, M.T. Organizational Behavior and Management (2nd Ed)
(Boston: R.R Donnelley & sons Company 190), p.307
85 Organ, Dennis W. and Bateman, T.S. Organizational Behavior (4th Ed) (Boston:
Donnelly & Sons Company 1991), p.505
86 Rashid and Archer (1983), op.cit, p.322
87 Stoner, A.F. and Freeman, R.E, Management (4th Ed) (New Delhi: prentice Hall of India
1989)
88 Miner, Jon B, The Practice of Management. (Columbus: Bell & Howell company 1985),
p.259
89 Kinard, J. (1988), op.cit. p.309
90 David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson (1996) op.cit p. 463
91 E. M. Beck and Michael Betz (1975), op.cit, p.59
92 Corwin, Ronald G. "Education and the sociology of complex organizations." in Donald
A. Hansen and Joel E. Gerstl (eds.), On Education – (Sociological Perspectives. New
York: John Wiley & Sons 1967), p.169
93 Hanson, E.M. (1991), op.cit. p.271
94 Fisher, R.J. Interactive conflict resolution (Syracuse University Press: Syracuse, New
York 1997), P.6
95 Plunkett, W.R.and Raymond, F. Attner, Introduction to Management, (Boston: PWs-Kent
Publishing 1989), p.437
96 Gray, J.L and Strake, F.A. (1984). Op.cit, pp.483-386
52
97 Campbell, R.F., Carbally, J.E., and Nustrand, R.O. Introduction to Educational
Administration (6th edition). (Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc. 1983), p.187
98 Pelled et al. p.2
99 Jehn, K. A, To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual
demographic dissimilarity, and conflict of workgroup outcomes. (International Journal of
Conflict Management, 8, 1997b), p.288
100 Druckman, D., & Zechmeister, K. Conflict of interest and value dissensus: Propositions
in the sociology of conflict. (Human Relations, 26, 1973), p.450
101 Druckman, D., Broome, B. J., & Korper, S. H. Value differences and conflict Resolution:
Facilitation or delinking? (Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32, 1988), p. 489
102 Cosier, R. A., & Rose, G. L. Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task
performance (Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 1977), p.378
103 Ross, R. S. & Ross, J. R., Small groups in organizational settings. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall 1989), p. 139
104 Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process in conflict management. (International
Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 1990), p. 49)
105 Deutsch, M., The resolution of conflict. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977)
106 Deutsch, 1977, ibid
107 Cora Elaine Harper, The Conflict Management Styles, Strength of Conflict Management
Self-Efficacy, And Moral Development Levels Of School Counselors, (A dissertation
submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 2004), p.24
108 Sweeney, B. & Caruthers, W. L., Conflict resolution: History, philosophy, theory and
educational applications. (School Counselor, 43, 1996), p. 327
109 Hocker and Wilmot (1985), op.cit, pp.37-39
110 Robbins (1974), op.cit, pp.67-73
53
111 Thomas (1971), op.cit, p.5
112 Karen L. Fleetwood A, (1987), op.cit, p. 3
113 Jhonson & Jhonson (1996), op.cit, p. 464
114 Jennifer Batton, Institutionalizing Conflict Resolution Education: The Ohio Model of
conflict Resolution Education Quarterly, vol: 19, no. 4, (Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2002),
P.480
115 Peretomode, V.F., Conflict Management (Ikeja- Lagos: Obaroh and Ogbinaka 1995),
P.56
116 Pondy, Louis. "Organizational conflict: concepts and models." (Administrative Science
Quarterly 12, 1967), p.300
117 Jay R. Dee, et.al, op.cit, p.191
118 Jhonson & Jhonson, op.cit, p.497
119 Karen L. Fleetwood, (1987), op.cit, p.19
120 Ibid, pp. 20-21
121 Hocker and Wilmot (1985), ibid, pp.49-51
122 Blackman and Fenwick (2000), Blackman, M. C., & Fenwick, L. T. The principal ship:
Looking for leaders in a time of change. (Education Week, 19(29), 2000), p.46
123 Elam, S., Rose, L., & Gallup, A. The 26th annual Gallup poll of the public's attitudes
toward the public schools (Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 1994), pp. 41-56
124 Karen L. Fleetwood, (1987), op.cit, p.39
125 Welch, R. J, The Principal: last of the sin-eaters." (NASSP Bulletin 62, 421 1078), p.8
126 Tye, K. A. "The school principal: key man in educational change." (NASSP Bulletin,
May, 1972), p.81
127 Kelley, E. A. "Principles of conflict resolution." (NASSP Bulletin 63, April 1979), p.15
54
128 Nebgen, M. K. (1977-78) Conflict management in schools. (Administrators Notebook 26,
6, 1977-78), p.27
129 Sexton, M. J., and K. D. Bowerman, "Conflict-handling for secondary school principals.
(NASSP Bulletin 63,429, 1979), p.8
130 Terry, George R. and Stephen G. Franklin, Principles of Management, (8th Ed) (Delhi:
Nice Printing Press, 1999), P.246
131 Rao, V.SP. and Narayan, P.S. Principles and practice of management, (Delhi: konark
Publishers pvt. Ltd 1987), p.789
132 Campbell, R.F. et.al (1983). Op.cit, p.194
133 Williams, J.C, Human Behavior in Organizations (Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western
Publishing Co, 1978), Pp.224-248
134 Owens, R.G, Organizational Behavior (6th Ed) (Englewood cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc.
1998), p.230
135 Kinard, J. (1988). Op.cit, p.326
136 Starratt, R.J. Transforming Educational Administration: Meaning, Community and
Excellence, (New York: McGraw-Hill. 1996), p.24
137 Bodin, R.J & Crawford, D.k, Developing emotional intelligence: A guide to behaviour
management and conflict resolution in schools. (North Mattis Avenue: Research Press,
1999), p.155
138 Kramer and Mesick (1995), pp.18-19
139 Bentley, M. (1996). Conflict resolution in schools: Quicker peace and service.
Cambridge, U.S.A: Cambridge University Press, p.4
140 D’Oosterlinck, F. & Broekaert, E. (2003) Integrating school-based and therapeutic
conflict management models at schools. (The journal of school Health. 73 (6), 2003), p.
222
55
141 Deutsch. M, Cooperation and Conflict In West, M.A, Tjosvold, D & Smith, K.G. The
essentials of teamwork: (International perspective. Maryland: Wiley 2005), p.15
142 Ibid, p.16
143 Rahim, M. A. Managing conflict in organizations (3rd ed). (Westport, CT: Quorum Books
2001), p.24
144 Ibid, p.25
145 Ibid, p.26
146 Ibid, p.26 147 Pruitt, Dean G., and Peter J. Carnevale. Negotiation in Social Conflict (Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks- Cole Publishing, 1993)
148 Follett, M. P. Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic
administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (New York: Harper & Row,
1940), (pp. 30–49)
149 Trutter. I, Conflict, (South African Pharmaceutical Journal, 70(5), 2003), p.42
150 Wheeler, D. Conflict management in schools. (New York: McGraw-Hill 2005), P.18
151 Saddler, P. Conflict management and leadership. (London: Coopers and Lybrand, 1998),
P.25
152 Saddler, P, Ibid. p.25
153 Johnson, P.E. Conflict and the school leader. (Connecticut: University of Connecticut,
2005), P.22
154 Bartol, K.M. & Martin, D.C. Information to change the world. (New York: McGraw-Hill
1991), p.580
155 Donald, D. Lazarus, S. & Lolwana, P. Educational psychology in social context:
Challenges of development, social issues and special needs in South Africa. (A teacher
resource, Cape Town: Juta and Co. 1997), p.130
56
156 Association for Conflict Resolution, School-Based Conflict Resolution Education
Program Standards. (Washington, D.C. 2002), p.1
157 A.D. Slabbert, Conflict management styles in Traditional Organizations, (The Social
Science Journal 41 Faculty of Management, Cape Technikon, Cape Town, South Africa,
2004), pp. 86-87
158 Susan A. Holton. “Academic Mortar to Mend the Cracks: The Holton Model for Conflict
Management.” In Mending the Cracks in the Ivory Tower: Strategies for Conflict
Management in Higher Education (Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, Inc. 1998), Pp: 1-6
159 ibid
160 ibid
161 ibid
162 Jay R. Dee, et.al, op.cit, p.193
163 Jhonson & Jhonson (1996), op.cit, p.498
57
CHAPTER 3
METHOD & PROCEDURE
Briggs and Coleman (2007) argue that a researcher having identified the research problems, and
having framed the research questions, should plan a research methodology that would link with
the conceptual framework of the research1 (p.6).
3.1 Nature of the study:
This descriptive research study examined the view points of school teachers and principals about
conflict and conflict management in secondary schools. Their views about nature of conflict,
types of conflicts in the schools, strategies/skills for conflict management/resolution were
analyzed. The study targeted a population of 250 school teachers and 250 school principals in
Govt secondary schools of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa (KPK), Pakistan. The participants responded
by making choices that correspond to their typical behaviors or attitudes in conflict situations.
The present study was descriptive in nature. The goal of the study was to learn about conflict
management and conflict resolution model in secondary schools. More specifically, the
following questions were addressed in the data collection and analysis: (a) what is the nature of
conflict in the schools? (b) What are the causes of conflicts? (c) How conflicts are handled in the
schools? (d) What skills/strategies are used by the principals in handling conflicts? And (d) what
is the suggested model for conflict resolution?
Learning more about the training programs for teachers in order to handle conflict, role of
schools’ principals in conflict management and development of a conflict resolution model are
analyzed.
3.2. Population
Population is the total collection of all members, cases which are taken into consideration by the
researcher from which conclusion about the research is drawn3. According to Sekaran Population
is the entire group of people, elements under study, events or things of interest that the researcher
wishes to investigate4. The population is the complete collection to be studied; it contains all
subjects of interest.
58
The population for this research comprises of teachers and principals of all public sector schools
of the selected districts of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa, Pakistan.
Target population for this study consists of a total of 357 government high schools of the six
selected districts of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa.
3.3 Sample
A sample is a part of the population of interest, a sub-collection selected from a population. A
sample is a finite part of a statistical population whose properties are studied to gain information
about the whole5 (Webster, 1985). When dealing with people, it can be defined as a set of
respondents (people) selected from a larger population for the purpose of a survey. Sampling as
defined by Sekaran as “it is the selection of a sufficient number of elements from the population,
so that a study of the sample and an understanding of its properties or characteristics would make
it possible for us to generalize such properties or characteristics to the population elements6.”
This study selects six (25%) out of 24 districts of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa. These are the
following;
Buner Charsadda Mardan
Nowshera Peshawar Swabi
3.4 Methodology:
3.4.1 Research Design:
This quantitative descriptive study involved the collection of factual information from the
participants that asks about the nature of conflict, conflict management strategies followed by
schools’ principals in the work place.
This descriptive study followed an epidemiological or survey research design. According to
Isaac and Michael (1995), the purpose of descriptive research is “to describe systemically the
facts and characteristics of a given population or area of interest, factually and accurately” (p.
50)2. Therefore, no hypotheses, predictions, or explanations for relationships are included in this
research study.
59
The population included all the principals and teachers of all the schools of Khyber
Pakhtoonkhwa (Pakistan). The data for the present study were collected through two different
tools i.e. questionnaire No.1 which asked for demographic information, nature of conflict,
conflict management strategies adopted by schools’ principals and any specific model used by
them. Questionnaire No.2 was developed in order to ascertain the conflict management styles of
schools’ principals.
3.4.2 Procedure for data collection
For the purpose of collection of data two questionnaires were developed by the researcher. There
were 357 government high schools in the selected districts. Out of this number 250 (70%)
schools were selected through simple random technique. The participants in the present study
were school teachers and schools’ principals of the government high schools of Khyber
Pakhtoonkhwa.
Both senior English teachers (S.E.Ts) and C.Ts were taken for the study. From each school, one
teacher was selected thus a total of 250 schools’ teachers were selected. Similarly one principal
from each selected school was targeted.
3.4.3 Instrument of data collection
For data collection two questionnaires were constructed in which one to be served to the
principals and the second was meant for teachers. Questionnaires consisted of items which asked
the sample population about conflict, its nature and the conflict management approached adopted
by the principals.
Two ways were adopted for distribution of questionnaires;
1. Questionnaires were personally administered to the respondents of the nearby schools
who were informed that these will be collected back after three days.
2. Questionnaires along with cover letters were sent to the respondents of the schools of the
farther areas who were requested to complete it and return it in two weeks.
Questionnaires along with cover letters were distributed among 250 teachers and 250 schools’
principals. Return rate of teachers’ responses was 217 (87%). Out of 250 questionnaires of
principals, 217 (87%) were returned back. Thus these were utilized for analysis purpose.
60
3.5 Variables
3.5.1 Demographic Information:
Questionnaires were designed to collect demographic information i.e. age, gender, years of
experience as a school teacher/principal, and location of school (rural, and urban) and their
opinion about conflict management. In this environment, a quantitative correlative research was
suited; the available sample size was sufficient; and the study design provided a numeric
description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of the population7 (Creswell, 2003).
3.6 Conflict Management Style:
For measurement of conflict management of schools’ principals, a conflict management scale
was developed following the Thomas-Kilmann Management of Differences Exercise (MODE)
(TKI, 1974) assessed the conflict management styles. It assessed assertiveness and
cooperativeness as determined by one of the following conflict management styles. The five
styles are: (a) Accommodating, (b) Avoiding, (c) Collaborating, (d) Competing, and (e)
Compromising (Blake & Mouton, 1985; Thomas, 1974, 1976). The Accommodating style takes
into consideration the other’s party concern while ignoring one’s own concerns. In this style an
individual, while accommodating the concerns of other, neglects his own concerns. In avoiding
conflict management style the individual is indifferent to his as well as his rival’s concerns. In
avoidance, the individual neither pursues his or her own concerns or those of his rivals. The
Collaborating style looks for a complete satisfaction of the concerns of both the parties involved
in the conflict. While following a collaborating style the individual with the cooperation of the
other party looks for a mutually agreed solution of the problem. The Competing style of conflict
management desires to have his say in dominating the other person in order to address his or her
concerns. In this style the person neglects the concern of the other party in order to satisfy his
own concerns. The Compromising conflict management style looks for a 50/50 solution of the
problem. Following a compromising style the central objective is to satisfy both the parties with
a mutually acceptable solution of the problem.
Unlike TKI which uses a 30 forced-choice items for assessing the conflict management styles,
the scale developed here by researcher i.e. Conflict Management Scale (CMS) consists of 15
items which assesses the role of principals in conflict and conflict management styles of schools’
61
principals. The same scale is administered to both the school’s teachers and the principals. Then
the responses collected from them were compared using Kendall’s Tau B & Tau C.
After comparative analysis of teachers and principals responses about conflict management
styles, a conflict management model was developed for the schools’ principals.
3.7 Data Analyses
Data were collected through questionnaires about nature of conflict, conflict management styles
of principals. Means, standard deviations, and percentages were derived for the overall sample
and categorized by age, qualification (both academic and professional), years of experience as a
school teacher and as principal (in case of questionnaire for principal), nature of conflict, and of
conflict management training of the educators. Information regarding grade level (elementary,
middle, or high) and location (rural, urban) of schools were also analyzed.
The remaining variables were causes of conflict, principals’ role in conflict management, and
conflict management styles of principals were analyzed through CMS developed by the
researcher.
The results of the CMS categorized principals into one of the five styles: Accommodating,
Avoiding, Collaborating, Competing, or Compromising. Based on both teachers and principals’
responses, a comparative analysis was made in order to reach the conclusion which conflict
management style is followed by the principals.
In sum, the CMS produced categorical data, means, and standard deviations about all the
variables by making a comparison of both the teachers and principals’ responses.
3.8 Pilot sample and sampling
Forty teachers and twenty principals of twenty public secondary schools of the selected
districts of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa were selected for dry run. The sample size of these
respondents was certainly well manageable as reiterated by some researchers11 (Wiersma,
2000, p.177). The pilot questionnaires were administered personally so that the purpose of
the study might be explained to them. The respondents were requested to fill in the
questionnaire and return it in 5 days.
