NadTalk

Page 1 2 3 4

Objectives of the study

1. By using statistics of both studies, the first objective of the study is to highlight that responses to conflict are linked sequentially or hierarchically.
2. Second, the article can also be taken as extension of Volkema and Bergman’s article published in 1989, 1995 and 1996 since the author will use their published statistics in this article.
3. Third, it provides support to new trend that individuals are rational being and they adopt rational strategy to resolve the conflict. This means that process of resolving conflict is dynamic than static.
4. The fourth objective of the study is to point out shortcomings of the original authors whose data is used in this study.

Methodology

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

Table 3*: Mean Value for Conflict responses

Strategies and Responses	Column A NeverUsed	Column B Used butnot now		Column C NowUsing		Column D Sum of Columns B & C
1Emotive Responses
1. Sabotage the persons work	.932	009	+	.014	=	.023
2. Throw things	.928	.014	+	.000	=	.014
3. Pus, strike or punch the person	.923	000	+	.009	=	.009
4. Cry	.838	.005	+	.014	=	.019
5. Try to get even	.833	.023	+	.009	=	.032
6. Take a drink or pill and forget it	.770	.036	+	.027	=	.063
7. Try to get the person to leave their job or the company	.757	.027	+	.023	=	.050
8. Shout at the person **	.509	.122	+	.045	=	.167
Total Mean value	6.49	.236	+	.141	=	.377
2.Exit
9. Leave my job	.577	.041	+	.032	=	.073
10. Ask for a transfer	.577	.041	+	.009	=	.050
Total  Mean value	1.154	.082	+	.041	=	.123
3.Forcing
11. Use my authority to settle the issue	.432	.086	+	.063	=	.149
12. Form alliances with other people in the organization	.410	.122	+	.086	=	.208
13. Go to the person’s supervisor or someone higher in the organization	.284	.158	+	.117	=	.275
Total  Mean value	1.12	.36	+	.26	=	.632
4. Avoidance
14. Don’t talk to the person.**	.311	.203	+	.153	=	.356
15. Talk behind the person’s back	.279	.243	+	.113	=	.356
16. Avoid the person	.194	.275	+	.234	=	.509
Total Mean value	.784	.721	+	.500	=	1.221
5. Third-Party Sensemaking
17. Discuss the conflict with people outside of work***	.090	.293	+	.311	=	.604
18. Discuss the conflict with the co-worker ***	.032	.365	+	.401	=	.766
	.
Total Mean value	.122	.658	+	.712	=	1.370
6. Problem Solving
19. Try to convince the person	.104	.243	+	.225	=	.468
20. Listen carefully to the person	.045	.239	+	.234	=	.473
21 Discuss the issue with the person	.023	.257	+	.333		.590
Total Mean value	.172	.739	+	.792	=	1.531
* The column ‘might use’ is excluded from the figure 2 because of its irrelevance with the present discussion.
** The original authors are unsure if these responses should be aligned with other responses or not.
***The original authors concluded that these responses carry some attraction with the other responses in the categories of problem solving and avoidance.

 Strategies and Responses

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

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

Category	Column A Frequency	Column B Mean Value
Problem solving
Discuss the issue with the person	155	.767
Listen carefully to the person	132	.653
Try to convince the person	113	.559
Total mean value		1.979
Third-Party Sense-Making
Discuss the conflict with co-workers	175	.866
Discuss the conflict with people outside of work.	133	.658
Total mean value		1.524
Avoidance
Don’t talk to the person	42	.202
Avoid the person	85	.420
Talk behind the person’s back	65	.321
Total mean value		.943
Forcing
Go to the person’s supervisor or someone higher in the organization	60	.297
Use my authority to settle the issue	26	.128
Form alliance with other people in the organization	51	.252
Total mean value		.677
Exit
Leave my job (resign)	27	.133
Ask for a transfer	9	.044
Total mean value		.177
Emotive Responses
Sabotage person’s work	2	.009
Throw things	2	.009
Shout at the person	25	.123
Cry	17	.084
Try to get even	10	.049
Try to get the person to leave their job or the company	8	.039
Take a drink or pill and forget it	3	.014
Push, strike or punch the person	0	.000
Total mean value		.327