UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Sex-typed traits, moral and interpersonal conflict, and conflict management strategies of women managers Portello, Jacqueline Yvonne 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 P67.pdf [ 4.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302111.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302111-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302111-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302111-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302111-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302111-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302111-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302111-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302111.ris

Full Text

SEX-TYPED TRAITS, MORAL AND INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT, AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF WOMEN MANAGERS By JACQUELINE YVONNE PORTELLO B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1987 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1991 © Jacqueline Y. Portello, 1991  In  presenting  degree  this  at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  British Columbia,  of  the  requirements  for  an  advanced  I agree that the Library shall make it  freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying  of  department  this or  thesis by  for scholarly  his  publication of this thesis  or  her  may be  representatives.  It  is  granted  by the head of  understood  that  for financial gain shall not be allowed without  permission.  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  purposes  copying  my or  my written  ii  Abstract The focus of this study was to determine whether sex-typed traits (instrumentality, expressiveness, androgyny) and type of conflict (interpersonal and moral) differentiate conflict management styles (dominating, integrating, and compromising) of women managers. The data were collected from 134 supervisors and managers (M age 40.1) from 12 branches of the federal government and 25 ministries and offices of the provincial government (British Columbia and the Yukon Territories). Each respondent completed the Bern Sex-Role Inventory and the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II. Two research questions were posed. The first question examined whether managers resolved conflicts differently according to their sex-role orientation, regardless of the type of conflict. It was hypothesized that (a) high-instrumental managers would report greater use of the dominating conflict handling style, compared with low-instrumental managers, and (b) high-expressive managers would report greater use of the compromising conflict handling style, compared with low-expressive managers. The second research question examined whether managers resolved conflicts differently according to their sex-role orientation and the type of conflict engaged in (interpersonal or moral). It was hypothesized that high-instrumental managers would report greater use of the integrating conflict management style for interpersonal conflict, whereas they would report greater use of the dominating style for moral conflict. Also, it was predicted that androgynous managers would report greater use of the integrating conflict management strategy for both types of conflict,  iii compared with managers who score high on the undifferentiated dimension. One 2 X 2 X 2 (High vs. Low Instrumentality X High vs. Low Expressiveness X Conflict Type) MANOVA was employed to test the hypotheses. Conflict type was used as the repeated measures factor as it was assessed twice (interpersonal conflict and moral/ethical conflict). Results supported the hypothesis that high-instrumental managers report greater use of the dominating conflict management strategy, compared with low-instrumental managers, F (1,130) = 10.20, p_ <.002. Analyses also revealed that both high-expressive and high-instrumental managers reported greater use of the integrating conflict management strategy (F (1,130) = 9.26, p. <.003, and F (1,130) = 6.21, 2 <.01, respectively). This finding supports the hypothesis that androgynous managers report greater use of the integrating conflict management strategy, compared with undifferentiated persons. MANOVA, however, found no significant main effects by conflict type for expressiveness or instrumentality, thus failing to support the remaining hypotheses. Based on the study's findings, implications for future research and application are discussed.  iv  Table of Contents Abstract  ii  Table of Contents  iv  List of Tables  vi  Acknowledgements Introduction Literature Review  vii 1  12  Sex Differences and Interpersonal Conflict  13  Sex-Role Orientation and Interpersonal Conflict . Sex Differences and Moral Conflict Sex-Role Orientation and Moral Conflict Summary  23 31 34 39  Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Rationale  41  Method  47  Subjects  47  Sample Characteristics Procedure Pilot Study Independent Measures Personality traits Conflict types Dependent Measure Conflict management strategies Organizational Commitment Measure Data Analysis  47 49 50  Results Descriptive Statistics Hypotheses Post-hoc Analyses  51 53 53 55 56 57 57 61 64  V  Discussion  67  Implications Suggestions for Further Research Summary  References  76 78 80  81  Appendices Appendix A.  Respondent Recruitment Breakdown by Major Organization  90  Missing Data  91  Demographic Comparison of Complete and Incomplete Data  92  Appendix B.  Covering Letter  93  Appendix C.  Instructions and Participant Informed Consent  95  Appendix D.  Demographic Questions  97  Appendix E.  The Bern Sex-Role Inventory  99  Appendix F.  The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (interpersonal conflict)  101  The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (moral/ethical conflict)  106  Appendix G.  Appendix H.  Appendix I.  Intercorrelations for Dependent Variables, Sex-Role Orientation, and Age, Experience, and Commitment Level Results Based on the Bern Sex-Role Inventory-Short Form  Ill  113  vi  List of Tables Table 1.  Demographic Information of Managerial Women  48  Table 2.  Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables by Sex-Role Orientation (Instrumentality and Expressiveness)  59  Table 3.  Intercorrelations for Dependent and Independent Variables  Table 4.  Instrumentality X Expressiveness X Conflict Type multivariate and univariate analyses of variance on the conflict management strategy variable  ....  60  62  vii Acknowledgements I wish to thank my supervisor, Dr. Bonita Long for her invaluable assistance, guidance, and expertise during the course of this project. In addition, I am grateful to Dr. Long for her interest in and fresh perspective on this particular topic. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Beth Haverkamp and Dr. Ruth Linn for their helpful input and suggestions. I wish to acknowledge Colleen Haney for her statistical consultation throughout the analyses portion of the thesis. Finally, for their support and kindness, I wish to thank my family and special friends, Doug, Carole and Geoffrey Hainsworth.  