The Relation of Group Structure with its Conflicts in University Departments

علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

Article 2, Volume 13, Issue 1 - Serial Number 27, September 2016, Pages 1-25   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/jss.v13i1.33087

Authors

Esmaeel Balali^* ; Soleiman Pakseresht; Farhad Rashidi

Bu Ali Sina University

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Group dynamics study has been one of sociologists' and social psychologists’ old concerns. Unfortunately most studies which have been done, are social psychological or educational and sociologists have neglected this issue because of concern for macro structures. Another problem is related to the lack of empirical studies related to this issue. Studies about group dynamics should be of importance to Iranian sociological studies. This study has been designed meeting this aim and tries to study conflicts within university departments’ members and its relation with group structure.
2. Theoretical Framework
Based on some theoretical view points such as incongruence theory, similarity –attraction paradigm, trust theory, information processing perspective, dual goal concern theory, self-categorization theory and coalition theory, a theoretical model was created. Based on incongruence theory, if incongruence between members increases then probability of smooth and steadily co-working between individuals decreases. Also, based on Moreland and Levine, the number and the type of individuals in a group may impact on the events in the group. According to similarity –attraction paradigm individuals which have common values may interpret the events in the same manner which itself can decrease intra-group conflicts. Trust theory presupposes that high levels of trust, probably is concomitant with low levels of dysfunctional conflict. Meanwhile, low levels of trust will probably be concomitant with high levels of conflict. The main claim of information processing perspective is that dysfunctional conflict appears among groups and teams which cognitive disagreement has been interpreted as criticism. Group members avoid information sharing, have low levels of decision making quality and the members who are not committed to group decisions, have no tendency to see the decisions practical. Dual goal concern theory assumes that conflict behavior has been determined by two stimuli: intention to individual or the to the others’ goals. Conflict is seen as win/loss situation, intimidation to gain conformity with personal views. In self-categorization theory, the more the individual belongs to the group, the more is their relations intimate and so the less conflict will exist. Coalition theory claims that individuals by forming coalitions mobilize group members against each other and impel neutral members to support one side. Independent variables based on these theories include:
Multiplicity of band and subgroups, increase of disciplines, weakness of trust among members (intra and inter group trust), generational contrasts, group size, higher education courses’ number and background differences. Intra group conflict was a dependent variable and other variables were independent ones.
3. Methodology
The method was survey and data gathered using a questionnaire designed by the researcher. Nearly most of questions were in Likert scale but some of other questions have also been enclosed.
The population of study included department members of Bu Ali Sina and Kurdistan universities. All members who were willing to fill our questionnaire were questioned. Of 495 members, 357 people were questioned. The hypotheses are the following:
• There is a relationship between multiplicity of bands and subgroups and intragroup conflict.
• Increase of disciplines inside group increases intragroup conflict.
• Weakness of trust (intra and inter) is related with intragroup conflict.
• Contrast between generations in the group has a significant relationship with intragroup conflict.
• The more the group sizes the more intragroup conflict.
• Number of higher education courses is related with intragroup conflict.
• The more background differences the more intragroup conflict.
4. Results
Descriptive results show that Bu Ali Sina University has higher intragroup conflicts (mean of 6.5 in contrast to 5.1 of Kurdistan). Inter and intra group trust among Bu Ali Sina University members is higher than that of Kurdistan University.
Hypothesis testing shows that multiplicity of bands and subgroups has not an impact on intragroup conflicts. Increasing disciplines within group increases the conflict. Regression analysis shows that this variable explains 7 percent of conflicts variance. Pearson Correlation testing of relationship between trust among members and intragroup conflicts shows a a positive relation (r=.44). Generation contrasts among members can also explain 14 percent of the dependent variable. Their relation is positive and in moderate level.
Group size has a positive effect on intragroup conflicts. But the number of higher education courses has no effect on the dependent variable. Age structure, ethnic and sex composition have also no effect on intragroup conflicts.
5. Conclusion
The study of intra group conflicts in Bu Ali Sina and Kurdistan universities shows that Bu Ali university has higher mean of conflicts than Kurdistan university. From trust view point, Bu Ali Sina University has also lower trust than Kurdistan. But the two universities have no significant differences about members' contrasts. So, Bu Ali Sina University managers need more effort to repair this low trust and consequently more conflicts. Encouraging members to do joint work and publishing joint papers can be one of factors which can reduce conflicts and increasing trust.
Results showed that diversity of disciplines within group increases conflicts. So, for those groups which have discipline diversity, it is better to distinguish these disciplines to sub-groups. Approximating members’ value structures and providing common knowledge sources which are close to each other so that situations are not win/loss but win/win ones can be solutions to reduce conflicts.