62
3.9 Selection of Research sample and sampling procedure
This research focused mainly on the identification of conflict in schools, educators’
training in conflict management techniques and principals’ conflict management styles of
the schools in the selected districts of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa. In selecting the sample, the
following criteria were set:
(i) the sample must include respondents from a variety of government high
secondary schools from both urban and rural areas of the province
(ii) the number of respondents selected for the study is manageable noting that
the research is not funded and the researcher is handling the research single-
handedly
(iii) the sample is representative of the government high secondary schools of
Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa
The rationale of these criteria was to obtain the views from respondents of all types of
secondary schools in Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa. This would offer enrichment to the research,
as the views would have included a variety in types as well as locations of the government
high secondary schools.
The selection of schools was done by simple random, selecting an equal number of schools
from each district. The sampling design here increases the precision of sample estimates
(Smith and Glass, 1989, p.236). On the question of representativeness, the sample
consisted of 70% of the population of 357 government secondary schools in Khyber
Pakhtoonkhwa, much more than the minimum of 10% suggested by some researchers and
more than the minimum of 20% for the selection of a sample from a population less than
500 as mentioned by some researchers (Gay, 1981; Cates, 1985, p.83).
3.10 Piloting and Modification of Questionnaire
Piloting and modification of the questionnaires was carried out for the purpose in order to
enhance validity and reliability in the research and to determine if the items are yielding
the kind of information needed (Sax, 1979, p.258). Pilot testing assisted the researcher to
gauge for any criticisms and recommendations (Gall et al., 2003, p.230) as well as to study
the comments made by the respondents that will enable the researcher to further improve
63
the questionnaire to be used in the research (Borg and Gall, 1983, p.425). To gauge
additional and unusual responses from the respondents’ open-ended items along with
closed ended questions were used (Gall et al., 2003).
The questionnaire was first designed to carry out a case study in particular schools in the
selected districts. It was piloted to the principal, vice principal and a teacher in the month
of January. Then the pilot questionnaires were collected and according to their suggestions
the following changes were made
(a) grammatical errors were rectified
(b) Open ended questionnaire items were removed as these were not answered
properly
(c) Urdu version (translation) was added
The research questionnaire underwent the first modification with revised content of items
based on very recent literature review, reviewing question construction and wording;
rewording questions (Parker and Jensen, 2003; Glass and Webb, 1993, p.254-255) with
rooms for constructive suggestions and evaluation of wording, layout and color (Johnson,
1977, p.153). The process of designing has already been discussed. The distinct changes
incorporated were a decreased content where the nine pages original questionnaire was
decreased to a seven pages research pilot questionnaire The researcher then sent this copy
to the supervisor from the Gomal University DI Khan who vetted it.
After collection of the questionnaires from all the respondents, the following findings were
seen:
(i) 100% of them agreed that the language was clear and easily understood and
that the layout was good
(ii) 80% stated that the questionnaire was simpler than most questionnaires
handled by them
(iii) 90% of the respondents appreciated Urdu translation of the items.
64
This reflects that the questionnaire design and layout was good and only changes in
content as well as a need to increase response rate in the research questionnaire were
distinctly reflected in the piloting process.
In addition characteristics of school i.e. urban and rural schools were regrouped into
categories: qualifications of principals as well as experience of principals were added into
the questionnaire. This was for the purpose of assisting in answering the research questions
and to facilitate interpretation of data. There were a total of 7 pages of both the
questionnaire. A letter of support from the Registrar of the university was collected. The
questionnaires were then sent out to the selected schools situated in the far flung areas of
the selected districts and were handed over by the researcher in the accessible schools.
This process was done in March and a two weeks time was given for its return.
3.11 Issues of reliability and validity
Authenticity of research is assessed through reliability; validity and triangulation. While
they are complex terms that depend on the stance of the researcher, it is argued that these
are a process of validation of the research work (Briggs and Coleman, 2007, p.91).
Hammersley (1987) counter argues that researchers use the concepts of reliability and
validity in all kinds of researches. Brock-Urne (1996) also supports the view that reliability
and validity are equally important in both quantitative and qualitative researches. Hence
the argument that issue of reliability, validity and triangulations are very important for all
kinds of researches.
3.12 Reliability
Despite the claim that there is no widely accepted definition of reliability (Hammersley,
1987), there is wide acceptance to the view that reliability is the probability that repeating a
research procedure or method would produce identical or similar results giving the
confidence that there is a consistency in replicating the process (Briggs and Coleman,
2007). Yin (1994) argues that reliability demonstrates that issues such as data collection
procedures can be repeated with the same results.
Joppe (2000) defines reliability as:
65
…The extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the
total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be
reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be
reliable. (p. 1)
Charles (1995) adheres to the notions that consistency with which questionnaire [test] items are
answered or individual’s scores remain relatively the same can be determined through the test-
retest method at two different times. This attribute of the instrument is actually referred to as
stability. If we are dealing with a stable measure, then the results should be similar. A high
degree of stability indicates a high degree of reliability, which means the results are repeatable.
In survey research, instruments such as questionnaires and structured interviews, reliability is
assessed by a test-retest procedure. Youngman (1994) argues that one of the ways of checking
reliability is by interviewing a sample of those surveyed by questionnaire and repeating certain
questions. Other researchers like Cohen and Manion (1994) caution that over-emphasis on
reliability for interviews can have implications on its validity. Hence for reliability to be
enhanced, validity needs to be compromised.
3.13 Validity
Joppe (2000) provides the following explanation of what validity is in quantitative research:
Validity determines whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or
how truthful the research results are. In other words, does the research instrument allow you to
hit "the bull’s eye" of your research object? Researchers generally determine validity by asking a
series of questions, and will often look for the answers in the research of others. (p. 1)
Briggs and Coleman (2007) define validity as a concept used to judge whether the research
accurately describes the phenomenon that it is intended to describe. Bell (1999) describes
validity as one where an item measures or describes what it is supposed to measure or
describe while cautioning that while an unreliable item lacks validity, a reliable item need
not necessarily be valid.
66
3.14 Issues of instrument validity and reliability
In adopting questionnaire method for data collection the researchers have always cautioned
on the need of its validity and reliability (Gall et al., 2003, p.223). The questionnaire was
vetted by an Assistant Professor from English Department for wording and language in
order to enhance its user friendliness, the researcher also secured the services of another
faculty member from Urdu department for translation into Urdu. The contents of the
questionnaire were vetted by the researcher’s supervisor in order to ensure that the contents
of the questionnaire reflected the purpose of the study and would be able to effectively
answer the research questions. These steps enhanced validity in content, language and
wording. Subject experts and other senior researchers vetted the contents of the
questionnaire so we can assume that the questionnaire has content and face validity (Uma,
2003, p.208).
There is always a threat what researchers call as the ‘guinea pig effect’ in which the
respondents assume that they are part of a research and the issue of ‘role selection” that
they are aware that they play a role in the research, for example their responses would be
used against them by sending these to the Education Department and the Ministry of
Education.
In order to reduce the anxiety of the respondents, the researcher convinced them that their
responses will be utilized only for research purposes and this issue was tackled by a
covering letter to the schools where the questionnaires were sent by post. In addition the
covering letter had clearly spelt out that the research had a mutual benefit and its findings
would help the principals themselves. These actions enhanced validity of the
questionnaires (Borg and Gall, 1983, p.111).
Reliability of the items was measured through Cronbach’s Alpha. One way random effects
model was used for ascertaining the consistency of inter class items.
67
3.15 Reliability of Teachers’ Questionnaires:
S. No Items Description No of Questions Cronbach's
Alfa
1 Existence of conflict 1 0.009
2 Nature of conflict 2 0.002
3 Interpersonal conflict 1 0.000
4 Handling of conflict 1 0.04
5 Solution of conflict 1 0.003
6 Management of conflict 1 0.008
7 Impact of conflict 1 0.000
8 Educator’s training 1 0.007
9 Staff assistance in conflict 1 0.005
10 Help from authorities 1 0.01
11 Causes of conflict 2 0.004
12 Principal’s role in conflict 2 0.02
13 Conflict resolution styles 5 0.001
68
3.16 Reliability of Principals’ Questionnaires:
S. No Items Description No of Questions Cronbach'salfa
1 Existence of conflict 1 0.008
2 Nature of conflict 2 0.001
3 Interpersonal conflict 1 0.002
4 Handling of conflict 1 0.04
5 Solution of conflict 1 0.003
6 Management of conflict 1 0.007
7 Impact of conflict 1 0.009
8 Educator’s training 1 0.004
9 Staff assistance in conflict 1 0.005
10 Help from authorities 1 0.01
11 Causes of conflict 3 0.000
12 Principal’s role in conflict 2 0.002
13 Conflict resolution styles 5 0.001
The whole data for the above interpretation has not been shown.
3.17 Summary
Unlike most quantitative researches where a variety of statistical (descriptive, comparative
and inferential) and statistical techniques such as ANOVA, and ACOVA are used, this
research will utilize mainly descriptive and comparative statistics and one or two statistical
techniques that would generate data which will assist in discussion of findings.
Furthermore on the basis of the comparative analysis a conflict resolution model will be
developed for the schools’ principals. Issues related to data analysis and its interpretation
will be presented and discussed in detail in the next Chapter.
69
End Notes:
1 Briggs, Ann R.J. and Coleman, Marianne (2007), Research Methods in Educational
Leadership and Management, London, Sage Publications, p.6
2 Isaac, S. & Michael, W. B (1995) Handbook in research and evaluation: For education
and the behavioral sciences (3rd Ed) San Diego, CA: Edits/Educational and Industrial
Testing Services, p.50
3 Huysamen, G.K. (1994). Methodology for the Social and Behavioural Sciences Pretoria:
Southern.
4 Uma Sekaran, Research methods for business, 4rth ed, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 2003,
p.5
5 Webster, M. (1985). Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary Merian-Webster Inc
6 Sekaran, Ibid
7 Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications, p.164
8 Keppel, 1991, cited in Creswell, 2003, p. 164
9 Leedey, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E (2001) Practical research: Planning and design. 7th Ed.San
Francisco: Jossey Bass, p.212
8 Denscombe, 1998, Denscombe, Martyn (1998), The Good Research Guide for
small-scale social research projects, Buckingham, USA, Open University Press.
pp. 23-24
70
7 Erwin, Wesley and Wheelright, Lori A. (2002), Improving mail survey response
rates through the use of monetary incentive, Journal of Mental Health Counselling,
Vol.23, n 3, pp. 247-255 (ONLINE: EBSCO Research Databases, ERIC: EJ 650187-
12th September 2003).
8 Smith, Mary Lee and Glass, Gene, V. (1989), Research and Evaluation in
Education, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall. p.236
9 Gay, L.R. (1981) in Cates, Ward Mitchell (1985), A practical guide to educational
research’, 1st edition, Englewood Cliffs, U.S.A., Prentice Hall Inc Cates, Ward
Mitchell (1985), A practical guide to educational research’, 1st edition, Englewood
Cliffs, U.S.A., Prentice Hall Inc. p.83
10 Sax, Gibert (1979), Foundations of Educational Research, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
Prentice-Hall, p.258
11 Gall, Merendith D., Gall, Joyce P. and Borg, Walter, R. (2003), Educational Research:
An introduction, 7th Edition, Boston, Allyn and Bacon p.230
12 Parker, Dawn and Jensen, Debbie (1997), The Texas Poll of Elementary School
Teachers: Survey Sampling Procedures and Questionnaire Design, ONLINE:
EBSCO Research Data Bases: Citation, ERIC: ED 406155- 28th September 2003
13 Johnson, 1977, op.cit p.153
14 Briggs, Ann R.J. and Coleman, Marianne (2007), Research Methods in Educational
Leadership and Management, London, Sage Publications. 2007, p.91
15 Hammersley (1987), some notes on the terms ‘validity and reliability’ British
Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 73-81
71
16 BrockUrne, B. (1996), ‘Reliability and validity in qualitative research within
education in Africa’ in Briggs, Ann R.J. and Coleman, M. (2007), Research
Methods in Education and Leadership and Management, London, Sage
Publications.
17 Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process Retrieved February 25, 1998, from
http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm
18 Charles, C. M. (1995). Introduction to educational research (2nd
ed). San Diego,
Longman.
19 Gall et al., 2003, op.cit p.223
20 Uma, 2003, Uma Sekaran (2003), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building
Approach, New York, John Wiley and Sons. p.208
21 Borg, Walter R. and Gall, M.D. (1983), Educational Research, An Introduction, 4th
edition, New York, Longman p.111
22 Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1994) in Briggs, Ann R.J and
Coleman, M. (2007), Research Methods in Education and Leadership and
Management, London, Sage Publications.
72
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction:
Research methodology and the relevant research instruments used in this research
were fully elaborated in Chapter Three of this study; main focus of this chapter is on
the analysis and interpretation of data. The main purpose of analysis is to;
(a) answer the research questions set for the study
(b) provide additional relevant information in order to enrich this research study
(c) provide information that will allow suggestions and recommendations for future
researches in other areas of conflict management in schools, and most important
of all, to
(d) provide information on the limitations and problems seen in this study
design/instruments of this research that would assist and facilitate to adopt better
research methodologies in future researches in conflict management in schools
for a more effective research in this field.
Collection of data in research, its analysis and interpretation is an important process,
the main purpose is to critically analyze all the collected data and draw conclusions
in order to achieve research objectives. This process is commonly termed by research
experts as data analysis. In order to minimize the possibility of errors and time
required for data analysis a computer program i.e. SPSS 15 was used.
In order to provide a vivid picture of the sample a well elaborated analysis of the
sample has been performed. All the respondents were analyzed by their age,
positions, seniority/experience, type and category of school.
This chapter is divided into three sections. Section 1 shows the demographic
variables of the respondents, section 2 highlights the responses of schools’ teachers
about conflict and conflict management, and section 3 presents principals’ responses
about conflict and conflict management in schools. Furthermore sections 2 & 3 have
provided a well elaborated interpretation and discussion of findings.
73
4.2 Demographic Variables:
Table 4.1.1 showing number of Schools Locality No of Schools %age
Urban 70 20
Rural 287 80
Total 357 100
Table 4.1.1 above and the graph show the number of schools in the selected districts of KP. Total
number of schools was 357 comprising 20 % urban and whereas 80 % rural schools.
74
4.1.2. District wise/location-wise number of Selected Schools
Buner Charsadda Mardan Nowshera Peshawar Swabi Total
U R U R U R U R U R U R U+R
0 40 9 49 13 55 13 43 27 42 8 50 359
11.14% 16.15% 18.94% 15.59% 19.22% 16.15% 100%
Table 4.1.2 above followed by bar graph shows 11.14 %, 16.15 %, 18.94 %, 19.22 %, 16.15 %
schools from the districts of Buner, Charsadda, Mardan, Nowshera, Peshawar and Swabi
respectively.
75
4.1.3. Showing total number of schools and sample selected:
Locality Total No of Schools Sample selected %age Urban 70 67 26.8% Rural 287 183 73.2% Total 357 250 100%
Table 4.1.3 followed by bar graph shows total number of schools and the sample selected for the
study. Of the total number of schools 70 % sample was selected in which 27 % comprised of
urban schools whereas 73 % were rural schools.
76
4.1.4 Showing Return Rate of the selected schools:
Responded No Response Total 217 33 250
86.6% 13.4% 100%
Table 4.1.4 and the graph show that out of the total sample, total return rate was 86.6% whereas
13.4% didn’t respond to the questionnaire items.
77
4.3 Information about Teachers 4.1.5. Teachers’ Qualification (Acad+Prof)
B.A(C.T) B.A(B.Ed)
B.A(M.Ed)
M.A(B.Ed)
M.A(M.Ed)
M.Phil Total
34 32 12 78 56 5 217 %age 15.66% 14.74% 5.52% 35.94% 25.80% 2.30% 100%
Table 4.1.5 and its graph illustrate that 15.66 % of the teachers were B.A + C.T, 14.74 % had
B.A + Bed qualification, 5.52 % were B.A + M.Ed, 35.94 % M.A + B.Ed, 25.80 were M.A +
M.Ed degree and only 2.30 % were M.Phil
78
4.1.6. Showing Teachers’ Length of service:
5-10 11-25 26-40 Total
43 85 89 217
%age 19.81% 39.17% 41.01% 100%
Table 4.1.6 and the graph shows length of service of the teachers, which is as follow, i.e.19.81 %
the teachers’ experience lie in the range of 5-10 years, 39.17 % lie in the range of 11-25 years
and 41.01 % of the teachers’ service is in the range of 26-40 years.