1 Introduction Scepticism surrounding women's ability to integrate managerial roles and responsibilities has prevailed since the advent of women within the corporate hierarchy. Because conflict issues remain central to any organization's climate, it is crucial that management personnel are adequately equipped to deal effectively with employee conflict. Conflict management skills, a critical component of leadership effectiveness, are of particular relevance to women since "perceptions of how females handle crisis and conflict often are cited as blocks to the female manager's ascent to the executive suite'" (Shockley-Zalabak, 1981, p. 289). Conventional wisdom suggests that the effectiveness of a manager depends on whether the individual adopts stereotypical masculine traits of dominance and assertiveness, which are considered characteristic of a competent leader (Watson, 1988). Schein (1975), for example, contends that effective middle managers are perceived as possessing characteristics, attitudes, and temperaments more typically attributed to men than to women. Attributes considered masculine (instrumental) in nature include being independent, goal-oriented, objective, assertive, competitive, and logical, whereas stereotypical feminine (expressive) characteristics include such traits as passivity, submissiveness, emotionality, nurturance, and sensitivity to others (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972; Cook, 1987; Orlofsky & Stake, 1981). Research has suggested that effective conflict management strategies, one specific managerial behaviour, are strategies more typically ascribed to male managers  2 than to female managers (Broverman et al., 1972; Schein, 1975; Watson, 1988). More recently, Brenner, Tomkiewicz, and Schein (1989) found that although female managers viewed successful middle managers as possessing characteristics, attitudes, and behaviours attributed to both men and women, male managers still perceived effective managers as possessing traits more typically ascribed to men than to women. Such findings intimate that expressive characteristics and behaviours are not widely accepted in managerial life. Marshall (1984), for example, asserts that stereotypically expressive traits of emotionality, intuition, and interdependence, are devalued in male dominated contexts, such as organizational cultures. However, as the number of women who occupy managerial positions continues to grow within the industrial sector, research is needed to challenge (a) the popular conception that females display only stereotypical feminine or expressive behaviours, and (b) the notion that expressive abilities and styles are less effective than instrumental competencies. This knowledge may then be incorporated into management development programs designed to foster an awareness of the issues surrounding men and women's integration into leadership positions. The purpose of the present study was to examine the relation among conflict handling styles, sex-typed traits of instrumentality, expressiveness, and androgyny, and boss-directed conflicts that are either interpersonal or moral/ethical in type. A bossdirected conflict is one in which a manager perceives conflict to occur in an interactive manner between herself and her supervisor. The terms sex-typed traits and  3  sex-role orientation are used synonymously throughout the study, and are defined as the extent to which individuals describe themselves according to personality attributes of instrumentality and expressiveness, regardless of biological sex. This definition is consistent with Spence and Helmreich's (1978) conceptualization of sex-typed traits as personality traits influenced by context, rather than as fixed elements of one's identity. Similarly, androgyny is described as the extent to which individuals use both instrumental and expressive traits and behaviours depending upon the specific situation. This study sought to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how women managers resolve conflicts differently according to factors of sex-role orientation and conflict type. Empirical research that has examined organizational conflict has thus far been limited. Greater emphasis is placed on personality and behavioral differences between men and women, rather than on sex-typed traits common to both sexes. In addition, there has been little attempt to address the formation and resolution of ethical conflict in organizations. Korabik (1982a) articulates that past research on leadership styles has either focused on biological sex, or equated biological sex with sex-role orientation, thus excluding women from certain male-dominated leadership positions on the basis of their sex alone. Because of the male bias inherent in leadership and other organizational research, we are no further ahead in understanding women's behaviour and skills across a wide range of leadership positions. Furthermore, the continuation of research stressing sex  differences in management has reinforced the notion that instrumental and expressive traits and behaviours are exclusive to men and women, respectively. One possible explanation for the claim that there are sex differences in behaviour may be due to the socialization process of men and women. Although it has been shown that both sexes are capable of expressing cross-sex behaviour (Bern, 1974, 1975), and that men and women in actual leadership roles who occupy similar positions and perform similar functions do not differ in personality, leadership style, motivation or effectiveness (Day & Stogdill, 1972; Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Nieva & Gutek, 1981), research also indicates that men and women supervisors are evaluated more favourably by their subordinates when they adhere to stereotyped sex roles than when they depart from them (Bartol & Butterfield, 1976; Falbo, Hazen, & Linimon, 1982; Korabik, Baril, & Watson, 1990; Petty & Miles, 1976; Statham, 1987; Watson, 1988). These studies and others have demonstrated that men are evaluated more positively than women for using instrumental sex-typed leadership styles, and women are rated more positively than men for using expressive sex-typed leadership styles. Such findings suggest that individuals who express sex-specific behaviours are reinforced for doing so by way of favourable evaluation, consistent with Chodorow's (1974) view that women are socialized to be more nurturant than men. However, adhering to perceived sex-role appropriate behaviours and attitudes only discourages both sexes from exploring and adopting alternate behaviourial styles. Furthermore, as Statham found, preferences for same-sex managerial styles may cause resistance,  5 negativity, and misunderstanding towards opposite-sex styles, and serve to both impede successful male-female relations and fuel conflict within the workplace. Although male and female managers may be evaluated differently according to their sex-congruent or incongruent behaviours, the limited empirical research that has examined organizational conflict yields inconclusive results regarding the assumption that male and female managers actually use significantly different conflict handling styles (Baron, 1989; Chanin & Schneer, 1984; Korabik et al., 1990; Renwick, 1977; Rosenthal & Hautaluoma, 1988; Shockley-Zalabak, 1981). Korabik et al. (1990), Renwick (1977), and Shockley-Zalaback (1981), for example, found that male and female managers do not differ significantly in the way they resolve conflict. Other researchers, however, have reported that sex differences in conflict handling styles do exist. Rosenthal and Hautaluoma (1988) found that female college students reported a greater preference for using accommodative and compromising conflict handling styles, and less of a preference for dominant and competitive styles than male college students. Chanin and Schneer (1984) found that among senior undergraduate business students, men reported using the collaborating conflict handling style more than women, whereas women used the compromising conflict handling style more than men. Baron (1989) found that among male and female managers and technical personnel, women reported using the collaborative and avoidant approach to conflict resolution more than men. Duane (1989), however, indicated that male managers were more likely than female managers to report using  6 the accommodating approach, and women were more likely than men to report using the competitive strategy. Such inconsistent support for the contention that biological sex is a critical determinant of conflict resolution style challenges the notion of sex differences in management style. Rather,-research has suggested that one's sex-role orientation is an effective means of explaining and predicting behaviour than the conventional notion of biological sex classification (Arkkelin & Simmons, 1985; Spence & Helmreich, 1980). Such studies have revealed that men and women are not restricted to expressing only stereotypical sex-role traits, but are capable of possessing both traditionally instrumental and expressive behaviours. These findings are supported by the growth of female managers in the workforce within the last 20 years, who clearly could not have experienced such longevity within traditionally male dominated positions by responding to organizational conflict in a solely stereotypical feminine fashion. Thus, differences in sex-typed traits within sexes may be of greater relevance in this instance than differences across sexes. Moreover, empirical evidence is mounting in support of the notion that sex-role orientation is an important moderator of interpersonal conflict management strategies. Yelsma and Brown (1985), for example, found that regardless of biological sex, instrumental and androgynous men and women reported to handle conflict more constructively than persons with expressive or undifferentiated sex-role orientations. The researchers defined a constructive conflict management style as that which adopts  7 a win-win approach; concern for both self and other. In a related study, Falbo (1982) found that androgynous persons reported a high use of persuasive power strategies with their marital partners within intimate relationships, whereas expressive sex-typed persons were most likely to use bargaining strategies. Baxter and Shepherd (1978) found that among a sample of college undergraduate students, expressive sex-typed men and women were more likely than instrumental or androgynous persons to disapprove of competition while resolving conflict, and instrumental sex-typed persons were more competitive than expressive persons. Korabik (1981, 1982a) assessed the effects of sex-role orientation on two types of leadership styles, and found that instrumentality was significantly correlated with the instrumental-typed initiating style, whereas expressiveness was significantly correlated with the expressive-typed consideration style. Androgyny was highly and significantly correlated with both the initiating structure and consideration leadership styles. Furthermore, Korabik found that sex-role orientation was a better predictor of leadership style than biological sex. Korabik and Ayman (1987) investigated sex-role orientation, leadership style, and conflict handling styles, and found that highinstrumental managers used significantly greater initiating structure and consideration leadership styles, and competitive and collaboration conflict handling styles, compared with low-instrumental persons. High-expressive persons used a significantly greater consideration leadership style and accommodation conflict handling style, compared with low-expressive persons. Furthermore, Gever's (1988) investigation of sex-role  8 orientation and conflict resolution constructs showed that instrumental sex-typed men and women used the construct of justice and fairness more frequently than expressive persons, who used a predominantly relational construct. With respect to ethical conflict, research has focused on sex differences and moral reasoning rather than on sex-role orientation and moral conflict handling styles. Gilligan's (1982) cognitive-developmental theory of morality, which has figured prominently in research of sex differences and moral dilemmas, asserts that men handle conflict according to the moral principle of justice, whereas women prefer the principle of caring. Other researchers, however, have failed to find support for Gilligan's argument that there are significant differences between men and women's moral development, and that justice and care responses are exclusive to men and women, respectively (Ford & Lowery, 1986; Johnston, 1988; Lifton, 1985; Lyons, 1988; Thoma, 1986; Walker, 1984). Yatsko and Larsen (1990) examined the relationship between sex-role orientation and moral decision making. Although no significant relationships between sex-typed traits and moral decision making were found, Yatsko and Larsen's research suggests that sex-role orientation is an important area to examine, particularly in view of the growing support for sex-role orientation as a critical predictor of interpersonal conflict handling styles (Baxter & Shepherd, 1978; Falbo, 1982; Korabik, 1981, 1982a, 1982b; Korabik & Ayman, 1987; Yelsma & Brown, 1985). Such findings demand that traditional research, which has concentrated solely on biological sex differences,  9 be re-conceptualized so that greater attention be directed to the moderating effects of sex-role orientation on conflict management styles. The underlying premise behind the present study is that women supervisors and managers possess the instrumental skills and ability once believed to be exclusive to men.  Based on the empirical research examining sex-typed traits and conflict handling  styles, it is extrapolated that a women manager's reported use of conflict handling styles, whether predominantly instrumental or expressive in nature, will vary in accordance with the individual's particular sex-role orientation. Furthermore, it is suggested that women's managerial behaviours do not remain static, but are flexible according to the demands of a particular situation, such as the specific type of conflict engaged in. This view is consistent with the structuralist perspective, which asserts that men's and women's behaviour varies according to job and organizational structure, rather than by learned sex-stereotypes not readily amenable to change, as supported by socialization theory (Mainiero, 1986). Based on structural theory, therefore, the present study addressed the following questions: 1. Does the manner in which women managers resolve conflicts differ according to their sex-role orientation, regardless of type of conflict? 