Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors.

Abstract

Handling social conflict is usually described in terms of 2 dimensions that either cause the behavior (concern for one's own and others' goals) or that result from it (integration and distribution). In contrast, agreeableness and activeness are common factors of modes and taxonomies of conflict behavior that do not confound independent and dependent variables. This article specifies the extent to which avoiding, accommodating, compromising, problem solving, indirect fighting, and 2 forms of direct fighting--issue fighting and outcome fighting--each positively or negatively relate to agreeableness and activeness. Systematic observations of videotaped simulations by 82 male police sargeants handling a standardized conflict with either a subordinate or a superior supported and refined this metataxonomy.

Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance and conflict

“…The way people manage conflict will determine whether the conflict is effectively resolved Tjosvold, 1998). Individuals differ in how they preferably handle conflict (Rahim, 1983;Van de Vliert and Euwema, 1994), showing that the choices of CMSs can be significantly predicted with the help of personality characteristics (Macintosh and Stevens, 2008;Moberg, 2001). The two conflict management dimensions of self-versus-other concern can be explained by personality dimensions that represent pro-social behavior (dominance and control) versus anti-social behavior such as friendliness and affiliation (Fiske et al, 2007).…”

“…Choice of a CMS may also be predicted by personality traits (Antonioni, 1998;Moberg, 2001;Rahim, 1983;Van de Vliert and Euwema, 1994). The five CMSs proposed by Rahim (1983) include integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising.…”

Reducing conflict-related employee strain: The benefits of an internal locus of control and a problem-solving conflict management strategy

“…High concern for own outcomes: When people engage in problem solving, their attitude is oriented towards the attainment of desired outcomes: they keep their eyes on the ball and behave in an assertive way; they are in control of their own actions and, at least partially, their outcomes ( Van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994). When a person ''takes control'' over the conflict by reacting actively, the chances are that he or she will experience less frustration and helplessness than when acting passively (i.e.…”

A Cusp Catastrophe Model for Satisfaction, Conflict, and Conflict Management in Teams

“…While integrating is a cooperative approach and dominating is a competitive one, when parties adopt these strategies act in an assertive way in order to attain the desired goals. They are in control of their own actions and they try to influence the outcomes obtained from the conflict situation [21,22]. Avoiding and obliging are passive strategies of managing conflict: when individuals adopt avoiding or obliging strategies to handle conflict situations, they are giving up on their own interests and they behave as passive recipients of their counterpart's actions and initiatives [21,23].…”