No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Seventy-seven administrators were asked to describe typical on-the-job role conflicts. In addition, common structured conflicts were formulated by the researchers and presented to the administrators. Two groups of business managers, one group of training directors, and one group of labor leaders composed the sample. The central hypothesis states: The decisions of administrators confronted with role conflicts can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy if their perceptions of legitimacy and sanctions are given. In each conflict situation, where two opposing claimants were urging him to do their bidding, the administrator was asked whether he considered each request or order from 'the claimants as right and reasonable (legitimate). He was also asked what he thought would happen to him if he complied with either claim and failed to produce a successful result (sanction). Four possible actions were set forth: comply with A's request, comply with B's request, compromise, or avoid. An over-all predictive accuracy of 71 per cent was discovered for *the type of action taken by the administrators. Delbert Miller is professor, Department of Sociology, and Fremont A. Shull, Jr., is assistant professor, Department of Management, Indiana University.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.