2. Does the manner in which women managers resolve conflicts differ according to the type of conflict engaged in (interpersonal or moral) and their sex-role orientation?  More specifically, it was expected, regardless of type of conflict, that (a) highinstrumental managers would report greater use of a dominating conflict handling style, compared with low-instrumental managers, and (b) high-expressive managers would report greater use of a compromising conflict handling style, compared with low-expressive managers. However, in consideration of the moderating effects of conflict type, it was expected that (a) high-instrumental managers would report greater use of a integrating conflict handing style for interpersonal conflict vs. moral conflict, compared with low-instrumental managers; (b) high-instrumental managers would report greater use of a dominating conflict handling style for moral conflict vs. interpersonal conflict, compared with low-instrumental managers; and (c) androgynous managers would report greater use of a integrating conflict handling style for both interpersonal and moral conflict, compared with managers who score high on the undifferentiated dimension. The purpose of specifically addressing conflict directed to one's boss is twofold. First, because much of previous research has failed to discriminate between boss-, peer-, and subordinate-directed conflict, this study examines how boss-directed conflict impacts conflictual situations. Second, because women managers may experience less power or control in their positions than men managers (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1990), it is possible that they find boss-directed conflict the most problematic type of conflict. Thus, women managers might expect to evoke different  11  conflict handling styles for boss-directed conflict than for peer- or subordinate-directed conflict. Despite the prominence of both ethical and interpersonal conflict in organizational culture, there is a lack of empirical research exploring their individual association with managerial behaviour. In an attempt to deepen the level of analysis, the present study differentiates between interpersonal and ethical conflict. Individuals may frequently confuse ethical and interpersonal conflict because of their apparent similarities. For example, ethical or moral conflicts may be masked as differences in personality, communication style, or outlook (interpersonal conflict), rather than as core differences in principles or moral beliefs. Helping an individual to understand the differences between interpersonal and ethical conflicts may sensitize one to ethical situations and personal values. Thus, fostering awareness of core beliefs may assist women managers to clarify whether conflict stems from interpersonal differences or fundamental ethical beliefs, and to develop appropriate conflict resolution and negotiation skills according to the demands of the specific conflict situation.  Literature Review Productive organizational cultures appear strongly influenced by the amount and type of conflict present. As a result, there is a need for research that examines the dynamics from which conflict is fuelled, and the manner in which successful conflict resolution may be achieved. More specifically, this study sought to provide a greater understanding of how conflict handling styles in women managers varies according to the type of conflict (interpersonal and ethical) engaged in and the individual's sex-role orientation. Interpersonal conflict is defined as the competing goals or attitudes of two individuals within the organization: specifically, within the context of this study, the subordinate (women manager) and her supervisor. Rahim (1983b) further defines conflict as "an interactive state manifested in disagreement, differences, or incompatibility, within or between social entities, that is, individual, group, and organization" (p. 1). The major source of interpersonal conflict is the people involved (e.g., their communication style, decision making style, and personality). Moral conflict, however, involves the violation of ethical or moral principles, goals, purposes, and/or professional standards in which two individuals (superior and subordinate) disagree as to the most appropriate means of approaching and resolving the conflict. The major source of moral conflict is the principle or moral belief involved; moral conflicts occur over core beliefs of right and wrong, to which one is committed. Within an organizational setting, moral conflicts originate from disagreements  13 regarding company procedures and ethics, employee rights and discrimination, and selection criteria. This study draws on literature from the industrial psychology domain and the areas of sex-role theory and interpersonal and moral conflict. The following review is particularly concerned with sex-role orientation relative to both interpersonal conflict and moral or ethical conflict. Although each specific body of literature contains substantial information, there has been virtually no attempt by previous researchers to integrate the areas of sex differences, sex-role orientation, and moral and interpersonal conflict, particularly as they apply to industrial settings. Sex Differences and Interpersonal Conflict Despite the lack of research examining sex-role orientation and interpersonal conflict, there are numerous studies investigating sex differences in conflict-resolution styles of managers. For example, Renwick (1977) found that among a sample of men (N=56) and women (N=40) managers employed in a large insurance company, there were no differences in reported preferences of conflict handling styles directed at one's immediate supervisor. Shockley-Zalabak (1981) also found that among a sample of 31 male and 38 female managers across five organizations, no sex differences emerged among conflict handling styles. Chusmuir and Mills (1989) compared conflict resolution styles of male (N=99) and female (N=102) managers at home and at work. Findings suggested that although both sexes handled conflict more competitively at work than at home, men and women did not show significant differences in their use  14 of conflict handling styles at work. Further research examining the use of power strategies at work have yielded similar results to those of conflict resolution styles in that men and women managers did not show significant differences in ways of exercising power (Donnell & Hall, 1980; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Offermann & Schrier, 1985). Other researchers, however, have reported that sex differences do exist in the reported preferences of conflict handling styles. Rosenthal and Hautaluotna (1988), for example, found that among a sample of college students, women (N=27) reported a greater preference for using accommodative and compromising conflict handling styles, and less of a preference for dominant and competitive styles than men (N=29). The study, however, also examined how one's interpersonal power influenced the choice of conflict styles used, thus suggesting that sex alone may not account for differences among conflict management strategies used. Furthermore, Chanin and Schneer (1984) found that among senior undergraduate business students, men (N=50) reported a significantly greater use of the collaborating conflict handling style than women (N=44), whereas women reported greater use of the compromising conflict handling style than men.  