79
4.1.7. Showing Teachers' Age in years
25-40 (Age in Years) 41-55 56-60 Total 80 104 33 217
%age 36.86% 47.92% 15.20% 100%
Table 4.1.7 followed by the graph shows teachers’ age that is 36.86 % lie in the age range of 25-
40 years, 47.92 % are in the range of 41-55 years and 15.20 % are in the range of 56-60 years.
80
4.1.8. Showing Teachers’ post
S. No Post held C.T Post held S.E.T Total 1 69 148 217
%age 31.79% 68.20% 100%
Table 4.1.8 and the graph depict the posts which different teachers occupy; it shows that 32% of
teachers work on C.T post whereas 68 % of them are S.E.Ts.
81
4.4. Information about Principals
4.1.9. Showing Principals' Qualifications
BA/BSc+B.Ed BA/BSc+M.Ed MA+B.Ed MA+M.Ed MSc+B.Ed MSc+M.Ed M.Phil Total 1 5 61 83 27 33 7 217
0.47% 2.30% 28.90% 39.33% 12.44% 15.20% 3.31% 100%
Table 4.1.9 followed by the graph shows the professional and academic qualification of schools’
principals. It shows that 0.47 % of the principals were B.A/B.Sc+ B.Ed, 2.30 % were B.A/B.Sc +
M.Ed, and 28.90 % were M.A+B.Ed, 39.33 % were M.A + M.Ed, 12.44 % had M.Sc + B.Ed,
15.20 % of the principals were M.Sc + M.Ed and only 3.31 % having M.Phil qualification.
82
4.1.10. Principals by Service
1-10 11-25 26-40 Total 57 98 62 217
%age 26.26% 46.44% 29.38% 100%
Table 4.1.10 and its graph illustrate the length of service of the principals, i.e.26.26 % were in
the 1-10 years of service, 46.44 % were in the range of 11-25 years and 29.38 % were in the
range of 26-40 years.
83
4.1.11. Showing Principals’ Age
S. No 25-40 41-55 56-60 Total 1 55 123 39 217
%age 26.06% 55.92% 18.02% 100%
Table 4.1.11 and its graph shows the age of the principals, it depicts that 26.06 % of the
principals were in the age range of 25-40 years, 55.92 % were in the range of 41-55 years of age
and 18.02 % were in the range of 56-60 years.
84
4.1.12. Illustrate Principals' Experience as teacher and as principal
Category 1-15 Yrs 16-30 Yrs 1-5 Yrs 6-15 Yrs
Total
Experience As Teacher 115 102 Experience As Principal 142 74 Directly Appointed 1 217
%age 0.47% 53% 47% 65.43% 34.10% 100%
Principals’ experience as principal and as teacher is depicted in the above table and graph. It
shows that 0.47 % was directly appointed as principal, 65.43 % had 1-5 years of experience as
principal, and 34.10 % had 6-15 years of experience as principal. As teacher 53 % had 1-15 years
of experience and 47 % had 16-30 years of experience.
85
Section 2:
4.5 Conflict:
This section illustrates principals and teachers responses to the given items. The same
question was put first to the principals then to the teachers, their responses are tabulated,
analyzed and then their responses are compared in the cross tabulation.
4.2.1 Conflict b/w staff members
Item Principals’ Responses Frequency Percentag
e
Have you ever come
across any conflict
b/w your staff
members?
Yes
No
176
41
81.1 %
18.9 %
Total 217 100.0
18.89%
81.11%
No
Yes
interpersonal conflict=c1p
Table 4.2.1 followed by its graph shows the response of principals to the question about
interpersonal conflict in the school, in which 81.1 % agreed about the existence of conflict in the
school whereas 18.9 % responded in negative.
86
4.2.2. Conflict b/w your staff members?
Item Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Yes 180 82.9
Have you ever come across any conflict b/w your staff members?
No
36
16.6
Missing 1 .5 Total 217 100.0
0.46%16.59%
82.95%
Missing
No
Yes
interpersonal conflict=c1t
The same question about interpersonal conflict was put to teachers which were illustrated in table
4.2.2 along with its graph. Here 82.9 % responded in affirmative whereas 16.1 % denied that
there is no conflict in their schools.
87
Cross-tabulation c1p *c1t Count interpersonal conflict=c1t Total
Yes No Missing
interpersonal conflict=c1p
Yes 153 22 1 176
No 27 14 0 41
Total 180 36 1 217
Symmetric Measures Value Approx.
Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .229 .003
Cramer's V
.229 .003
Contingency Coefficient
.223 .003
N of Valid Cases 217
For interpersonal conflict between staff member the same question was put both to principals as
well as teachers. In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers
and principals are tested on question any conflict b/w staff members and the result was found
significant which means that most of the time both principals as well as the teachers agree on the
same level of response.
88
4.2.3. Nature of conflict
Item Responses Frequency Percent
Yes
39
18.0
Was this conflict
of serious nature?
No
176
81.1
Missing 2 .9 Total 217 100.0
0.92%
81.11%
17.97%
Missing
No
Yes
serious conflct=c2p
Question regarding the nature of conflict was put to principals who were asked in order to
ascertain whether the conflict was serious or not to which 18 % opined that conflict was serious
whereas 81.1 % responded that the conflict was not serious and only 1 % didn’t respond to this
question.
89
4.2.4. Nature of conflict
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Was this
conflict of
serious
nature?
Yes
19
8.8
No
193 88.9
Missing 5 2.3 Total 217 100.0
2.3%
88.94%
8.76%
Missing
No
Yes
serious conflct=c2t
Table 4.2.4 followed by its graph shows that 8.8 % of teachers opined that the conflict was of
serious nature whereas 88.9 % responded in negative that the conflict was not serious and a
fraction of only 2.3 % remained undecided about nature of conflict.
90
Cross-tabulation c2p *c2t Count serious conflict=c2t Total
Yes No Missing
serious conflict=c2p
Yes 3 35 1 39
No 16 157 3 176
Missing 0 1 1 2
Total 19 193 5 217
Symmetric Measures Value Approx.
Sig. Nominal by Nominal
Phi .308
.000
Cramer's V
.218
.000
Contingency Coefficient
.295 .000
N of Valid Cases
217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on the question whether the conflict b/w staff members was of serious nature to which the
result was found significant which means that most of the time they agree on the same level of
response.
91
4.2.5. Conflict as mild one
Item
Principals’ Responses Frequency Percent
Yes
162 74.7
Was this conflict a
mild one?
No
49
22.6
Missing 6 2.8 Total 217 100.0
Question about nature of conflict as mild one was asked from the principals to whom their
responses were recorded in the above table along with its graph. It shows almost 75 % agreed to
the query that the conflict was mild one whereas 22. 6 % said that it was not mild and another 2.7
% gave no response to this question.
92
4.2.6. Conflict-mild one
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Was this conflict a
mild one?
Yes
165
76.0
No
42 19.4
Missing 10 4.6 Total 217 100.0
4.61%
19.35%
76.04%
Missing
No
Yes
mild conflct=c3t
Table 4.2.6 and its graph about mild conflict show that 76 % of the teachers responded in
affirmative whereas 19.4 % said that conflict was not mild and only 4.6 % remained undecided.
93
Cross-tabulation c3p *c3t Count mild conflict=c3t Total
Yes No Missing
mild conflict=c3p
Yes 130 28 4 162
No 31 14 4 49
Missing 4 0 2 6
Total 165 42 10 217
Symmetric Measures Value Approx.
Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi
.295
.001
Cramer's V
.208
.001
Contingency Coefficient
.283
.001
N of Valid Cases
217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on question about mild conflict b/w staff members. Its result shows a significant level
which means that both of the teachers as well as principals agree on the same level of response.
94
4.2.7. Conflict with colleague
Item
Principals’ Responses Frequency Percent
Have you ever been in
conflict with colleague?
Yes
194
89.4
No
20 9.2
Missing 3 1.4 Total 217 100.0
1.38%9.22%
89.4%
Missing
No
Yes
conflct wd collegue=c4p
Table 4.2.7 along with its graph depicts that 89.4 % of the principals viewed that they remain in
conflict with their colleagues, 9.2 % said that they were not and just 1.36 % didn’t respond to
this question.
95
4.2.8. Conflict with colleague
Item Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percen
t
Have you ever been in
conflict with colleague?
Yes
99
45.6
No 113 52.1
Missing 5 2.3 Total 217 100.0
2.3%
52.07%
45.62%
Missing
No
Yes
conflct wd collegue=c4t
When the question about conflict b/w the colleague was put to the teachers, 45.6 % responded in
yes, 52 % responded in negative whereas 2.3 % gave no answer as illustrated in the above table
and its graph.
96
Cross tabulation c4p *c4t Count conflict wd colleague=c4t Total
Yes No Missing
conflict wd colleague=c4p
Yes 92 99 3 194
No 6 14 0 20
Missing 1 0 2 3
Total 99 113 5 217
Symmetric Measures Value Appro
x. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi
.522
.000
Cramer's V
.369
.000
Contingency Coefficient
.462 .000
N of Valid Cases 217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on question about the conflict that arises b/w the colleagues and the result was found
significant which justify that both of the groups agree on the same level of response.
97
4.2.9. Conflict resolution
Item Principals’ Responses Frequency Percent
Yes
134 61.8
Was it solved?
No
43
19.8
Missing 40 18.4 Total 217 100.0
18.43%
19.82% 61.75%
Missing
No
Yes
cnflct solved=c5p
Table 4.2.9 and the graph shows that 61.7 % of the principals hold that the conflict was solved,
19.8 % of them responded that the conflict remained unsolved whereas 18.4 % didn’t respond.
98
4.2.10. Conflict resolution
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Yes
134 61.8
Was it solved?
No
43
19.8
Missing
40
18.4 Total 217 100.0
18.43%
19.82% 61.75%
Missing
No
Yes
cnflct solved=c5t
Table 4.2.10 followed by its graph illustrate that a total of 61.7 % of the principals said that the
conflict was solved whereas 19 % of them were not in favor of its solution and here 18.43 % had
no decision on this question.
99
Cross-tabulation c5p *c5t Count conflict solved=c5t Total
Yes No Missing
Yes 84 21 29 134
No 22 18 3 43
Missing 28 4 8 40
Total 134 43 40 217
Symmetric Measures Value Approx.
Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .294 .001
Cramer's V .208 .001
Contingency Coefficient .282 .001
N of Valid Cases 217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on question whether this conflict was solved or not to between the staff members and the
result was found significant which means that most of the time they agree on the same level of
response.
100
4.2.11. Existence of conflict
Item Principal’s Responses Frequency Percent
Does it still exist?
Yes
35
16.1
No 154 71.0
Missing 28 12.9 Total 217 100.0
12.9%
70.97%
16.13%
Missing
No
Yes
cnflct exists=c6p
The above table along with its graph indicates that almost 71 % of the respondents said that
conflict no more exists in their schools whereas 16.13 % responded in affirmative that it still
haunts their schools and 12.9 % remained undecided.
101
4.2.12. Existence of Conflict
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Does it still exist?
Yes
31 14.3
No
154
71.0
Missing 32 14.7 Total 217 100.0
14.75%
70.97%
14.29%
Missing
No
Yes
cnflct exists=c6t
Same question about the existence of conflict was put to the teachers as is illustrated in the above
table and the succeeding graph. The graph indicates that only 14.29 % opined that their schools
have still got some conflict; almost 71 % totally denied that there is no conflict in their schools
and another 14.75 % didn’t respond to this question.
102
Cross-tabulation c6p *c6t Count conflict exists=c6t Total
Yes No Missing
conflict exists=c6p
Yes 17 14 4 35
No 11 122 21 154
Missing 3 18 7 28
Total 31 154 32 217
Symmetric Measures Value Appr
ox. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi
.447
.000
Cramer's V
.316
.000
Contingency Coefficient
.408 .000
N of Valid Cases 217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on question that does the conflict still exist in their schools for which the result showed
significant relationship between the responses of teachers and principals as well.
103
4.2.13. Effect of conflict on performance
Item
Principals’ Responses Frequency Percent
Yes 202
93.1
Do you think conflict
affects performance?
No
13 6.0
Missing 2 .9 Total 217 100.0
0.92%
93.09%
Missing
No
Yes
impct on prfrmnc=c7p
Table 4.2.13 and its succeeding graph testifies that 93 % of the principals said that conflict has
its effect on performance and only 6 % of the respondents were of the opinion that it has no
effect on performance whereas 0.9 % remained mute on this response.
104
4.2.14. Effect of conflict performance
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Do you think conflict affects performance?
Yes
197 90.8
No 19 8.8
Missing 1 .5
Total 217 100.0
0.46%8.76%
90.78%
Missing
No
Yes
impct on prfrmnc=c7t
Table 4.2.14 and graph which has summarized the responses of teachers on the question that
whether it affects performance or not show that 90.78 % teachers responded in affirmative
whereas on 8.76 % said that it doesn’t affect performance and another 0.48 % of the respondents
didn’t respond to this question.
105
Cross-tabulation c7p *c7t Count impact on prfrmnc=c7t Total
Yes No Missing
impact on prfrmnc=c7p
Yes 188 13 1 202
No 7 6 0 13
Missing 2 0 0 2
Total 197 19 1 217
Symmetric Measures Value Approx.
Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
.335
.000
Cramer's V
.237
.000
Contingency Coefficient
.318 .000
N of Valid Cases
217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on question whether conflict has any impact on performance the result for which was
found significant which means that most of the time they agree on the same level of response i.e.
both teachers and principals are of the opinion that conflict has its impact on performance.
106
4.2.15. Need of educators’ training for conflict management
Item
Principals’ Responses
Frequency Percent
Do you think educators need to be trained in conflict management?
Yes
203
93.5
No
13 6.0
Missing 1 .5
Total 217 100.0
0.46%
93.55%
Missing
No
Yes
edctrs trning=c8p
Table 4.2.15 and its graph show that 93.5 % of the principals agreed to the question that whether
educators need to be trained in conflict management; only 6 % of them opined that educators
need not to be trained in conflict management whereas a fraction of 0.5 % remained undecided
about this question.
107
4.2.16. Educators’ training in conflict management
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Do you think educators need to be trained in conflict management?
Yes
198
91.2
No 18 8.3
Missing 1 .5
Total 217 100.0
0.46%8.29%
91.24%
Missing
No
Yes
edctrs trning=c8t
The same question about educators training in conflict management was put to teachers for
which the above table and its graph have been drawn. 91.2 % of the teachers responded in
affirmative that educators need to be trained in conflict management, only 8.3 % of the
respondents said that there is no need of such trainings and 0.5 % of the respondents had no idea
of this question.
108
Cross-tabulation c8p *c8t Count edctrs trning=c8t Total
Yes No Missing
edctrs trning=c8p
Yes 189 13 1 203
No 8 5 0 13
Missing 1 0 0 1
Total 198 18 1 217
Symmetric Measures Value Approx.
Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi
.277
.002
Cramer's V
.196
.002
Contingency Coefficient
.267 .002
N of Valid Cases 217
The symmetric measures as displayed in the above table indicates responses of teachers and
principals which are tested on the question whether conflict has any impact on performance for
which the result was found significant which justifies the fact that both of them agree on the
same means that most of the time they agree on the same level of response.
109
4.2.17. Reporting to authorities about any conflict
Item
Principals’ Responses Frequency Percent
Do you report to your authorities about any conflict?
Yes
93
42.9
No
124 57.1
Total 217 100.0
57.14%
42.86%
No
Yes
reprtng athrties=c9p
Table 4.2.17 and the graph depict the responses of principals on the question that whether they
report to their authorities about any conflict in the school or not, to which 57.1 % answer in
negative, 42.9 % said that they report to the authorities about the conflict which arises in their
schools.
