Purpose -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. Design/methodology/approach -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. Findings -Perceived seriousness and anticipatory procedural justice were significantly related to intention to use ombuds process, but design of ombuds process was not.Research limitations/implications -This study was limited to scenarios of academic conflict. Research should be extended to experienced conflicts and conflicts in other contexts. Practical implications -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. Originality/value -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.

No abstract

Focusing on conflict at the organizational level, this study explores Conflict Culture Theory by (a) conceptualizing perceived and ideal conflict cultures, (b) creating and implementing the Conflict Cultures Survey, and (c) testing Gelfand, Leslie and Keller's (2008) proposed two‐dimensional model. Tenured and tenure‐track faculty at a large, American university (N = 346) completed the survey. Ideal conflict cultures varied little whereas perceived conflict cultures varied across departments, suggesting that ideal and perceived conflict cultures are distinct constructs. Multi‐level modeling and interrater agreement indices for the conflict culture variables provide evidence that conflict cultures exist and vary by department. Results supported the two‐dimensional model rather than one‐ or four‐dimensional models, suggesting that conflict cultures vary along two dimensions: agreeableness and activeness. Practical implications for Conflict Culture Theory and the Conflict Culture Survey include predicting job satisfaction and commitment, identifying bullying or workplace harassment norms, and establishing individual‐organizational fit.

No abstract

University ombuds serve as a resource for students who want to resolve conflicts with professors. However, little research examines the relationship between individual conflict style preferences, perceptions of procedural justice, and intentions to use ombuds processes. Professor-student conflict is a unique area of study because the relationship is temporary and also the first time that individuals deal with conflict as adults. This study examined the relationship between students' preferred conflict style, their perceptions of procedural justice, and their intentions to use the ombuds system if involved in a conflict. Individuals with solution-oriented styles had positive perceptions of procedural justice, whereas control and nonconfrontation styles were associated with negative perceptions. In addition, individuals with solution-oriented styles were more likely to indicate intent to use ombuds systems. The findings provide further support for the original literature on conflict styles.