Korabik et al. (1990) found that among graduate business  students without any actual managerial experience, women (N=17) reported using the integrating and compromising conflict handling styles for subordinate-directed conflict more than men (N=26), although there were no sex differences found for the dominating conflict handling style. Among those students with managerial experience,  15  however, Korabik et al. found no sex differences on any of the five conflict management styles measured by the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (Rahim, 1983b). In addition, Korabik et al. found no sex differences in conflict management behaviours used during the study's role play component, thus replicating findings from self-report measures to actual behaviourial observations. Data from Korabik et al.'s study indicated that women managers may differ from non-managerial women, but not from men managers in their reported use of preferred conflict handling styles. This finding is congruent with Powell's (1988) contention that sex differences are more prevalent among non-managerial samples than among managerial samples. Hence, the assumption based on sex-role stereotypes that male and female managers are characteristically different, needs to be re-examined more thoroughly. A strength of both Korabik et al. (1990), and Chanin and Schneer's (1984) studies is the researchers' attempts to examine conflict in actual situations, rather than relying solely on self-report measures, which are prone to social desirability biases. For example, in addition to acquiring self-report measures of conflict handling styles, Korabik et al. employed a role play, whereas Chanin and Schneer used a business simulation game to investigate conflict behaviour. Results from laboratory settings, however, must be replicated in actual field settings before they can be generalized to management settings. Another strength of Korabik et al.'s methodology is the inclusion of persons with both managerial and non-managerial experience, thus facilitating comparison between the two group. However, Korabik et al., in addition  16 to Rosenthal and Hautaluoma (1988), and Chanin and Schneer, based their findings on a sample of college students, rather than on a sample of full-time managers. Care must be taken, therefore, in attempting to generalize the results to the management population. Another weakness of the studies is the lack of reported information regarding age of participants. For example, although the majority of the sample used in Chanin and Schneer's study was between the ages of 20-24, neither Rosenthal and Hautaluoma, nor Korabik et al. reported the mean age of their participants. However, because Korabik et al. employed graduate students who had held an average of 4.2 years managerial experience, it is likely that their sample was older and more experienced than Chanin and Schneer's. With respect to the measures used to determine conflict handling behaviour, there is further inconsistency among Chanin and Schneer (1984), Rosenthal and Hautaluoma (1988), and Korabik et al.'s (1990) research. For example, whereas Chanin and Schneer used the Thomas-Kilmann Mode instrument (Kilmann & Thomas, 1975), Korabik et al. employed the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (Rahim, 1983a). In addition, because Rosenthal and Hautaluoma devised the Rosenthal-Hautaluoma conflict instrument specifically for their study, there is little evidence supporting its validity and reliability. Moreover, only Korabik et al. specified whether boss, peer, or subordinate directed conflict was being examined. As a result of the discrepant methodologies, designs, and samples employed in each of  17 three studies, it is difficult to make clear comparisons among the findings and to reach any definitive conclusions regarding the way men and women resolve conflict. Further research that examined sex differences and conflict handling styles has continued to yield inconclusive results. Baron (1989) found that among male and female managers and technical personnel employed in a large food-processing company, women reported a stronger tendency than men to handle conflict with subordinates and peers through collaboration or avoidance. More specifically, with respect to boss-directed conflict, women reported stronger tendencies than men to handle conflict through accommodation. Another study by Duane (1989), which used a sample of union/management officials, found that male managers were more likely than female managers to report using the accommodating approach to conflict, whereas women were more likely than men to report using the competitive strategy, thus challenging the popular conception that women are more accommodating and less competitive than men in conflict situations. Baron (1989) and Duane's (1989) studies, however, both suffer from several methodological shortcomings. First, demographic information, which facilitates the comparison and interpretation of results, is inadequately reported. For example, although Baron reported the age range of participants (M=33.31), Duane failed to do so. In addition, neither study reported the number of years experience participants held, nor the specific organizational levels occupied by participants. Second, there is little specific information regarding the Thomas-Kilmann Mode instrument's (Kilmann  18 & Thomas, 1975) development, standardization, reliability, or validity (Harding, 1989), and has been reported by Kabanoff (1987) to have minimal external or predictive validity, thus leading one to question results based on the instrument. Both Baron and Duane used the Thomas-Kilmann Mode instrument to measure respondents' preferred conflict handling styles. Third, the issue of generalizability and validity of results is raised due to the low number of women used in both samples (N=34, Baron; N=7, Duane), compared with the number of men (N=64, Baron; N=34, Duane). Moreover, of the 34 women employed in Baron's study, only 22 were employed in a managerial capacity. Further research must also examine managers in contrasting levels of responsibility across a diversity of organizations before generalizability can occur. Finally, although Baron discriminated between self-reported conflict handling styles directed at one's boss, peer, and subordinate, Duane failed to report this information. In fact, because Duane offered only very sparse details of the research design and sample used, the validity of results obtained in his study is highly questionable. Other studies have found that men are more likely than