110
4.2.18. Reporting to your authorities about conflict
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Do you report to your authorities about any conflict?
Yes
97
44.7
No 120 55.3
Total 217 100.0
55.3%
44.7%
No
Yes
reprtng athrties=c9t
Table 4.2.18 and the preceding graph indicate that 55.3 % of the teachers don’t report to their
higher authorities about any conflict in their schools whereas 44.7 % responded in affirmative
that they do report to the high ups.
111
Cross-tabulation c9p *c9t Count reprtng athrties=c9t Total
Yes No
reprtng athrties=c9p
Yes 51 42 93
No 46 78 124
Total 97 120 217
Symmetric Measures Value Appr
ox. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi
.177
.009
Cramer's V
.177
.009
Contingency Coefficient
.174 .009
N of Valid Cases 217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on question of updating the high ups about the occurrence of any conflict b/w staff
members for which the result was found significant which means that they agree on the same
level of response.
112
4.2.19. Authorities’ assistance in conflict management
Item
Principals’ Responses Frequency Percent
If yes, do the authorities offer any help?
Yes
92 42.4
No 68 31.3
Missing 57 26.3
Total 217 100.0
26.27%
31.34%
42.4%
Missing
No
Yes
athrties hlp=c10p
Table 14 and its graph illustrate the responses of principals on the question whether authorities
offer any help in conflict or not? To this question 42.4 % responded in affirmative i.e. the
authorities do offer help, 31.34 % said that they do not offer any assistance and another 35.27 %
remained undecided on this question.
113
4.2.20. Authorities’ assistance in conflict management
Item Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
If yes, do the authorities offer any help?
Yes
96
44.2
No 90 41.5
Missing 31 14.3
Total 217 100.0
14.29%
41.47%
44.24%
Missing
No
Yes
athrties hlp=c10t
The above table 4.2.20 along with its graph shows that what the opinion of teachers on this
question that whether the high ups assist them in resolving any conflict or not? To this question
44.2 % of teachers responded in yes whereas 41.47 % negated about assistance from authorities
while 14.29 % declined commenting on this question.
114
Cross-tabulation c10p *c10t Count athrties hlp=c10t Total
Yes No Missing
athrties hlp=c10p
Yes 44 33 15 92
No 27 38 3 68
Missing 25 19 13 57
Total 96 90 31 217
Symmetric Measures Value Approx.
Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi
.248
.009
Cramer's V
.176
.009
Contingency Coefficient
.241 .009
N of Valid Cases
217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on question whether the authorities offer any help in any conflict in the school the result
was found significant which means that most of the time they agree on the same level of
response.
115
4.2.21. Occurrence of conflict due to differences about curriculum
Item
Principals’ Responses Frequency Percent
Do conflicts occur due to
differences about
curriculum?
Yes
57
26.3
No 158
72.8
Missing 2 .9 Total 217 100.0
0.92%
72.81%
26.27%
Missing
No
Yes
curriclum-cause=c11p
Table 4.2.21 and the correspondent graph above show the principals’ responses about the cause
of conflict in the school i.e. whether curriculum causes strife between the staff? To this question
26.27 % of the principals responded in affirmative, 72.81 % said that curriculum doesn’t cause
any strife among the staff and a fraction of only 0.92 % didn’t comment on this.
116
4.2.22. Occurrence of conflict due to differences about curriculum
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Do conflicts occur due to
differences about
curriculum?
Yes
41
18.9
No 175 80.6
Missing 1 .5
Total 217 100.0
0.46%
80.65%
18.89%
Missing
No
Yes
curriclum-cause=c11t
To the question whether curriculum is the cause of conflict as is illustrated in the above table
4.2.22 and its graph, 80.66 % of the teachers said that curriculum has never been a cause of
conflict in the school, 18.80 % of the respondents said that conflict is caused because of
curriculum whereas only 0.46 % declined to comment on this question.
117
Cross-tabulation c11p *c11t Count curriclum-cause=c11t Total
Yes No Missing
curriclum-cause=c11p
Yes 20 36 1 57
No 21 137 0 158
Missing 0 2 0 2
Total 41 175 1 217
Symmetric Measures Value Appro
x. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi
.277
.002
Cramer's V
.196
.002
Contingency Coefficient
.267 .002
N of Valid Cases
217
The symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals for the question
whether curriculum is cause of conflict tested the result was found significant which means that
that principals as well as teachers agree on that curriculum is not a cause of conflict in the
schools.
118
4.2.23. Policy- as cause of conflict
Item
Principals’ Responses
Frequency
Percent
Does policy be considered cause
of conflict?
Yes
137
63.1
No
78
35.9
Missing 2 .9 Total 217 100.0
0.92%
35.94%
63.13%
Missing
No
Yes
policy-cause=c12p
Table 4.2.23 and the graph illustrate the responses of principals on the question that whether
policy is a cause of conflict? For this question 63.13 % said that yes policy is a cause of conflict,
15.9 % responded in negative and just 0.92 % declined responding on this question.
119
4.2.24. Policy- as cause of conflict
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency
Percent
Does policy be considered cause of conflict?
Yes
118
54.4
No 96
44.2
Missing 3 1.4
Total 217 100.0
1.38%
44.24%54.38%
Missing
No
Yes
policy-cause=c12t
Table 4.2.24 and graph depict the responses of teachers whom were asked about policy as one of
the cause of conflict, for which 54.38 % said that policy is a cause of conflict, 44.2 % said that
policy is not a cause of conflict whereas 1.38 % didn’t comment on this question.
120
Cross-tabulation c12p *c12t Count policy-cause=c12t Total
Yes No Missing
policy-cause=c12p
Yes 85 51 1 137
No 31 45 2 78
Missing 2 0 0 2
Total 118 96 3 217
Symmetric Measures Value Approx.
Sig.
Phi .237 .016
Cramer's V .167 .016
Contingency Coefficient .230 .016
N of Valid Cases 217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on the question whether policy is to be considered as cause of conflict between staff
members and the result was found significant which means that most of the time they agree on
the same level of response.
121
4.2.25. Administrative procedures cause conflict
Item
Principals’ Responses
Frequency Percent
Do other administrative
procedures cause conflict?
Yes
173
79.7
No 43
19.8
Missing 1 .5
Total 217 100.0
0.46%
19.82%
79.72%
Missing
No
Yes
admn prcdur-cause=c13p
Table 4.2.25 and its graph show the responses of principals on the question that whether conflict
is caused by some other administrative procedure, to which 79.7 % responded in affirmative,
19.8 % said no and just 0.46 % declined responding to this question.
122
4.2.26. Administrative procedures cause conflict
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency
Percent
Do other administrative procedures cause conflict?
Yes
171
78.8
No 46
21.2
Total 217 100.0
21.2%
78.8%
No
Yes
admn prcdur-cause=c13t
Table 4.2.26 and the above graph illustrate teachers’ responses on the same question about other
administrative procedure as cause of conflict in which 78.8 % of the teachers said that
administrative procedure can be considered as one of the cause of conflict whereas 21.2 % of the
respondents responded in negative.
123
Cross-tabulation c13p *c13t Count admn prcdur-
cause=c13t Total
Yes No
admn prcdur-cause=c13p Yes 145 28 173
No 25 18 43
Missing 1 0 1
Total 171 46 217
Symmetric Measures Value Appro
x. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi
.253
.001
Cramer's V
.253
.001
Contingency Coefficient
.245 .001
N of Valid Cases
217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on the question that if administrative procedure is cause of conflict b/w staff members and
the result was found significant which means that most of the time both the parties agree that
administrative procedures can be considered as cause of conflict.
124
4.2.27. Distribution of work a cause of conflict
Item
Principals’ Responses
Frequency Percent
Is distribution of work a cause of
conflict?
Yes
160
73.7
No 55 25.3
Missing 2 .9
Total 217 100.0
0.92%
25.35%
73.73%
Missing
No
Yes
work dstrbshn=c14p
In the above table 4.2.27 and the graph responses of principals have been presented as
distribution of work as one of the cause of conflict in which 73.7 % respondents opined that
conflict is caused due to distribution of work among the staff members, 25.35 % of the principals
said that it doesn’t cause conflict in the school whereas 0.92 % remained undecided on this
question.
125
4.2.28. Distribution of work a cause of conflict
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Is distribution of work a cause
of conflict?
Yes
173
79.7
No 41 18.9
Missing 3 1.4
Total 217 100.0
1.38%
18.89%
79.72%
Missing
No
Yes
work dstrbshn=c14t
Table 4.2.28 and its graph which illustrate the responses of teachers on the question whether
distribution of work causes conflict in the school, to this question 79.7 % of the respondents said
that yes conflict is caused due to distribution of work, 18.9 % responded in negative which
means that work distribution is not a cause of conflict and just 1.38 % declined this question.
126
Cross-tabulation c14p *c14t Count work dstrbshn=c14t Total
Yes No Missing
work dstrbshn=c14p
Yes 130 28 2 160
No 42 13 0 55
Missing 1 0 1 2
Total 173 41 3 217
Symmetric Measures Value Appro
x. Sig.
Phi .410 .000
Cramer's V .290 .000
Contingency Coefficient .380 .000
N of Valid Cases 217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on question whether distribution is a cause of conflict b/w staff members and the result
was found significant which testifies the fact that both of principals as well as teachers agree on
the same responses.
127
4.2.29. Conflict- a serious threat to interpersonal relation
Item
Principals’ Responses
Frequency
Percent
Does conflict cause any serious
threat to interpersonal relation of
the staff?
Yes
198
91.2
No 19 8.8 Total 217 100.0
8.76%
91.24%
No
Yes
thrt t rlshnshp=c15p
Table 4.2.29 along with its table shows the responses of the principals on the question that
conflict poses a threat to interpersonal relationships. Here 91.2 % respondents said that it has
some threat to interpersonal relationships.
128
4.2.30. Conflict- a serious threat to interpersonal relation
Item
Teachers’ Responses Frequency Percent
Does conflict cause any serious threat to interpersonal relation of the staff?
Yes
196
90.3
No 21 9.7
Total 217 100.0
9.68%
90.32%
No
Yes
thrt t rlshnshp=c15t
Table 4.2.30 followed by its graph is drawn for the picture that whether conflict poses a threat to
interpersonal relationship, in which 90.3 % respondents focused on the interpersonal
relationships between the staff members, 9.7 % of the respondents replied neither positive nor
negative..
129
Cross-tabulation c15p *c15t Count thrt t rlshnshp=c15t Total
Yes No
Yes 183 15 198
No 13 6 19
Total 196 21 217
Symmetric Measures Value Appro
x. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .229 .001
Cramer's V .229 .001
Contingency Coefficient .224 .001
N of Valid Cases 217
In the above table the symmetric measures between the responses of teachers and principals are
tested on the question that whether conflict causes any threat to interpersonal conflict b/w staff
members and the result was found significant which means that most of the time they agree on
the same level of response.
130
4.6 Conflict Management: This section presents teachers as well as principals’
responses in separate tables then both are presented in the same tables for comparison.
4.3.1. Inviting all stakeholders in managing conflict
CMG1
Item Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal involve all stakeholders in managing conflict?
Never 17
7.8
7.8
Seldom 43 19.8 27.6 Occasionally 32 14.7 42.4 Frequently 29 13.4 55.8 Always 96 44.2 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.1 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal involves all stakeholders in managing conflict. To this question 44.24 % of the teachers
said that principal “always” invite all stake holders in managing conflict, 13.36 % said that they
“frequently” do so, 14.75 % responded for “occasionally”, 19.82 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 7.83 % of the teachers said that they “never” invite all the stake holders for
conflict management.
131
4.3.2. Inviting all stakeholders for managing conflict
CMG1
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you invite all the
stakeholders for managing of
conflict?
Never
14
6.5
6.5
Seldom 22 10.1 16.6 Occasionally 51 23.5 40.1 Frequently 29 13.4 53.5 Always 101 46.5 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.2 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether he
involves all stakeholders in managing conflict. To this question 46.54 % of the principals said
that they “always” invited all stake holders in managing conflict, 13.36 % said that they
“frequently” do so, 23.50 % responded for “occasionally”, 10.14 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 6.45 % of the principals said that they “never” invited all the stake holders for
conflict management.
132
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG1P * CMG1T Cross-tabulation
Count
Involves all stakeholders in managing conflict
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG1P Never 5 0 1 1 7 14
Seldom 0 15 0 1 6 22
Occasionally 3 7 18 4 19 51
Frequently 1 7 4 11 6 29
Always 9 13 10 9 60 101
Total 18 42 33 26 98 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .198 .063 3.149 .002
Kendall's tau-c .175 .055 3.149 .002
N of Valid Cases 217
For the question whether the principal “Involves all stakeholders in managing conflict”,
Correlation between the responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s
correlation technique which is for ordinal by ordinal. Since the p-value lies below 0.002<0.05, it
shows that the correlation between the responses is highly significant which means that both
teachers and principals mostly agree on the same level of response.
133
4.3.3. Communication with the subordinates CMG2
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal communicate well with his subordinates?
Never
4
1.8
1.8
Seldom 12 5.5 7.4
Occasionally 20 9.2 16.6
Frequently 33 15.2 31.8
Always 148 68.2 100.0
Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.3 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal communicates with the subordinates. To this question 68.20 % of the teachers said that
principal “always” communicates with them, 15.21 % said that they “frequently” do so, 9.22 %
responded for “occasionally”, 5.53 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 1.84 % of the
teachers said that they “never” communicated with the teachers.
134
4.3.4. Communication with the subordinates
CMG2
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you communicate with the
subordinates?
Never
7
3.2
3.2
Seldom 4 1.8 5.1 Occasionally 16 7.4 12.4 Frequently 35 16.1 28.6 Always 155 71.4 100.0
Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.4 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether they
communicate with the subordinates. To this question 71.43 % of the principals said that they
“always” communicated with their subordinates, 16.13 % said that they “frequently” do so, 7.37
% responded for “occasionally”, 1.84 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 3.23 % of the
principals said that they “never” communicated with the teachers.
135
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG2P * CMG2T Cross-tabulation
Count
Communicates well with his subordinates
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG2P Never 1 0 0 1 5 7
Seldom 1 0 0 3 0 4
Occasionally 0 0 6 3 7 16
Frequently 0 2 5 7 21 35
Always 1 6 12 23 113 155
Total 3 8 23 37 146 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .184 .065 2.764 .006
Kendall's tau-c .110 .040 2.764 .006
N of Valid Cases 217
For the question whether the principal “Communicates well with his subordinates”, Correlation
between the responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation
technique which is for ordinal by ordinal. Since the p-value 0.006 < 0.05 it shows that the
correlation between the responses is highly significant which means that both teachers and
principals mostly agree on the same level of response.
136
4.3.5. Taking sides in a conflict situation CMG3
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal take sides in a conflict situation?
Never 156
71.9
71.9
Seldom 25 11.5 83.4
Occasionally 19 8.8 92.2
Frequently 6 2.8 94.9
Always 11 5.1 100.0
Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.5 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal takes in conflict situation. To this question 71.89 % of the teachers said that principal
“Never” took side in conflict situation, 2.76 % said that they “frequently” do so, 8.76 %
responded for “occasionally”, 11.52 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 5.07 % of the
teachers said that they “always” take side in a conflict situation.
137
4.3.6. Take sides in a conflict situation
CMG3
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you take sides in a conflict
situation?
Never
179
82.5
82.5
Seldom 15 6.9 89.4 Occasionally 12 5.5 94.9 Frequently 1 .5 95.4 Always 10 4.6 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.6 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether they
take in conflict situation. To this question 82.49 % of the principals said that they “Never” took
side in conflict situation, 0.46 % said that they “frequently” do so, 5.53 % responded for
“occasionally”, 6.91 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 4.61 % of the principals said that
they “always” take side in a conflict situation.