Keywords

Department; Intra-group conflict; Trust, Structure; University

References

1. اعتباری، ج. (1388). بررسی کیفی عوامل مؤثر بر تعارض درون‌گروهی در گروه‌های آموزشی دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان. پایان‌نامۀ منتشرنشدة کارشناسی ارشد پژوهش اجتماعی. دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان. همدان، ایران

2. اقلیما، م. (1382). کار با گروه: شناخت، پویایی، درمان. تهران: اسپند هنر.

3. آسترکی، م. (1384). تعارض را بشناسیم و مدیریت کنیم. مدیریت، (103و 104)، 56-53.

4. بلالی، ا. و رشیدی، ف. (1392). بررسی ارتباط الگوهای تصمیم‌گیری و توزیع منابع در گروه با تعارض‌های درون گروهی در گروه‌های آموزشی دانشگاهی، مطالعات جامعه‌شناختی معاصر، (2)، 49-23.

5. بیان، ح. (1381). مدیریت تعارض سازمانی و اجتماعی. کنترولر،( 11 و 12)،17-1.

6. جوادی یگانه، م. و هاشمی، س. ض. (1384). تعارض نفع فردی و نفع جمعی (دوراهی اجتماعی) و عوامل مؤثر بر آن. نامۀ علوم اجتماعی، (26)،174-141.

7. رشیدی، ف. (1391). بررسی تطبیقی عوامل مؤثر بر تعارض درون گروهی در گروه‌های آموزشی دانشگاه‌های بوعلی همدان و کردستان. پایان‌نامه منتشرنشدة کارشناسی ارشد پژوهش اجتماعی. دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان. همدان، ایران.

8. رضاییان، ع. (1382)، مدیریت تعارض و مذاکره (مدیریت رفتار سازمانی پیشرفته). تهران: سمت.

9. علوی، ح. ر. و یداللهی، ح. (1382). بررسی فرهنگ و روش ادارۀ تعارض‌های درون پرسنلی بر طبق الگوی هافستد و توماس. مجلّۀ علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز (ویژه‌نامۀ علوم تربیتی)، 20 (1)، پیاپی 39، 93-81.

10. فورسایت، د. (1380). پویایی گروه (شناخت و سنجش). ( ج. نجغی زند و ح. پاشا شریفی، مترجمان). تهران: نشر دوران.

11. کارترایت، د. و زاندر، ا. (1368). خاستگاه پویایی گروهی. (ح. شکرکن، مترجم). تهران:انتشارات رشد.

12. میرکمالی، س. م. (1371). مدیریت تعارض. دانش مدیریت، (19)، 59-48.

13. Almost, J.M. (2010) Antecedents and consequences of intra-group conflict among nurses in acute care settings (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

14. Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148.

15. Amason, A.C., & Hary J. S. (1997). The effects of top management team, size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4), 495-516.

16. Appelbaum, S.H., & Barbara Shapiro, D.E. (1998). The management of multicultural group conflict. Journal of Team Performance Management, 4(5), 211-234.

17. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict, The International Journal of Conflict Management 15(3), 216-244.

18. Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25-36.