women to report using the instrumental sex-typed competitive style of handling conflict (Kilmann & Thomas, 1975), whereas women are more likely than men to report using the expressive sextyped compromising or accommodating style (Berryman-Fink & Brunner, 1987; Frost & Wilmot, 1978). Rahim (1983b) has suggested that women report using the compromising conflict handling style more than men, but that there are no sex differences in the reported use of the dominating or competitive style. Rahim (1983b)  19 defines a dominating conflict handling style as that which involves the use of competing or forceful behaviour to win one's position, often ignoring the needs and expectations of the other individual, whereas a compromising conflict handling style involves sharing so that both individuals relinquish something to make a mutually acceptable decision or seek a middle-ground position. Statham (1987) examined the differences in management styles of 22 female and 18 male managers and their secretaries from three organizations. Based on qualitative data, the findings suggested that women used a predominantly task and person managerial style, whereas men used a predominantly autonomy and image oriented managerial style. Although Statham did not specifically assess sex differences and conflict handling styles, her findings suggest that instrumental sextyped managerial behaviours and expressive sex-typed behaviours are not solely limited to men and women, respectively. In a related study, Mainiero (1986) examined sex differences in power strategy usage among men (N=49) and women (N=49) employed in two organizations. Correlational analyses showed than women used an acquiescence strategy significantly more than men, and men used a persuasive strategy significantly more than women when faced with a powerless situation. Chi-square analysis, however, only showed a significant relationship between women's use of the acquiescence strategy. Results also showed that men and in particular, women who were employed in low-power jobs were more likely to use acquiescence strategies than those persons employed in  20 powerful jobs. Although Mainiero's findings are based on correlational data, which cannot infer causation, they do suggest that organizational variables, such as level of power impact conflict behaviour, and that gender alone may not adequately explain differences in employee behaviour. Kipnis et al. (1980) investigated the use of influence strategies among managerial personnel in two separate studies (N=165; N=754). Participants, who were employed in management positions and enroled in evening graduate business courses, volunteered to complete self-report measures that assessed organizational influence tactics. Results indicated that influence strategies did not differ significantly between men and women, but rather, that preferred influence tactics varied according to the power of the person being influenced. For example, when trying to influence their bosses, individuals favoured rationality tactics of self-presentation and providing supporting data and detailed plans to their supervisors. By contrast, when trying to influence their subordinates, individuals favoured more assertive strategies and negative sanctions such as poor performance appraisals. These findings supported the social-learning perspective, which maintains that behaviour is impacted by situational factors, such as the degree of power that individuals within an organizational hold, job status, reasons for exercising influence, the resistance of persons to whom influence is directed, organizational size, and the presence of unions (Kipnis et al., 1980). Further research has suggested that the sex of one's supervisor may affect how men and women resolve conflict. For example, although Berryman-Fink and Brunner  21 (1987) found that men were more likely than women to report using the competitive conflict management strategy, they also indicated that both sexes were more likely to report using the accommodating style with a female supervisor than with a male supervisor. Offermann and Kearney (1988) also discovered that men and women's influence strategies varied according to the sex of the superior. More precisely, they found that both men and women reported being less likely to use a reasoning or negotiating approach when interacting with a female supervisor, and more likely to withdraw from conflict than persons with a male supervisor. Kipnis et al. (1980), however, found that boss's sex was not related to the subordinate's choice of influence tactics. Because Berryman-Fink and Brunner, and Offermann and Kearney used samples of college undergraduate students, care must be taken in generalizing the results to both older adults and the management population. The assumption, therefore, that women may be perceived as less reasonable than men, or that persons are socialized to be more accommodating to women, cannot be made until future research controls for variables of age, organizational level and position, importance of the conflict situation, and sex-role orientation of individuals involved in conflict. Both Berryman-Fink and Brunner (1987), and Offerman and Kearney (1988), however, imply that the interaction effects of supervisor sex and subordinate sex may influence the use of conflict resolution strategies. The present study attempted to control for the effect of supervisor sex by asking respondents to indicate the gender of the supervisor with whom they were in conflict.  In addition to sex-role orientation, other factors such as length of time in the organization (Putnam & Wilson, 1982) and commitment to the position or supervisor (Zammuto, London, & Rowland, 1979) have been found to mediate gender effects on conflict behaviours. Ragins and Sundstrom (1990), for example, asserted that employees who have been supervised by the same manager over a long period of time may perceive the manager differently than subordinates with a shorter history of supervision, which may also impact the manner in which conflict is resolved. Additionally, with respect to commitment, Reichers (1986) found that personal and organizational conflicts were negatively related to organizational commitment. Although empirical evidence provides only limited support for the view that these factors impact conflict management behaviours, the present study attempted to control for the variables of time and commitment within the organization. Time was controlled for in that respondents were required to have held the same position for a minimum of 12 months to qualify for the study. Commitment was controlled for by requesting participants to complete three questions from Mowday, Steers, and Porter's (1979) scale of organizational commitment. In summary, the findings from research that examined sex differences and interpersonal conflict have not provided clear evidence that men and women exhibit distinctly different conflict management behaviours. Whereas some researchers have suggested that no differences exist (Korabik et al., 1990; Renwick, 1977; ShockleyZalabak, 1981), others have indicated that there are differences between the sexes  23 (Baron, 1989; Berryman-Fink & Brunner, 