138
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG3P * CMG3T Cross-tabulation
Count
Does take sides in a conflict situation
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG3P Never 135 18 15 3 8 179
Seldom 10 4 0 1 0 15
Occasionally 5 0 6 1 0 12
Frequently 1 0 0 0 0 1
Always 3 1 1 0 5 10
Total 154 23 22 5 13 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .230 .073 2.918 .004
Kendall's tau-c .110 .038 2.918 .004
N of Valid Cases 217
Correlation for the question “does take sides in a conflict situation”, between the responses of
teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation technique which is for
ordinal by ordinal. Since the p-value 0.004<0.05 it testifies that the correlation between the
responses of principals and teachers is highly significant which means that both of them most of
the time agree on the same level of response.
139
4.3.7. Looks for a fair solution in a conflict situation
CMG4
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal look for a fair solution in a conflict situation?
Never
7
3.2
3.2
Seldom 12 5.5 8.8 Occasionally 19 8.8 17.5 Frequently 33 15.2 32.7 Always 146 67.3 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.7 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that the principal
looks for a fair solution conflict situation. To this question 67.28 % of the teachers said that
principal “always” looks for a fair solution of the conflict, 15.21 % said that they “frequently” do
so, 8.76 % responded for “occasionally”, 5.53 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 3.23 % of
the teachers said that they “never” searched for a fair solution of the problem.
140
4.3.8. Look for a fair solution in a conflict situation
CMG4
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you look for a fair solution in
a conflict situation?
Never
5
2.3
2.3
Seldom 4 1.8 4.1 Occasionally 7 3.2 7.4 Frequently 38 17.5 24.9 Always 163 75.1 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.8 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether they
look for a fair solution in a conflict situation. To this question 75.12 % of the principals said that
they “always” looked for a fair solution of the conflict, 17.51 % said that they “frequently” do so,
3.23 % responded for “occasionally”, 1.84 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 2.30 % of the
principals said that they “never” searched for a fair solution of the problem.
141
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG4P * CMG4T Cross-tabulation
Count
Looks for a fair solution in a conflict situation
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG4P Never 1 0 2 0 2 5
Seldom 0 1 0 1 2 4
Occasionally 0 1 2 1 3 7
Frequently 0 2 2 15 19 38
Always 5 7 9 19 123 163
Total 6 11 15 36 149 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .225 .068 3.183 .001
Kendall's tau-c .125 .039 3.183 .001
N of Valid Cases 217
Whether the principal Looks for a fair solution in a conflict situation? Correlation between the
responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation technique for
this question which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value (0.001<0.05) shows that the correlation
between the responses is highly significant which means that both teachers and principals mostly
agree on the same level of response.
142
4.3.9. Principal as a mediator CMG5
Item Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
Does the principal act as a mediator?
Never
8
3.7
3.7
Seldom 17 7.8 11.5
Occasionally 17 7.8 19.4
Frequently 35 16.1 35.5
Always 140 64.5 100.0
Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.9 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal acts as mediator in managing conflict. To this question 64.52 % of the teachers said that
principal “always” acted as mediator in managing conflict, 16.13 % said that they “frequently”
do so, 7.83 % responded for “occasionally”, 7.83 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 3.69 %
of the teachers said that they “never” acted as mediator for conflict management.
143
4.3.10. Principal’s role as a mediator
CMG5
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you act as a mediator in
conflict management?
Never 9
4.1
4.1
Seldom 9 4.1 8.3 Occasionally 23 10.6 18.9 Frequently 42 19.4 38.2 Always 134 61.8 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.10 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they as principal act as mediator in managing conflict. To this question 61.75 % of the principals
said that they “always” acted as mediator in managing conflict, 19.35 % said that they
“frequently” do so, 10.60 % responded for “occasionally”, 4.15 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 4.15 % of the principals said that they “never” acted as mediator for conflict
management.
144
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG5P * CMG5T Cross-tabulation
Count
Acts as a mediator
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG5P Never 3 0 1 0 5 9
Seldom 0 3 1 1 4 9
Occasionally 0 2 5 4 12 23
Frequently 1 4 2 19 16 42
Always 3 9 9 17 96 134
Total 7 18 18 41 133 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .222 .065 3.384 .001
Kendall's tau-c .158 .047 3.384 .001
N of Valid Cases 217
The question whether the principal Acts as a mediator”, Correlation between the responses of
teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation technique which is for
ordinal by ordinal. The p-value which is 0.001<0.05 shows that the correlation between the
responses is highly significant which means that both teachers and principals agree on the same
level of response.
145
4.3.11. Establishing good interpersonal relationships with staff
CMG6
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal strive for
establishing good interpersonal
relationships with staff?
Never
6
2.8
2.8
Seldom 7 3.2 6.0 Occasionally 16 7.4 13.4 Frequently 30 13.8 27.2 Always 158 72.8 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.11 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal strives for establishing good interpersonal relationship among the staff members. To
this question 72.81 % of the teachers said that principal “always” worked for establishing good
relation among his staff members, 13.82 % said that they “frequently” do so, 7.37 % responded
for “occasionally”, 3.23 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 2.76 % of the teachers said that
they “never” worked for establishing good interpersonal relationship among the staff.
146
4.3.12. Establishing good interpersonal relationships
CMG6
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you strive for establishing
good interpersonal relationships
with staff?
Never
5
2.3
2.3
Seldom 1 .5 2.8 Occasionally 13 6.0 8.8 Frequently 22 10.1 18.9 Always 176 81.1 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.12 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they strive for establishing good interpersonal relationship among the staff members. To this
question 81.11 % of the principals said that they “always” worked for establishing good relation
among his staff members, 10.14 % said that they “frequently” do so, 5.99 % responded for
“occasionally”, 0.46 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 2.30 % of the principals said that
they “never” worked for establishing good interpersonal relationship among the staff.
147
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG6P * CMG6T Cross tabulation
Count
Strives for establishing good interpersonal relationships
with staff
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG6P Never 3 0 0 0 2 5
Seldom 0 1 0 0 0 1
Occasionally 0 0 5 2 6 13
Frequently 0 1 1 9 11 22
Always 5 4 11 22 134 176
Total 8 6 17 33 153 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .251 .072 3.230 .001
Kendall's tau-c .123 .038 3.230 .001
N of Valid Cases 217
The principal strives for establishing good interpersonal relationships with staff”, Correlation
between the responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation
technique which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value (0.001<0.05) shows that the correlation
between the responses is highly significant which means that both teachers and principals mostly
agree on the same level of response.
148
4.3.13. Pro-activeness in handling/managing conflict
CMG7
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Is the principal pro-active in
handling or managing
conflict?
Never
10
4.6
4.6
Seldom 14 6.5 11.1 Occasionally 32 14.7 25.8 Frequently 35 16.1 41.9 Always 126 58.1 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.13 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal is proactive in handling or managing conflict. To this question 58.06 % of the teachers
said that principal “always” remained proactive in handling or managing conflict, 16.13 % said
that they “frequently” do so, 14.75 % responded for “occasionally”, 6.45 % of them responded
for “seldom”, and 4.61 % of the teachers said that they “never” were proactive for conflict
management.
149
4.3.14. Pro-activeness in handling/managing conflict
CMG7
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Are you pro-active in handling
or managing conflict?
Never
6
2.8
2.8
Seldom 5 2.3 5.1 Occasionally 23 10.6 15.7 Frequently 39 18.0 33.6 Always 144 66.4 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.14 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they are proactive in handling or managing conflict. To this question 66.36 % of the principals
said that they “always” remained proactive in handling or managing conflict, 17.97 % said that
they “frequently” do so, 10.60 % responded for “occasionally”, 2.30 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 2.76 % of the principals said that they “never” were proactive for conflict
management.
150
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG7P * CMG7T Cross-tabulation
Count
Is pro-active in handling or managing conflict
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG7P Never 1 0 1 2 2 6
Seldom 0 3 0 0 2 5
Occasionally 2 1 7 3 10 23
Frequently 2 3 1 14 19 39
Always 5 9 25 18 87 144
Total 10 16 34 37 120 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .126 .063 2.002 .045
Kendall's tau-c .090 .045 2.002 .045
N of Valid Cases 217
Whether the principal is pro-active in handling or managing conflict”, Correlation between the
responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation technique
which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value 0.045<0.05 shows that the correlation between the
responses is highly significant which means that both teachers and principals mostly agree on the
same level of response.
151
4.3.15. Win-win situation in conflict management
CMG8
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Never
42
19.4
19.4
Does the principal strive for a win-win situation in conflict management?
Seldom
22 10.1 29.5
Occasionally 54 24.9 54.4 Frequently 34 15.7 70.0 Always 65 30.0 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.15 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal strives for a win-win solution of the problem. To this question 29.95 % of the teachers
said that principal “always” strived for a win-win solution, 15.67 % said that they “frequently”
do so, 24.88 % responded for “occasionally”, 10.14 % of them responded for “seldom”, and
19.35 % of the teachers said that they “never” opted for a win-win solution of the problem.
152
4.3.16. Win-win situation in conflict management
CMG8
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you strive for a win-win
situation in conflict
management?
Never
24
11.1
11.1
Seldom 20 9.2 20.3 Occasionally 49 22.6 42.9 Frequently 54 24.9 67.7 Always 70 32.3 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.16 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they strive for a win-win solution of the problem. To this question 32.26 % of the principals said
that they “always” strived for a win-win solution, 24.88 % said that they “frequently” do so,
22.58 % responded for “occasionally”, 9.22 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 11.06 % of
the principals said that they “never” opted for a win-win solution of the problem.
153
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG8P * CMG8T Cross-tabulation
Count
Strives for a win-win situation in conflict management
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG8P Never 7 4 5 4 4 24
Seldom 5 3 3 3 6 20
Occasionally 9 7 19 3 11 49
Frequently 9 4 12 15 14 54
Always 10 5 22 7 26 70
Total 40 23 61 32 61 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .139 .056 2.461 .014
Kendall's tau-c .134 .054 2.461 .014
N of Valid Cases 217
The principal “Strives for a win-win situation in conflict management”, for this question
Correlation between the responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s
correlation technique which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value is 0.014<0.05 which testifies
the fact that the correlation between the responses is highly significant which means that both
teachers and principals mostly agree on the same level of response.
154
4.3.17. Arrangement of workshops on conflict management
CMG9
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal arrange
workshops on conflict
management?
Never
87
40.1
40.1
Seldom 44 20.3 60.4 Occasionally 29 13.4 73.7 Frequently 18 8.3 82.0 Always 39 18.0 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.17 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal arranges any workshop on conflict management. To this question 40.09 % of the
teachers said that principal “Never” arranged any workshop for management of conflict, 20.28 %
said that they “seldom” do so, 13.28 % responded for “occasionally”, 8.29 % of them responded
for “frequently”, and 17.97 % of the teachers opted for “always”.
155
4.3.18. Arrangement of workshops on conflict management
CMG9
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you arrange workshops on
conflict management?
Never
68
31.3
31.3
Seldom 39 18.0 49.3 Occasionally 42 19.4 68.7 Frequently 35 16.1 84.8 Always 33 15.2 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.18 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they arrange any workshop on conflict management. To this question 31.34 % of the principals
said that they “Never” arranged any workshop for management of conflict, 17.97 % said that
they “seldom” did so, 19.35 % responded for “occasionally”, 16.13 % of them responded for
“frequently”, and 15.21 % of the principals opted for “always”.
156
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG9P * CMG9T Cross-tabulation
Count
Arrange workshops on conflict management
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG9P Never 29 12 9 5 13 68
Seldom 12 17 5 2 3 39
Occasionally 9 11 15 3 4 42
Frequently 8 8 5 9 5 35
Always 11 2 4 2 14 33
Total 69 50 38 21 39 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .158 .063 2.509 .012
Kendall's tau-c .154 .061 2.509 .012
N of Valid Cases 217
Whether the principal Arrange workshops on conflict management? Correlation between the
responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation technique
which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value (0.012<0.05) indicates that the correlation between
the responses is significant which means that both teachers and principals mostly agree on the
same level of response.
157
4.3.19. Educators’ training in conflict management skills
CMG10
Item
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Does the principal equip educators
in conflict management skills?
Never
35
16.1
16.1
Seldom 37 17.1 33.2 Occasionally 47 21.7 54.8 Frequently 19 8.8 63.6 Always 79 36.4 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.19 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether
principal equips educators with conflict management skills. To this question 36.41 % of the
teachers said that principal “always” equip educators in conflict management skills, 8.76 % said
that they “frequently” do so, 21.66 % responded for “occasionally”, 17.05 % of them responded
for “seldom”, and 16.13 % of the teachers said that they “never” equipped the educators in
conflict management skills.
158
4.3.20. Educators’ training in conflict management skills
CMG10
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you equip educators with
conflict management skills?
Never
17
7.8
7.8
Seldom 35 16.1 24.0 Occasionally 43 19.8 43.8 Frequently 47 21.7 65.4 Always 75 34.6 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.20 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they as principal equip educators with conflict management skills. To this question 34.56 % of
the principals said that they “always” equipped the educators in conflict management skills,
21.66 % said that they “frequently” did so, 19.82 % responded for “occasionally”, 16.13 % of
them responded for “seldom”, and 7.83 % of the principals said that they “never” equipped the
educators in conflict management skills.
159
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG10P * CMG10T Cross-tabulation
Count
Equip educators with conflict management skills
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG10P Never 7 1 2 0 7 17
Seldom 4 11 8 4 8 35
Occasionally 5 9 11 5 13 43
Frequently 7 4 9 15 12 47
Always 11 12 9 7 36 75
Total 34 37 39 31 76 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .136 .061 2.241 .025
Kendall's tau-c .130 .058 2.241 .025
N of Valid Cases 217
For the question Equip educators with conflict management skills, the Correlation between the
responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation technique
which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value is 0.025<0.05 which shows that the correlation
between the responses is highly significant which means that both teachers and principals mostly
agree on the same level of response.
160
4.3.21. Collaborative approach for conflict management
CMG11
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal adopt a
collaborative approach for conflict
management?
Never
8
3.7
3.7
Seldom 14 6.5 10.1 Occasionally 16 7.4 17.5 Frequently 38 17.5 35.0 Always 141 65.0 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.21 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal adopts a collaborative approach for the solution of the problem. To this question 64.96
% of the teachers said that principal “always” opted for a collaborative approach, 17.51 % said
that they “frequently” do so, 7.37 % responded for “occasionally”, 6.45 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 3.69 % of the teachers said that they “never” opted for a collaborative approach
when resolving the problem.
161
4.3.22. Collaborative approach for conflict management
CMG11
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you adopt a collaborative
approach for conflict management?
Never
7
3.2
3.2
Seldom 5 2.3 5.5 Occasionally 12 5.5 11.1 Frequently 50 23.0 34.1 Always 143 65.9 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.22 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they adopt a collaborative approach for the solution of the problem. To this question 65.90 % of
the principals said that they “always” opted for a collaborative approach, 23.04 % said that they
“frequently” do so, 5.53 % responded for “occasionally”, 2.30 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 3.23 % of the principals said that they “never” opted for a collaborative approach
when resolving the problem.
162
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG11P * CMG11T Cross-tabulation
Count
Collaborative approach for conflict management skills
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG11P Never 1 0 0 0 6 7
Seldom 0 1 0 1 3 5
Occasionally 1 0 4 1 6 12
Frequently 1 2 3 24 20 50
Always 3 5 9 21 105 143
Total 6 8 16 47 140 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .200 .066 3.016 .003
Kendall's tau-c .130 .043 3.016 .003
N of Valid Cases 217
The principal adopts a collaborative approach for conflict management” this question was put
both to principals and teachers; the correlation between the responses of teachers and principals
was calculated through kendall’s correlation technique which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-
value which is 0.003, and is less than 0.05, shows that the correlation between the responses is
highly significant which means that both teachers and principals mostly agree on the same level
of response.
163
4.3.23. Compromising solution for ending conflict
CMG12
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal seek a
compromising solution for ending
conflict?
