Search results

This study aims to understand how cultural variables – collectivism and face concerns – influence perceived and ideal organizational conflict cultures in two multicultural societies.

Individuals studying in Singapore (N = 162) and the USA (N = 216) completed an online survey. Hierarchical regression analyses tested the hypotheses.

Regardless of cultural background, individuals prefer agreeable conflict cultures, with over 95% scoring above the scale mid-point. Ideal passiveness varied; highly collective and mutual face concerned individuals were more likely to idealize active conflict cultures. Collectivism overall was associated with perceiving and idealizing active and agreeable conflict cultures, though some relationships were only significant for one sample. Self-face concerned individuals were more likely to perceive passive conflict cultures.

Culture influences organizational conflict cultures, but not necessarily in stereotypical ways. Despite cultural and geographical differences, the data provide evidence for a universal preference for agreeable conflict cultures. This finding is encouraging, given the increase in workplace diversity and desire to be responsive to needs of equity and inclusion. Therefore, leaders and managers should strive to establish agreeable conflict norms, even in the most culturally diverse organizations. The young, college student sample may not represent all working people, although the authors only recruited students with jobs who worked 28 h per week on average.

This research demonstrates the value of considering multiple levels of influence on conflict, advances the theory and measurement of organizational conflict cultures and identifies powerful similarities among diverse employees.

The purpose of this study is to explore the role of anticipatory procedural justice, seriousness/type of conflict, and design of ombudsman processes with intentions to use ombudsman processes to resolve disputes.

The study was a 3 (type of conflict with three scenarios nested in each type)×3 (design of ombuds system). Subjects read scenarios and filled out Likert type survey items related to seriousness of conflict, anticipatory procedural justice, and intentions to use ombuds processes.

Perceived seriousness and anticipatory procedural justice were significantly related to intention to use ombuds process, but design of ombuds process was not.

This study was limited to scenarios of academic conflict. Research should be extended to experienced conflicts and conflicts in other contexts.

Potential users of ombuds processes are more concerned with principles of fairness and justice than the specific elements of how dispute systems are designed. While the design of a system needs to insure disputants perceive it to be fair, institutions concerned with resolving disputes between/among members should be more concerned with having a system than about promoting specific details about the design of that system.

This study advances both the study of ombuds processes/design and anticipatory procedural justice. This study provides unique findings related to both the design of ombuds processes and the conditions under which disputants might utilize the process. Additionally, procedural justice is demonstrated to be useful in forming decisions about use of processes, not just evaluations after processes have been used.