19. Bilsky, W. & Jehn K. A. (2002). Organizational culture and individual values: Evidence for a common structure (Organisationskultur und individuelle Werte: Belege für eine gemeinsame Struktur). In Myrtek, M. (Ed.), Die Person im biologischen und sozialen Kontext (pp. 211-228). , Göttingen: Hogrefe Retrieved from: http:// faculty. mu. edu. sa/ public/ uploads/ 1360856515.6788o rganizational %20 cult139 .pdf

20. Castillo, L. G. (2009). The role of intragroup marginalization in Latino college student adjustment. International Journal of Advanced Counseling, 31, 245-254.

21. Chungang, L.,& Xi Youmin, G.S. (2008). Impact of team conflict on team decision quality and satisfaction: An empirical research in china. Front. Bus. Res. China, 2(1), 1-14

22. Conlon, D. E., Christopher, O.L.H., & Porter; J. M. P. (2004). The fairness of decision rules. Journal of Management, 30(3), 329-349.

23. Der Foo, M. (2011). Teams developing business ideas: How member characteristics and conflict affect member-rated team effectiveness. Small Bus Econ, 36,33-46

24. Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictor of satisfaction. The Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 44-56

25. Esquivel, M. A.,& Kleiner, B.H. (1996). The importance of conflict in work team effectiveness. Journal of Empowerment in Organizations, 4(4), 10-15.

26. Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C., & Tsai, J.C. (2000). What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32-55

27. Guerra, J.M., Ines, M., Munduate, L., & Medina, F.J. (2005). A contingency perspective on the study of the consequences of conflict types: The role of organizational culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(2), 157-176.

28. Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups.Human Relations, 7, 367-382.

29. Hearn, J. C., & Anderson, M.S. (2002). Conflict in academic departments: An analysis of disputes over faculty promotion and tenure. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 503-529

30. Hjerto, K.B. (2006). The relationship between intragroup conflict, group size and work effectiveness. Series of Dissertations, 9, 1-127 Retrieved from : http:// web.bi.no/ forskning/ papers.nsf /0/ 79fa4cbfc3ff2f92c125725e003165f4/$FILE/2006-09-hjerto.pdf

31. Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25, 117-142.

32. Jehn, K. (1992). The impact of intragroup conflict on effectiveness: A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of conflict, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University Graduate School of Management, Evanston, United States.

33. Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflicts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.

34. Jehn, K.A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimension in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3),530-557

35. Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A.(2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Journal of the Academy of Management, 44(2), 238-251.

36. Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B.,& Neale, M.A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763

37. Jehn, K.A., t Chadwick, C., &Thatcher, S.M.B. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287-305.

38. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th. ed., Vol. 2, pp. 415-469). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

39. Li, H., & Jun, L. (2009). Top management team conflict and entrepreneurial strategy making in China. Asia Pac Journal of Management, 26, 263-283

40. Li, J.T., & Hambrick, D.C.(2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic fault lines, conflict and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794-813.

41. Lima, J.A. (2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict in teacher communities as a catalyst for school change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 97-122.

42. Mc Allistre, D.J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based thrust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

43. McGurk, B. A, & Dennis, M.S. (2002). The effects of diversity on intragroup conflict and performance in the U. S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC)( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, USA. Retrieved from: https:// repositories.tdl.org/ ttu ir/ bitstream/handle/2346/10961/31295018541648.pdf?sequence=1

44. Medina, F. J., Lourdes M.,. Dorado, M.A., Martinez, I., & Guerra, J.M. (2005). Types of intragroup conflict and affective reaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 219-230.

45. Passos, A.M., & Caetano, A. (2005). Exploring the effects of intragroup conflict and past performance feedback on team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 3-4.

46. Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative, 44(1), 1 - 28.

47. Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296-324.

48. Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-235.

49. Thatcher, S.M.B., Jehn, K.A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity fault lines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 217-241.

50. Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265–274.