Never
11
5.1
5.1
Seldom 10 4.6 9.7 Occasionally 14 6.5 16.1 Frequently 47 21.7 37.8 Always 135 62.2 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.23 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal strives for a compromising solution of the problem. To this question 62.21 % of the
teachers said that principal “always” strived for a compromising solution, 21.66 % said that they
“frequently” do so, 6.45 % responded for “occasionally”, 4.61 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 5.07 % of the teachers said that they “never” opted for a compromising solution of
the problem.
164
4.3.24. Compromising solution for ending conflict
CMG12
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you seek a compromising
solution for ending conflict?
Never
7
3.2
3.2
Seldom 5 2.3 5.5 Occasionally 22 10.1 15.7 Frequently 40 18.4 34.1 Always 143 65.9 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.24 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they as principal strived for a compromising solution of the problem. To this question 65.90 % of
the principals said that they “always” strived for a compromising solution, 18.43 % said that they
“frequently” do so, 10.14 % responded for “occasionally”, 2.30 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 3.23 % of the principals said that they “never” opted for a compromising solution
of the problem.
165
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG12P * CMG12T Cross-tabulation
Count
Seeks a compromising solution for ending conflict
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG12P Never 4 0 0 0 3 7
Seldom 0 3 0 1 1 5
Occasionally 0 1 9 3 9 22
Frequently 2 2 3 13 20 40
Always 8 7 6 28 94 143
Total 14 13 18 45 127 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb
Approx.
Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .219 .065 3.271 .001
Kendall's tau-c .153 .047 3.271 .001
N of Valid Cases 217
The question whether Seeks a compromising solution for ending conflict, its Correlation between
the responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation technique
which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value (0.001<0.05) shows that the correlation between the
responses is highly significant which means that both teachers and principals mostly agree on the
same level of response.
166
4.3.25. Competitive approach to deal with conflict
CMG13
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal prefer
competitive approach to deal with
conflict?
Never
37
17.1
17.1
Seldom 30 13.8 30.9 Occasionally 44 20.3 51.2 Frequently 32 14.7 65.9 Always 74 34.1 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.25 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal prefers a competitive approach for conflict management. To this question 34.10 % of
the teachers said that principal “always” strived for a competitive approach, 14.75 % said that
they “frequently” do so, 20.28 % responded for “occasionally”, 13.82 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 17.05 % of the teachers said that they “never” opted for a competitive approach
for solution of the problem.
167
4.3.26. Competitive approach to deal with conflict
CMG13
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you prefer a competitive
approach to deal with conflict?
Never
22
10.1
10.1
Seldom 23 10.6 20.7 Occasionally 45 20.7 41.5 Frequently 62 28.6 70.0 Always 65 30.0 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.26 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they prefer a competitive approach for conflict management. To this question 29.95 % of the
principals said that they “always” strived for a competitive approach, 28.57 % said that they
“frequently” do so, 20.74 % responded for “occasionally”, 10.60 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 10.14 % of the principals said that they “never” opted for a competitive approach
for solution of the problem.
168
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG13P * CMG13T Cross-tabulation
Count
Prefers competitive approach to deal with conflict
Total Never Seldom occasionally Frequently Always
CMG13P Never 7 3 2 1 9 22
Seldom 4 5 5 4 5 23
Occasionally 9 4 22 3 7 45
Frequently 7 8 12 20 15 62
Always 14 5 9 9 28 65
Total 41 25 50 37 64 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .131 .062 2.097 .036
Kendall's tau-c .126 .060 2.097 .036
N of Valid Cases 217
“The principal prefers a competitive approach to deal with conflict” for which correlation
between the responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation
technique which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value was calculated as 0.036 which is less than
0.05 shows that the correlation between the responses of both principals as well as is highly
significant which means that both teachers and principals mostly agree on the same level of
response.
169
4.3.27. Accommodating approach to resolve the conflict
CMG14
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal accommodate
the conflicting parties to resolve
the conflict?
Never
4
1.8
1.8
Seldom 9 4.1 6.0 Occasionall
y 34 15.7 21.7
Frequently 43 19.8 41.5 Always 127 58.5 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.27 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal adopts an accommodating approach for resolution of conflict. To this question 58.53 %
of the teachers said that principal “always” adopted an accommodating approach for solution of
the problem, 19.82 % said that they “frequently” do so, 15.67 % responded for “occasionally”,
4.15 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 1.84 % of the teachers said that they “never” opted
for an accommodating approach.
170
4.3.28. Accommodative approach for resolving conflict
CMG14
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you accommodate the
conflicting parties to resolve the
conflict?
Never
3
1.4
1.4
Seldom 6 2.8 4.1 Occasionally 24 11.1 15.2 Frequently 49 22.6 37.8 Always 135 62.2 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.28 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they as principal adopt an accommodating approach for resolution of conflict. To this question
62.21 % of the principals said that they “always” adopted an accommodating approach for
solution of the problem, 22.58 % said that they “frequently” do so, 11.06 % responded for
“occasionally”, 2.76 % of them responded for “seldom”, and 1.38 % of the principals said that
they “never” opted for an accommodating approach.
171
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG14P * CMG14T Cross-tabulation
Count
Accommodates the conflicting parties to resolve the issue
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG14P Never 1 0 0 0 2 3
Seldom 0 5 0 1 0 6
Occasionally 1 0 10 3 10 24
Frequently 0 2 3 22 22 49
Always 2 5 22 20 86 135
Total 4 12 35 46 120 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .207 .066 3.080 .002
Kendall's tau-c .151 .049 3.080 .002
N of Valid Cases 217
Both of the principals as well as the teachers were put the question whether the principal
accommodates the conflicting parties to resolve the conflict? The correlation between the
responses of teachers and principals was calculated through kendall’s correlation technique
which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value (0.002<0.05) shows that the correlation between the
responses is highly significant which means that both teachers and principals mostly agree on the
same level of response.
172
4.3.29. Avoidance approach for ending conflict
CMG15
Item Frequency Percent
Cumulative Percent
Does the principal use avoidance
approach for conflict
management?
Never
108
49.8
49.8
Seldom 40 18.4 68.2 Occasionally 28 12.9 81.1 Frequently 16 7.4 88.5 Always 25 11.5 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.29 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal adopts an avoidance approach for ending the conflict. To this question 49.77 % of the
teachers said that principal “never” adopted such an approach for solution of the problem, 18.43
% said that they “seldom” do so, 12.90 % responded for “occasionally”, 7.37 % of them
responded for “frequently”, and 11.52 % of the teachers said that they “always” opted an
avoidance approach for resolving the conflict.
173
4.3.30. Avoidance approach for ending conflict
CMG15
Item
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Do you use avoidance approach
for conflict management?
Never
150
69.1
69.1
Seldom 31 14.3 83.4 Occasionally 13 6.0 89.4 Frequently 10 4.6 94.0 Always 13 6.0 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.30 illustrate principals’ responses on the question that whether
they as principal adopt an avoidance approach for ending the conflict. To this question 69.12 %
of the principals said that principal “never” adopted such an approach for solution of the
problem, 14.29 % said that they “seldom” do so, 5.29 % responded for “occasionally”, 4.61 % of
them responded for “frequently”, and 5.99 % of the principals that they “always” opted for an
avoidance approach for resolving the conflict.
174
Crosstabs
[DataSet1] E:\Teacher and Principal Analysis.sav
CMG15P * CMG15T Cross-tabulation
Count
Avoids conflict whenever it occurs
Total Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
CMG15P Never 79 29 15 13 14 150
Seldom 11 12 4 1 3 31
Occasionally 5 2 4 1 1 13
Frequently 5 2 1 1 1 10
Always 2 1 0 0 10 13
Total 102 46 24 16 29 217
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b .182 .064 2.805 .005
Kendall's tau-c .134 .048 2.805 .005
N of Valid Cases 217
Both principals and teachers were asked the question whether the principal avoids conflict
whenever it occurs? The correlation between the responses of teachers and principals was
calculated through kendall’s correlation technique which is for ordinal by ordinal. The p-value
which is 0.005 and which is less than 0.05 shows that the correlation between the responses of
principals as well as teachers is highly significant which means that both teachers and principals
mostly agree on the same level of response.
175
4.3.31. Tries to know the root cause of the conflict
CMG16
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal try to know
the root cause of the conflict?
Never
16
7.4
7.4
Seldom 18 8.3 15.7 Occasionally 12 5.5 21.2 Frequently 39 18.0 39.2 Always 132 60.8 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.31 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal tries to know the root cause of conflict. To this question 60.83 % of the teachers said
that principal “always” tried to know the root cause of conflict, 17.97 % said that they
“frequently” do so, 5.53 % responded for “occasionally”, 8.29 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 7.37 % of the teachers said that they “never” tried to know the root cause of
conflict.
176
4.3.32. Inviting and listening to the conflicting parties
CMG17
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal invite the
conflicting parties and listens to
them?
Never
14
6.5
6.5
Seldom 14 6.5 12.9 Occasionally 13 6.0 18.9 Frequently 33 15.2 34.1 Always 143 65.9 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.32 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal invites the conflicting parties and listens to them. To this question 65.90 % of the
teachers said that principal “always” invited the conflicting parties and listened to them, 15.21 %
said that they “frequently” do so, 5.99 % responded for “occasionally”, 6.45 % of them
responded for “seldom”, and 6.45 % of the teachers said that they “never” tried to invite the
conflicting parties.
177
4.3.33. Inviting the community members to solve the issue
CMG18
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal invite the
community members to solve the
issue?
Never
46
21.2
21.2
Seldom 49 22.6 43.8 Occasionally 36 16.6 60.4 Frequently 27 12.4 72.8 Always 59 27.2 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.33 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal invites the community member to solve the problem. To this question 27.19 % of the
teachers said that principal “always” tried to invited the community member for solution of the
problem, 12.44 % said that they “frequently” do so, 16.59 % responded for “occasionally”, 22.58
% of them responded for “seldom”, and 21.20 % of the teachers said that they “never” invited
the community member to solve the problem.
178
4.3.34. Using his powers to handle the conflict
CMG19
Item
Frequency
Percent Cumulative Percent
Does the principal use his powers
to handle the conflict?
Never 34 15.7 15.7
Seldom 44 20.3 35.9 Occasionally 41 18.9 54.8 Frequently 31 14.3 69.1 Always 67 30.9 100.0 Total 217 100.0
The above graph and table 4.3.34 illustrate teachers’ responses on the question that whether the
principal uses his powers to handle the conflict. To this question 30.88 % of the teachers said
that principal “always” tried to use his power to handle conflict, 14.29 % said that they
“frequently” do so, 18.893 % responded for “occasionally”, 20.28 % of them responded for
“seldom”, and 15.67 % of the teachers said that they “never” used his powers to handle the
conflict.
179
4.7. Conflict Resolution Model (CRM): The following 8 steps Model is forwarded
for resolution of interpersonal conflict in the schools; these steps are:
1. Nature of Conflict: In the first step, nature of conflict needs to be determined,
i.e. whether the conflict is mild or of serious nature.
2. Parties Involved in Conflict: In this step, it is to find out who are in conflict
with each other i.e. whether this conflict is b/w teacher-teacher of b/w teacher-
principal.
3. Causes of Conflict: The third step is to find out the probable cause/causes of the
conflict.
4. Impact on Performance: Once causes of conflict are found out, then each
individual or party involved should be convinced about the impact of conflict on
individual as well as organizational performance.
5. Persons/Parties involved in Conflict Resolution Process: Here it is determined
that who are going to initiate the conflict resolution process, i.e. whether conflict is
resolved by the principal or by the parties involved or by some outside individual
or agency? If conflict is mild it can be resolved by the principal himself and if it is
of some serious nature then community member can be engaged in the resolution
process.
6. Conflict Resolution Strategies/Techniques: Once it is determined that who will
resolve the conflict, the next step is the selection of proper technique for its
management. The data revealed that the more preferred styles of the principal for
conflict management are; Accommodating, Compromising, Collaborating. It is up
to the individual/principal that what particular style/styles are adopted by him.
7. Parties Reaction: In this step it is observed whether both the parties are satisfied
with whatever options are provided for conflict resolution. If both the parties accept
the agreement the conflict is resolved and if neither party is agreed to the solution
then it means that conflict still needs to be resolved.
8. Redefine area of Conflict: In this stage the principal looks for other options as
he redefines the conflict. He looks for some new solution of the problem as he finds
all the available options of no use.
180
4.8. Diagrammatic Presentation of CRM: This diagrammatic presentation of the model
is based on the findings of the data derived from teachers and principals’ responses of the target
population. The Model developed here is derived from already existent models which uses five
styles/approaches for resolution of conflict, these are; Accommodating, Competitive, Avoidance,
Collaboration, and Compromising.
The findings of the data show that three approaches for conflict resolution have been most of the
time followed/adopted; these styles/approaches are Accommodating, Compromising and
Collaborative approach. However it depends on the person as well as the situation that which
approach best suits the conflict situation.
Conflict
Mild Serious
Party Involved
Teacher₋Teacher Teacher₋Principal
Causes
Policy (School)
Admin Procedure
Work Load
Curriculum Distribution of Work
Impact on Performance
Organizational Outcome
Individual Performance
181
Conflict Resolution Model (CRM)
Resolution Personnel
By 3rd Party / Community Members (if conflict is serious)
By Teacher / Parties involved (if conflict is mild)
By Principal (if conflict is mild)
Techniques
CompetitiveCompromising Accommodate Collaboration Avoidance
Parties’ ReactionParties’ Reaction
Neither
party
satisfied
Both parties
satisfied
Conflict
unresolved
Conflict
Resolved
Redefine Areas of Conflict
182
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Summary:
The primary goal of this study was to determine the occurrence of conflict in secondary schools
of KP, its causes, nature and probable conflict management approaches adopted by the school
administrators and finally development of a conflict resolution model for school principal. A
detailed questionnaire was developed for schools’ teachers and principals of the selected districts
of KP. Different statistical analyses’ techniques were applied in order to determine the exact
nature of conflict and model used for its management; analysis techniques such as Kendall’s Tau
b and Kendall’s Tau c were considered appropriate for analysis of data.
Main focus of this study was to find out the nature and causes of conflict, furthermore it also
highlighted the utilization of various conflict management skills/approaches by the principals. In
order to get relevant information both from the principals and teachers, two questionnaires were
developed. After properly administering the questionnaires, the data were tabulated, analyzed
and interpreted. Kindalls’ Tau B and Tau C were used for analysis of data which was appropriate
for data having multiple types of responses.
In this chapter, the data analyses are divided into two sections. The first section interprets the
findings/results of the analyses. The second section reviews the results of the two types of
analyses and compares the two sets of findings. The most important purpose of this chapter is to
lay the foundation by summarizing the findings of this study. Another important task of this
chapter is to make it end on a good note, the closure of data, elicit from it all the findings,
interpreting the results and finally forwarding the recommendations for future studies.
183
5.2. Findings of the study:
Following are some of the major findings of the study about conflict, its nature, causes and
conflict management strategies of secondary schools’ principals.
5.1 The study revealed that 82.9% of the school principals and 81.1% teachers unanimously
agreed that interpersonal conflict exists in their schools. Their responses on symmetric
measure also testified the fact that both of them agree on the same level of response.
5.2 This study further revealed that 81.1% principals and 88.9% school teachers were
unanimous that whenever conflict occurred in their schools, it had never been of any
threatening nature, although they both agreed that conflict have been occurring in their
schools.
5.3 Majority of the principals i.e. 74.7% as well as 76% teachers opined that conflict was
mild one which occurred in their schools as shown in the findings of this research study.
5.4 The study also identified that 89.4% of the principals viewed their staff in conflict with
their colleagues whereas 45.6% of teachers denied that they ever remained in conflict
with their colleagues.
5.5 Most of the teachers i.e. 61.8% and the same 61.8% of the principals unanimously
responded that conflict was solved in their respective schools.
5.6 Findings of the research showed that 16.1% of the principals as well as 14.3% of teachers
were unanimous on the nonexistence of conflict in their schools, both of the groups of
respondents said once solved conflict were not seen in their schools among the staff
members.
5.7 The study revealed that 93.1% principals and 90.8% of teachers were of the view that
whenever there was any conflict in the work environment; it had its effects on individual
as well as organizational performance.
