Managing workplace incivility: The role of conflict management styles—antecedent or antidote?

Jeannie Trudel · Thomas G. Reio

133 citations0/0 files storedHuman Resource Development Quarterly

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Workplace Violence and Bullying Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior Conflict Management and Negotiation

Abstract

Abstract The workforce of the 21st century is dealing with rapid changes and increased competition across industries. Such changes place stress on management and workers alike, increasing the potential for workplace conflict and deviant workplace behaviors, including incivility. The importance of effective conflict management in the workplace has been highlighted but, to date, conflict management and workplace incivility have not been linked in the literature. The manner in which conflict is managed affects the process and outcome of conflict. This study explores the relationship between conflict management styles and workplace incivility. Conflict management styles (integrating, accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and dominating) were assessed with the 20‐item DUTCH Test for Conflict Handling (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001). Instigator and target workplace incivility were measured using a modified version of the Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) developed by Cortina, Magley, Williams, and Langhout (2001). Employees of three midwestern companies served as participants for the study (N = 289; 48.0% female). Hierarchical regression analyses suggested that conflict management style predicted frequency of workplace incivility among instigators and targets of uncivil behavior. Thus, the manner in which conflict was managed (as determined through preferred conflict style) influenced the likelihood of uncivil behavior. The integrating and dominating styles significantly predicted both instigator and target incivility, while the accommodating, avoiding, and compromising styles did not attain statistical significance in the regression equations. Implications for HRD research and practice are explored.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 133 citations exist upstream.

References

1993Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology 2007Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 1999Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace 1983Getting to YES. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In 2001Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact.2006The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria 1983A MEASURE OF STYLES OF HANDLING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT.1987Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem?

Cited by

2018Ten years of conflict management research 2007-2017 2013The Effects of Perceived Leadership Styles and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour on Employee Engagement: The Mediating Role of Conflict Management

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.