1987; Chanin & Schneer, 1984; Duane, 1989; Frost & Wilmot, 1978; Kilmann & Thomas, 1975; Korabik et al., 1990; Rahim, 1983b; Rosenthal & Hautaluoma, 1988). Even within the body of research that report sex differences, there are discrepant findings. For example, some results indicated that women have a greater preference for accommodative conflict handling strategies than men, and less of a preference for competitive or dominant styles (Baron, 1989; Berryman-Fink & Brunner, 1987; Frost & Wilmot; Rosenthal & Hautaluoma, 1989), whereas other findings suggested that female managers are more competitive than male managers, and males managers are more accommodating than female managers (Duane, 1989). Such discrepant results may be due to the unrepresentative sample sizes of men and women used, or the different methodologies employed, such as laboratory experiments, self-report measures, and simulated business games. Still, they indicate that factors such as sex-role orientation, and to a lesser degree, sex of supervisor (Berryman-Fink & Brunner, 1987; Offermann & Kearney, 1988), organizational commitment (Zammuto, London, & Rowland, 1979), and length of time in organization (Putnam & Wilson, 1982) may account for differences in the conflict handling styles used by men and women managers. Sex-Role Orientation and Interpersonal Conflict Research on sex differences and interpersonal conflict suggests that gender differences alone do not account for the variations in conflict handling behaviours, particularly in light of findings that claim reported sex differences disappear when men  and women managers are matched on variables of age, education, and managerial experience (Chusmuir & Mills, 1989; Korabik & Ayman, 1987). Supported by the view that persons do not consistently behave in solely stereotypical masculine or feminine ways, it is possible, therefore, that sex-role orientation may be a more effective means of explaining differences in conflict resolution styles than biological sex classification. Yelsma and Brown (1985) maintain that the tendency for individuals to engage in one conflict handling style over other styles may have a direct relation to their sexrole orientation. Specifically, the researchers found that among marital partners, instrumental and androgynous men and women reported to handle conflict using a win-win approach more than persons with expressive or undifferentiated sex-role orientations. The notion of a win-win conflict approach is consistent with Rahim's (1983a) conception of the integrating conflict handling style, incorporating concern for both self and other. Yelsma and Brown also found that instrumental and androgynous persons had a higher desire for control than expressive persons. Furthermore, the results of the study revealed that sex-role orientation was a better predictor of predisposition to conflict management style than was sex. Similarly, Orlofsky and Stake (1981), employing a sample of 176 male and female college students to assess instrumental and expressive sex-typed traits, found that sex-role orientation was a more influential determinant of personality functioning than biological sex. Results of Orlofsky and Stake's study also indicated that instrumental and expressive traits hold  25 similar meanings for both men and women, thus minimizing the division between sexes and suggesting that more attention be given to personality traits common to both sexes rather than exclusive to each sex. Similar research that examined sex-typed traits and power strategies used in intimate relationships found that among a sample of college students (50 men and 50 women), androgynous persons reported a preference for using a persuasive strategy with their partners, whereas expressive persons preferred to use an avoidant strategy, and instrumental persons preferred to use a bargaining strategy (Falbo, 1982). Baxter and Shepherd (1978) investigated whether men and women with expressive, instrumental, and androgynous sex-role orientations differed in their use of conflict handling styles according to whether they liked or disliked the other individual with whom they were hypothetically involved in conflict. The researchers found that instrumental and androgynous persons were significantly more approving of competition than expressive persons. Furthermore, results indicated that expressive, instrumental, and androgynous persons approved significantly more of the competitive conflict handling style when they interacted with individuals that they disliked, rather than liked. Conversely, expressive, instrumental, and androgynous persons reported to approve more of the accommodation, collaboration, and compromising styles when they interacted with individuals that they liked, as opposed to disliked. Baxter and Shepherd's findings demonstrated that an individual's affective relationship with another person may also impact his or her style of handling conflict. The results of  26 both Falbo and Baxter and Shepherd's research, however, were based on samples of college students, and therefore, must be replicated on managerial persons before findings can be generalized to organizational settings. Furthermore, Baxter and Shepherd failed to report the ratio of men to women in the sample (N=143), thus raising questions as to whether there was an equal distribution of men and women used in the study. Korabik (1981. 1982a) examined the effect of sex-role orientation on leadership style and found that an instrumental sex-role orientation was positively correlated with the initiating structure or instrumental style of leadership, whereas an expressive sexrole orientation was positively correlated with the consideration or expressive leadership style. Androgyny was significantly correlated with both the initiating structure and consideration leadership styles. Employing multiple regression analyses, Korabik also found that sex-role orientation was a better predictor than sex for the initiating structure and consideration leadership styles, thereby further supporting the view that sex-role orientation may be a critical determinant of management skills. The Bern Sex-Role Inventory (Bern, 1974) was used to measure sex-typed traits of instrumentality and expressiveness, thus providing additional support for its appropriateness in studies that examine leadership behaviour and conflict handling styles. Korabik (1981, 1982b) also conducted laboratory research on the leadership behaviour of college students in small groups. Specifically, in two different  experiments, Korabik assessed the interactive patterns of persons categorized as expressive, instrumental, and androgynous sex-typed individuals. Analyses of variance showed that high-instrumental men and women preferred the task-oriented leadership style significantly more than the social-emotional style, whereas high-expressive men and women preferred the social-emotional leadership style significantly more than the task-oriented style. In addition, androgynous persons were able to use either a taskoriented or social-emotional leadership style, depending upon which sex-role orientation was absent in their particular experimental group. For example, regardless of their