5.8 The study also tried to know about the need of conflict management training for the
educators, which found the responses of both the principals as well as schools’ teachers
i.e. 93.5% and 91.2% respectively agreed on the need of this training for the educators.
184
5.9 The findings of this study revealed that almost the same practice has been followed by
42.9% of the principals and 44.7% of the teachers of keeping all the conflicting issues to
themselves and don’t report to their authorities about conflict or other problem issues of
their schools.
5.10 It was reported both by 31.3% of the principals and 41.5% of teachers that their
authorities never offered any help in conflict management; the reason for this might be
keeping the higher authorities in dark about conflict in their schools.
5.11 The research findings forwarded that 26.3% of principals and 18.9% of teachers
considered curriculum as one the cause of conflict but both of the target population said
that it was not a major cause of conflict in their schools.
5.12 Most of the 63.1% of principals as well as 54.4% of teachers agreed that school policy
might be considered as one of the cause of conflict in the schools.
5.13 The study revealed that 79.7% of the principals and 78.8% of school teachers were
unanimous on the fact that administrative procedures might be considered as the major
cause of conflict in work environment.
5.14 Majority of the respondents i.e. 73.3% of principals and 79.7% of teachers were of the
opinion the one the major cause of conflict in the schools was distribution of work among
the staff members.
5.15 Findings of this research also showed that 90.3% of teachers and 91.2% of principals
opined that conflict caused serious threat to interpersonal relationship of the staff.
Following are some of the major findings of the study about the conflict management strategies
of the secondary schools’ principals;
5.16 Majority of teachers said that the principals involved all the stakeholders while managing
conflict in the schools. Principals’ responses showed that they always invited all the stake-
holders for management of conflict in the schools.
185
5.17 Findings of the study also revealed that most of the teachers supported the claim that the
principals keep better communication with the subordinates. The principals said that they
always remained in touch with their subordinates while dealing with conflict.
5.18 The study also revealed that all the teachers were of the view that the principals never took
side in any conflict among the staff members. All the principals denied that they ever tried
to get into conflict of the teachers. It means that none of the principals ever took side in
any conflict.
5.19 The findings of the study testified the fact that majority of the teachers said that their
principals looked for a fair solution of the conflict. Responses of the principals showed
that they always looked for fair solution of the conflict.
5.20 The teachers’ response as the role of principal as mediator in conflict situation is proved
from the findings that most of the time the principal acted as mediator in conflicts.
Majority of the principals said that they always acted as mediator whenever any conflict
occurred in the schools.
5.21 The study showed that most of the time the principal tried to establish and maintain good
interpersonal relationship with all his staff. All the principals responded that they always
tried to establish good interpersonal relation among all the staff.
5.22 This study also focused to find the pro-activeness of the principals which was revealed
from the responses of teachers that most of the time the principals remained pro-active in
handling conflict. The principals opined that they remained pro-active while handling with
conflict in the schools.
5.23 Findings delineated the fact that according to the teachers’ responses about win-win
approach of conflict management of the principal, the principals occasionally followed this
approach for handling of conflict. All the principals were unanimous on the point that they
occasionally followed a win-win approach whenever they dealt with conflict.
186
5.24 The study further revealed that most of the teachers said that their principals never tried to
arrange workshop on conflict management. Regarding the arrangement of workshop on
conflict management, all the principals agreed that there was no proper arrangement of
such type of workshops.
5.25 Findings showed that the teachers’ response regarding equipping educators with conflict
management has never been given due attention by the principals. The findings revealed
that all the principals frequently tried to equip the educators in conflict management skills.
5.26 This study further testifies the teachers’ response that most of the time the principals follow
a collaborative approach while managing conflict, the findings showed that this approach is
the preferred conflict management style of the principals. Majority of the principals said
that they always preferred a collaborative approach for management of conflict.
5.27 Findings from the teachers’ responses showed that the second preferred style of the
principals for conflict management is compromising, it showed that most of the time the
principals followed a compromising approach while dealing with conflict. According to the
principals’ responses about conflict management style they said that their second most
preferred style is compromising.
5.28 The study also revealed that teachers were of the opinion that the principals frequently or
never opted for a competitive approach in conflict management. All of the principals were
unanimous that they seldom used a competitive approach for management of conflict.
5.29 Teachers’ responses further revealed that the principals also adopted an accommodating
approach while dealing with conflict. According to findings of principals’ responses the
third preferred conflict management style of the principals is the accommodating approach.
5.30 Findings of the study showed that according to the view points of teachers, the principals
never followed an avoiding approach for managing of conflict. Majority of the principals
said that they never adopted an avoidance approach for management of conflict.
5.31 Majority of the teachers said that the principals always tried to know the root cause of
conflict among the staff members.
187
5.32 Findings showed that majority of the principals always invited the conflicting partied and
listened to them in order to reach the base of the conflict.
5.33 The study also revealed that the principals seldom invited the community members for
resolution of conflict; it shows that majority of the principals tried to resolve the conflict
inside the school.
5.34 Teachers’ responses in this study showed that the principals never used his powers to
handle the conflict. It means that the principals didn’t impose their decision in management
of conflict in the schools.
5.3. Limitations:
The researcher tried his level best to obtain first hand knowledge of the respondents on conflict
and conflict management approaches of the principals. But still there were several limitations to
this research study. These limitations mostly relate to the research design, participants,
instruments, and other factors. First, the descriptive design provided a few limitations. The
survey approach concentrated mainly on the respondents who are easily accessible and who were
found to be cooperative. Second limitation is regarding an acceptable and recommended return
rate of the respondents. A third factor was that there was no assurance to the fact that all the
respondents would have understood all the questionnaires’ items in its entirety, although utmost
care was taken by the researcher to make clear, for understanding, all the items for the
respondents but it was very difficult to visit personally the whole target population. Another
major limitation of this study was that sample did not have a substantial representation from
diverse gender, all levels of schools i.e. primary and higher secondary schools of all the districts
of the province. No particular scale was developed for assessing conflict management styles of
schools’ principals, rather their responses were obtained on the five conflict management styles
of the principals i.e. Avoidance, Competing, Collaboration, Compromising and Accommodation.
It would have been better if the views of those were obtained who had been actually in conflict
with their colleagues in their service career.
Another important drawback of the instrument was that the items might have elicited artificial
responses of the teachers as well as principals; the main reason for this was that both teachers as
well as principals feel reluctant to communicate the exact information regarding such issues.
188
Finally, development of an instrument would have elicited more accurate information regarding
the individual conflict management approach of each principal.
5.4. Recommendations for Practice
Although there is rich literature available on conflict management but in practice it is almost
nonexistent in public schools of Pakistan. Conflict is a necessary part of school life but its causes
although common and known to all concerned have never been explored by anyone. This study
adds to the seemingly nonexistent literature concerning conflict in schools and conflict
management styles of schools’ principals in the selected districts of KP. In addition, it introduces
a new arena of resolving interpersonal conflict in a systematic and constructive way by the
parties involved. Finally, there are minimal training opportunities available for the educators as
well as schools’ heads; this study provides a new insight for the higher authorities to arrange
workshops for conflict management. Based on the findings of this research, specific implications
exist for all teachers, principals, education officers and policy makers to understand the
importance of conflict in work relation.
School principals need to gain more knowledge about conflict and their conflict management
styles in order to adopt better approaches for handling of conflict in the schools. Besides this,
knowledge of steps involved in conflict resolution process need to be actively learnt and
practiced by teachers as well as principals. The reason is that if the principal is not available in
the school the teachers may solve their own problem by themselves. In the school setting, the
principals are mainly responsible for resolving any type of interpersonal conflicts among his
staff; therefore, it is mandatory that the principals have to pick and determine the appropriate
management style and strategy so as to resolve the conflict to the best satisfaction of parties
involved. For this purpose the principal needs to be aware that there are many options available
for resolving any type of conflict. It would be better that if the educators are trained in conflict
management skills they would increase their awareness of conflict in schools and they would
work for its management without the intervention of any outside agency.
Studies show that in most foreign countries the local schools administrators appoint in their
schools coordinators and guidance counselors for resolution of conflict in the schools among the
staff as well as students’ conflicts but in the existing scenario of our school setting there is no
such practice therefore it is important that all the educators must be trained in conflict resolution
189
program. Once the educators get into practice of managing the conflict they would further
improve their level of conflict management skills.
Public schools should ensure that all the principals and teachers have equal opportunities of
access for improving their conflict management skills. For this purpose seminar, workshops and
training programs can be beneficial in gaining additional knowledge that is needed for bringing
any further improvement in their training.
5.5. Recommendations for Further Study/ies:
This study addressed a need for research to explore the nature of conflict and conflict
management strategies of the schools’ principals as to what extent they are prepared in these
conflict resolution activities. Although findings of this research show that most preferred styles
of the schools’ principals for handling interpersonal conflict are Accommodation, Collaboration
and compromising. Following these styles by the principals, as this study’s findings show, ask
for clarification of several questions. Examples of these questions are: Why do principals prefer
these three conflict management styles i.e. Compromising, Collaborating, and Accommodating?
Why do they stick to more than one particular style? Are they trained in these particular conflict
management styles or adopting these styles is just a chance factor? Is it not possible to solve any
issue by following just one approach? Why did this variance exist in the selection of more than
one conflict management style by the principal? Why there are no training program/work shops
for educators on conflict management?
To help answer these questions, suggestions for future studies are as follow; the researcher has
already mentioned in this study that selection of the sample might have provided superficial data
on conflict management in the schools, therefore it would be better if a qualitative type of
investigation is conducted. It would be more result oriented, it would search out the conflicting
parties and the data can be obtained by interviewing them. Second, it would also try to know that
why zero importance is given such an important aspect of work relation, third it would also
include the higher authorities as to why they don’t provide training opportunities and arrange
workshops on conflict management. Fourth a study in order to determine the impact conflict
resolution/management workshops on the styles of the principals might be useful. This type of
study would consist of a pre and post test design in order to analyze whether conflict
management workshops has any positive influence or not. Finally, a study that investigates the
190
conflict management styles of schools principals should develop and utilize a conflict
management scale in order to determine the exact nature of conflict and the specific style
adopted by the principals as well as the educators.
5.6. Conclusion:
Conflict and conflict resolution is no doubt a necessary part of all the organizations and our
educational institutions too are replete with more than one type of conflict in the interpersonal
relationships of the staff. Differences exist regarding the existence of conflict management
programs in the schools. Once conflict is recognized as part and parcel of school life, it is
needless to say that there wouldn’t be a conflict management strategy for its solution. The study
concludes that all schools have got one or other kind of conflicts; causes have been identified for
its existence and the need to train educators in order to handle conflicts effectively. Resolution of
all interpersonal conflicts and a timely coordination of all conflict resolution activities are
considered one of the permanent aspects of the principals’ personalities. The principals need to
be trained in conflict management so as to enable them to know well before time whatever the
causes of conflict and to resolve them on priority basis in order to avoid any kind of
inconvenience among the staff members. Thus in all working relations between his staff
members he would play a leading role for resolution of conflict and he would further establish
rapport with all his staff so that they should openly discuss all their concerns with him. The
principal would be in a better position to provide further training opportunities to his
subordinates in handling of interpersonal conflicts. Furthermore it has also been identified
through findings of the study that almost no assistance/help is rendered by the higher authorities;
the reason is that they are not informed of these conflicts.
The recognition of conflict, its management strategies and the principals’ role in these activities
need to be recognized by all the stakeholders. The better trained the schools’ principals and
educators are the better they would be able to handle the conflict.
191
REFERENCES:
1. Achoka. J, Conflict resolution: The need for virtuosity. (Education Canada 30 (1), 1990)
p.46
2. A.D. Slabbert (2004) Conflict management styles in Traditional Organizations, The
Social Science Journal 41 Faculty of Management, Cape Technikon, P.O. Box 652, Cape
Town, South Africa, pp 86-87
3. Association for Conflict Resolution (2002) School-Based Conflict Resolution Education
Program Standard, Washington, D.C. p.1
4. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001) Interpersonal conflict and its management in
information system development MIS Quarterly, 25, p.197
5. Bartol, K.M. & Martin, D.C. (1991). Information to change the world. New York:
McGraw-Hill.p.580
6. Bentley, M. (1996) Conflict resolution in schools: Quicker peace and service Cambridge,
U.S.A: Cambridge University Press, p.4
7. Billisberry, J. (1999). Power And Managing Conflict (Book4), London: The Open
University Printing Press, p.30
8. Blackman and Fenwick (2000), Blackman, M. C., & Fenwick, L. T. (2000). The principal
ship: Looking for leaders in a time of change. Education Week, 19(29), p.46
9. Bodin, R.J & Crawford, D.k (1999) Developing emotional intelligence: A guide to
behaviour management and conflict resolution in schools. North Mattis Avenue:
Research Press, p.155
10. Bolam, R. (1999) ‘Educational administration, leadership and management: towards a
research agenda’, in T. Bush, L. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter and P. Ribbins (eds),
Educational Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practice. London, Paul
Chapman Publishing. P.194
11. Brinkman.R & Kirshner.R (2003) Dealing with Difficult People Mcgraw-Hill New York
Chicago San Francisco Lisbon. P 18
12. Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2003) School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence, Nottingham:
NCSL.p.10
192
13. Campbell, R.F., Carbally, J.E., and Nustrand, R.O. (1983). Introduction to Educational
Administration (6th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc P.194
14. Chandan, Jet. (1994). Organizational Behavior, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House pvt.
Ltd. P.271
15. Carter McNamara, Basics of Conflict Management, Adapted from the Field Guide to
Leadership and Supervision. Retrieved from
http://managementhelp.org/intrpsnl/basics.htm, dated: 15-3-2010
16. Corwin, R. G., and R. A. Edelfelt (1977) Perspectives on organizations. Washington, D.C
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, p 76
17. Corwin, Ronald G. (1967) "Education and the sociology of complex organizations." in
Donald A. Hansen and Joel E. Gerstl (eds.), On Education - Sociological Perspectives.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, p.169
18. Coser, L. (1972). 'Introduction', Journal of Social Issues 28, 1-10.
19. Cora Elaine Harper (2004), The Conflict Management Styles, Strength of Conflict
Management Self-Efficacy, And Moral Development Levels Of School Counselors, A
dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, p.24
20. Cresswell, J.W. 1994.Research design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
London: Sage.
21. Cuban, L. (1988), The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. P.20
22. David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson (1996), Review of Educational Research, Vol.
66, No. 4, American Educational Research Association, pp. 459-506
193
23. Deer, C.B. (1972)." Conflict Resolution in Organizations: Views from the Field of
Educational Administration", Public Administration Review, vol 32,No.5, pp.496
24. Denohue, W. A. and B. Kott. (1992), Managing Interpersonal Conflict. Newbury, Park
Calif.: Sage Publication.
25. Deetz, Stanley A., and Sheryl L. Stevenson. (1986) Managing interpersonal
communication. New York: Harper and ROW, p 205
26. Donald, D. Lazarus, S. & Lolwana, P. (1997). Educational psychology in social context:
Challenges of development, social issues and special needs in South Africa. A teacher
resource. Cape Town: Juta and Co.p.130
27. Deutsch, M. (1973)"Conflicts: productive and destructive." In Conflict resolution through
communication. Edited by F. E. Jandt. New York: Harper and Row, p.156
28. Deutsch, M.(2005). Cooperation and Conflict. In West, M.A, Tjosvold, D.& Smith, K.G.
The essentials of teamwork: International perspective. Maryland: Wiley, p.15
29. Deutsch, M. (1977) The resolution of conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
30. D’Oosterlinck, F. & Broekaert, E. (2003) Integrating school-based and therapeutic
conflict management models at schools. The journal of school Health. 73 (6): 222
31. Dugan, M. A. (1996) “A Nested Theory of Conflict.” Leadership journal: Women in
Leadership- Sharing the Vision, I (I), 9-20.
32. Druckman, D., & Zechmeister, K. (1973). Conflict of interest and value dissensus:
Propositions in the sociology of conflict. Human Relations, 26, p. 450
33. Druckman, D., Broome, B. J., & Korper, S. H. (1988). Value differences and conflict
Resolution: Facilitation or delinking? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32, 489
194
34. Elam, S., Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (1994) The 26th annual Gallup poll of the public's
attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 41-56.
35. E. M. Beck and Michael Betz (1975), A Comparative Analysis of Organizational
Conflict in Schools Sociology of Education, Vol. 48, No. 1, American Sociological
Association, p 60.
36. Fisher, R.J. (1997). Interactive conflict resolution. Syracause University Press :
Syracause, New York. P.6
37. Foder, E.m. (1976).'' Group stress Authoritarian Style of Control and use of power'',
Journal of Applied Psychollogy. Vol. 61 No.3, PP 313-317.
38. Folger, J., Poole, M., and Stutman, R. (1997). Working through conflict. Addison-Wesley
Educational Publishers Inc., New York, p.34.
39. Follett, M. P. (1940). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.),
Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 30–49). New
York: Harper & Row. (originally published 1926).
40. Gebretensay Tesfay (2002), A Study of factors that generate conflict between
government secondary school teachers and educational managers in Addis Ababa
Administrative Region, A Thesis presented to The School of Graduate Studies Addis
Ababa University, p.3
41. Getzels, Jacob W. "Changing Values Challenge the Schools," School Review, LXV
(March, 1957), PP. 92-102.
42. Glatter, R. et.al (1988). Understanding School management, Philadelphia: Open
University Educational Enterprises Ltd. P.6
195
43. Gray,J.L and Strake,F.A. (1984) Organizational Behavior-Concepts and Applications (3rd
ed.) Columbus Bell and Howell Company, p.489
44. Gordon, J.K. (1996), Organizational Behaviour, A Diagnostic Approach. Upper Saddle
River New Jersey: Prentice Hall, p.375
45. Gordon, J.R (1987) A Diagnostic approach to Organizational Behavior. 2nd ed Boston
Allyn and Bacon, Inc, p.475
46. Hocker, J. L., and W. W. Wilmot, Interpersonal conflict (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown
Publishers 1985), Pp 7-9
47. Hanson, E.M. (1991). Educational Administration and Organizational Behavior (3rd ed),
Boston: Allynard Bacon. P.271
48. Hellriegel, Don, Slocum, John W. & Woodman, Richard W. (1998). Organizational
Behavior, 8th Edition. South- Western College Publishing, USA. P.363
49. Huseman, Richard C., C. M. Logue, and D. L. Freshly (1977) Readings in interpersonal
and organizational communication. Boston: Holbrook Press, Inc., p.230.
50. Hunt, J.W. (1992). Managing people at work: A Manager Guide to Behavior in
Organizations. 3rd ed, London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, p.101
51. Hunt, J.W. (1979). Managing People at work:A managers Guide to Behavior in
Organizations. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp.73-74
52. Ivancevich, J.M and Matteson, M.T. (1990). Organizational Behavior and Management
(2nd ed). Boston: R.R Donnelley & sons Company, p.307
53. Jandt, F. E. (1976). The process of interpersonal communications. New York: Harper &
Row.p.165
196
54. Jay R. Dee, Alan B. Henkin, Fred B. Holman (2004), Reconciling Differences: Conflict
Management Strategies of Catholic College and University Presidents: Higher Education,
Vol. 47, No. 2 pp. 177-196 Published by: Springer Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151538 Accessed: 06/12/2008 10:30
55. Jehn, K. A. (1997b). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual
demographic dissimilarity, and conflict of workgroup outcomes. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 8, p.288
56. Jennifer Batton (2002), Institutionalizing Conflict Resolution Education: The Ohio Model
of conflict Resolution Education Quarterly, vol: 19, no. 4, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. P.480
57. Johnson, P.E. (2005). Conflict and the school leader. Connecticut: University of
Connecticut. P.22
58. Johnson, D.W & Johnson, R.T, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, No. 4,
(American Educational Research Association 1996), pp. 463
59. Kahn, Robert L., and Elise Boulding (1964) Power and conflict in organizations. New
York: Basic Books, Inc. pp 75-76
60. Kelley, E. A. "Principles of conflict resolution." NASSP Bulletin 63 (April 1979):p.15
61. Kinard, J. (1988). Management, Toronto: D.C. Health and company. P. 326
62. Kundu, C.L. and Tutoo, D.N. (1989). Educational Psychology. New Delhi: Sterling
Publishers private Limited, P.539
63. Kramer and Messick (1995), pp.18-19
64. Kreisberg(1998). Constructive conflict: From escalation to resolution, Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
65. Kroon (1991). General management: Planning,organising, activating and control. 1st
Ed. Pretoria: Haum Tertiary.p.437
197
66. Litterer, J. A. (1966). Conflict in organization: A re-examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 9, 178–186.
67. Luthans, F. (1981) Organizational Behavior. 3rd ed, New York : Mc Graw-Hill Book
Company,p.371
68. Miner, Joln B. (1985). The Practice of Management. Columbus : Bell & Howell
company, p.259
69. Nebgen, M. K. (1978) Conflict management in schools. Administrators Notebook 26, 6),
PP 1-4
70. Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (1994) ‘Going about our business? The managerialism of
public services’, in J. Clarke, A. Cochrane and E. McLaughlin (eds), Managing School
Policy. London: Sage. p.29
71. Organ, Dennis W. and Bateman, T.S. (1991). Organizational Behavior (4th ed) Boston:
donnelly & Sons Company, p.505
72. Owens, R.G (1998).Organizational Behavior (6th ed) Englewood cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc,
p.230
73. Pareek, U. (1982). Managing Conflict and Collaboration. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH
publishing Co, p.85
74. Peretomode, V.F. 1995. Conflict Management. Ikeja- Lagos: Obaroh and Ogbinaka. P.56
75. Pondy, Louis. (1967) "Organizational conflict: concepts and models." Administrative
Science Quarterly 12, p.300
76. Plunkett, W.R.and Raymond, F. Attner (1989). Introduction to Management, Boston:
PWs-Kent Publishing, p.437
198
77. Pruitt, Dean G., and Peter J. Carnevale. 1993. Negotiation in Social Conflict. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks- Cole Publishing
78. Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing conflict in organizations (3rd ed). Westport, CT:
Quorum Books, p.24
79. Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational behaviour. New Jersey: Simon & Schuster, p.434
80. Robbins. S.P. (1974) Managing organizational conflict. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.,.PP.67-73
81. Rabie, M. (1994). Conflict resolution and ethnicity. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
P.50
82. Rue, L.W. and Byars, L.L. (1989). Supervision: Key Link to Productivity. 142Boston :
Hoomewood, p.142
83. Rahim, A.M. (1986) Managing Conflict in Organizations. New York Praeger Publishers,
pp. 16-17
84. Rashid, S.A and Archer, M. (1983). Organizational Behavior. Toronto: Methven, p.312
85. Rahim, A.M. and Bonoma, T.V (1979).'' Managing organizational conflict'', The Journal
of psychological Report. vol 44, No.3, PP 1332
86. Rao, V.SP. and Narayan, P.S. (1987). Principles and practice of management, Delhi:
konark Publishers pvt. Ltd, p.789
87. Ross, R. S. & Ross, J. R. (1989), Small groups in organizational settings. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, p. 139
88. Saaty, T. L. (1990). The Analytic Hierarchy Process in conflict management.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, p. 49)
199
89. Smith, C. G. (1966). A comparative analysis of some conditions and consequences of
interorganizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 504–529.
90. Starratt, R.J. (1996) Transforming Educational Administration: Meaning, Community
and Excellence, New York: McGraw-Hill., p.24
91. Sapre, P. (2002) ‘Realising the potential of educational management in India’,
Educational Management and Administration, 30(1): p.102
92. Stoner, A.F. and Freeman, R.E. (1989). Management (4th ed). New Delhi: prentice Hall
of India.
93. Sexton, M. J., and K. D. Bowerman (1979) "Conflict-handling for secondary school
principals. NASSP Bulletin 63,429: p 8.
94. Saddler, P. (1998). Conflict management and leadership. London: Coopers and Lybrand.
P.25
95. Susan A. Holton. (1998) “Academic Mortar to Mend the Cracks: The Holton Model for
Conflict Management.” In Mending the Cracks in the Ivory Tower: Strategies for
Conflict Management in Higher Education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, Inc. Pp: 1-6
96. Sweeney, B. & Caruthers, W. L. (1996). Conflict resolution: History, philosophy, theory
and educational applications. School Counselor, 43, 327.
97. Swart(2001). Advanced communication skills. Pretoria Haum. P.368
98. Tery, George R. and stephen G. Franklin (1999) Principles of Management, (8thed.)
Delhi: Nice Printing Press. P.246
99. Thomas, Donald (1971), Decentralization as a management tool. Paper presented to the
American Management Association Annual Conference and Exposition, New York City,
New York, p. 1
200
100. Thompson, L. (1998). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
101. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). The effects of a state-wide conflict management
initiative in schools. American Secondary Education, 29, p.3.
102. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). The effects of a state-wide conflict management
initiative in schools. American Secondary Education, 29, p.3
103. Tye, K. A. (May 1972) "The school principal: key man in educational change."
NASSP Bulletin, p.81
104. Thomas, K.W. (1976). Conflict and Conflict management. In M.D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally,
pp. 889-935.
105. Thompson, L. (1998). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall. P.4
106. Thomas, K.W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In
M.D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology: Vol. 3 (2nd ed.,), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 651-
717.
107. Tony Bush 2008, Leadership and Management Development in Education, SAGE
Publications Ltd 1 Oliver's Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP, p.103
108. Trutter, I ( 2003). Conflict. South African Pharmaceutical Journal, 70(5): 42
109. Van der Bank (1995). Education management. OWB 402. Pretoria University.
P.168
110. Van der Westhuizen (1991). Effective educational management. 3rd Ed.
Pretoria. P.306
201
111. William D. Kimsey & Rex M. Fuller (2003), Conflict Talk: An Instrument for
Measuring Youth and Adolescent Conflict Management Message Styles Conflict
Resolution Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 1, Wiley Periodicals, Inc and the Association for
Conflict Resolution
112. Wheeler, D. (2005). Conflict management in schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
P.18
113. Welch, R. J. (1978), The Principal: last of the sin-eaters." NASSP Bulletin 62,
421, p.8
114. Williams, J.C (1978). Human Behavior in Organizations. Cincinnati, Ohio: South
Western Publishing Co Pp.224-248
202
Appendix A: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRINCIPAL:
SECTION-A
Instructions for the completion of the questionnaire
1. Do not write your name or surname.
2. Kindly complete the following questionnaire as objectively as possible. Read all the
questions carefully, before answering them.
3. The questionnaire is anonymous and information will be used for managing conflict in
secondary schools.
4. Mark with an X in the appropriate block to indicate your choice and write your answers
in the spaces provided.
5. Your co-operation is appreciated.
203
A. School Information and Educational Data:
Name of School: ___________________________
1. Name (Optional):___________________________
2. Age (in years) :____________________________
3. Sex: ____________________________
4. District: _____________________________
5. Locality: __________________ (Urban/Rural)
6. Length of Service: ___________________________
A. As Principal: _________________________
B. As Teacher: __________________________
7. Highest Degree earned:
A. Academic: ________________________
B. Professional: _______________________
8. Date of taking over charge as Principal: ______________
204
SECTION-B
B: Conflict
1. Conflict in a working environment is avoidable? Yes No
2. Have you ever come across any conflict b/w your staff members?
Yes No
3. Was this conflict of serious nature? Yes No
4. Was this conflict a mild one? Yes No
5. How do you deal with conflict in your school?
Manage it Avoid it
6. Have you ever been in conflict with colleague?
Yes No
7. If yes, did you handle it? Yes No
205
8. Was it solved? Yes No
9. Does it still exist? Yes No
10. Do you think conflict affects performance? Yes No
11. Do you think educators need to be trained in conflict management?
Yes No
12. Do you invite school staff to assist you in conflict settlement?
Yes No
13. Do you report to your authorities about any conflict? Yes No
14. If yes, do the authorities offer any help? Yes No
206
15. Do conflicts occur due to differences about curriculum? Yes No
16. Does policy be considered cause of conflict? Yes No
17. Do other administrative procedures cause conflict? Yes No
18. Is distribution of work a cause of conflict? Yes No
19. Does conflict cause any serious threat to interpersonal relation of the staff?
Yes No
20. Do you follow any specific conflict resolution model, while dealing with conflict?
Yes No
21. If yes, what is it?
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
207
C. CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Use the following ratings to complete the table:
Always 5
Frequently 4
Occasionally 3
Seldom 2
Never 1
To what extent do you (as principal) manage conflict in your school?
You (As Principal); 5 4 3 2 1
Invite all stakeholders in managing conflict.
Communicate well with the subordinates.
Do take sides in a conflict situation.
Look for a fair solution in a conflict situation.
Act as a mediator.
Strive for establishing good interpersonal relationships with staff.
Are pro-active in handling or managing conflict.
Strive for a win-win situation in conflict management.
Arrange workshops on conflict management
Equip educators with conflict management skills
Adopt a collaborative approach for conflict management.
Seek a compromising solution for ending conflict.
Prefer competitive approach to deal with conflict.
Accommodate the conflicting parties to resolve the conflict.
Avoid conflict whenever it arises.
208
Appendix B: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHER:
SECTION-A
Instructions for the completion of the questionnaire
1. Do not write your name or surname.
2. Kindly complete the following questionnaire as objectively as possible. Read all the questions carefully, before answering them.
3. Information acquired through this questionnaire will be utilized for research purposes only.
4. Mark with an X in the appropriate block to indicate your choice and write your answers in the spaces provided.
5. Your co-operation is appreciated.
209
B. School Information and Educational Data:
Name of School: ____________________________
7. Name: ______________________________
8. Age (in years) :____________________________
9. Sex: ____________________________
10. District: _____________________________
11. Locality: __________________ (Urban/Rural)
6. Length of Service: ___________________________
A. In present school: _________________________
B. In all other schools: __________________________
7. Highest Degree earned:
C. Academic: ________________________
D. Professional: _______________________
210
SECTION-B
B: Conflict:
1. Conflict in a working environment is avoidable? Yes No
2. Have you ever come across any conflict b/w your staff members?
Yes No
3. Was this conflict of serious nature?
Yes No
4. Was this conflict a mild one? Yes No
5. Have you ever been in conflict with colleague? Yes No
6. If yes, did you handle it? Yes No
7. Was it solved? Yes No
8. Does it still exist? Yes No
211
9. Do you think conflict affects performance? Yes No
10. Do you think educators need to be trained in conflict management?
Yes No
11. Do you report to your authorities about any conflict? Yes No
12. If yes, do the authorities offer any help? Yes No
13. Do conflicts occur due to differences about curriculum? Yes No
14. Does policy be considered cause of conflict? Yes No
15. Is distribution of work a cause of conflict? Yes No
16. Do other administrative procedures cause conflict? Yes No
212
17. Establishes unity among role players. Yes No
18. Ensures that work load is shared among all people in the school.
Yes No
19. Addresses problems positively. Yes No
20. Empowers the school management team to manage by delegating authority to
its members. Yes No
21. Uses good management skills in solving problems. Yes No
213
C. CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Use the following ratings to complete the table:
Always 5
Frequently 4
Occasionally 3
Seldom 2
Never 1
To what extent does the principal manage conflict in your school?
The principal 5 4 3 2 1
Involves all stakeholders in managing conflict.
Communicates well with his subordinates.
Does take sides in a conflict situation.
Looks for a fair solution in a conflict situation.
Acts as a mediator.
Strives for establishing good interpersonal relationships with staff.
Is pro-active in handling or managing conflict.
Strives for a win-win situation in conflict management.
Arrange workshops on conflict management
Equip educators with conflict management skills
Adopts a collaborative approach for conflict management.
214
Seeks a compromising solution for ending conflict.
Prefers competitive approach to deal with conflict.
Accommodates the conflicting parties to resolve the conflict.
Avoids conflict whenever it occurs.
Tries to know the root cause of the conflict.
Invites the conflicting parties and listens to them.
Invites the community members to solve the issue.
Uses his powers to handle the conflict