partner's gender, androgynous persons would employ the social-emotional leadership style with instrumental persons, and the task-oriented leadership style with expressive persons. The issue must be addressed, however, whether external validity can be based on results solely from laboratory research, without first replicating the study in actual field settings. Korabik and Ayman (1987) examined the relationship between sex-role orientation, leadership style, and subordinate-directed conflict management strategies, using a sample of female (N=126) and male (N=121) middle to upper-level managers matched on job position and tenure, employed in a large public utility company and two insurance companies. Correlational data showed that instrumentality was positively and significantly related to the initiating structure leadership style and competitive conflict handling style, whereas expressiveness was positively and significantly related to the consideration leadership style and accommodation conflict  handling style. Analyses of variance revealed that high-instrumental managers used a significantly greater initiating structure leadership style and competitive and collaboration conflict management styles, compared with low-instrumental managers, whereas high-expressive managers used a significantly greater consideration leadership style and accommodation conflict management style, compared with low-expressive managers. The Bern Sex-Role Inventory (Bern, 1974) was used to assess sex-typed traits. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (Kilmann & Thomas, 1975) was employed to measure conflict handling styles, which has been criticized for weak reliability and validity statistical information (Harding, 1989). Another weakness of the study, which may have affected the pattern of results, was the failure to describe the nature of the specific leadership situation. Korabik and Ayman suggest that in addition to sex-role orientation, factors such as leadership style and situational variables may impact conflict resolution styles and thus, should be controlled for in further research. Interestingly, the findings of Korabik and Ayman's study, which used a managerial sample consisting of near equal membership of both men and women, were similar to those of Korabik's (1981, 1982a) earlier study, which was based on a sample of college undergraduates with a disproportionately greater number of women (N=174) than men (N=78). The similarity in findings may suggest that (a) responses on the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (Bern, 1974) or/and the Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (Stogdill & Coons, 1957), which were used in both studies, remain stable throughout young to middle adulthood, and that findings  29 based on student samples may be generalized to the management population, or (b) sex-role orientation and leadership behaviour should be measured on alternate instruments before firm conclusions can be made regarding the validity and reliability of results. Another study by Gever (1988) examined whether sex-role orientation, using the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (Bern, 1974), was predictive of individuals' use of either a relational construct to resolve interpersonal conflicts, or a construct based on abstract justice and fairness. The study extended constructs of moral conflict to the interpersonal conflict domain, using a sample of women (N=90) and men (N=57). Results showed that instrumental men and women used the constructs of justice and fairness more frequently to resolve their interpersonal conflicts than expressive persons, who used a predominantly relational orientation. Furthermore, it was revealed that context played a significant role in the pattern of responses. Specifically, data indicated that high-instrumental women used justice responses more frequently in a work situation than they did in any other context. Limitations to the study, however, include the lack of documented evidence to support the validity and reliability of the instrument designed to measure the use of justice or relational constructs to resolve conflicts. Because the instrument was developed and validated specifically for Gever's study, it needs to be further refined and validated to ensure generalizability across different contexts. Furthermore, the sample used was fairly homogeneous, consisting of individuals between 24 and 55 years of age, all graduate students, and  30  predominantly already employed in professions, thereby suggesting that caution must be exercised in generalizing the results to other populations. A second limitation is that the study used a women to interview respondents during the structured interview portion of the project, rather than employing both male and female interviewers. Thus, a gender bias may have affected the manner and pattern of participant responses. However, despite its limitations, Gever's (1988) investigation offers support for the contention that sex-role orientation is a more important predictor of conflict resolution than biological sex, and that certain behaviours are not limited to men and women, exclusively. Moreover, the results indicated that context is also a pivotal factor when presaging an individual's style of responding to conflict. Based on the results of Gever's study, it is highly possible that there are different phenomena operating within the workplace than within intimate relationships, thus suggesting that results from conflict research within intimate relationships cannot be generalized to work settings. The above research findings support the hypotheses that androgynous persons are more likely than instrumental or expressive persons to use an integrating approach to interpersonal conflict, whereas expressive persons are more likely than instrumental persons to use a compromising approach, and instrumental persons are more likely than expressive persons to use a dominating approach to conflict (Baxter & Shepherd, 1978, Korabik, 1981, 1982a, 1982b; Korabik & Ayman, 1987; Yelsma & Brown, 1985). Much of previous research, however, has examined the interactive effects of  31 sex-role orientation and conflict handling behaviour within intimate relationships or using college student samples, thus failing to investigate how employee conflict is resolved within actual organizational settings. As demonstrated by research on sex differences and conflict resolution styles, findings based on non-managerial participants cannot necessarily be generalized to managerial samples (Korabik et al., 1990; Powell, 1988). Therefore (with the exception of Korabik and Ayman's investigation), the foregoing predictions are formulated based on research conducted predominantly within the interpersonal relationship realm, which used samples of undergraduate college students. With respect to ethical conflict, many of the following findings of sex differences in moral reasoning have provided a framework from which to examine sex-role orientation and moral conflict handling styles. Sex Differences and Moral Conflict  Gilligan's (1982) cognitive-developmental theory of morality, which has been at the forefront of research investigating sex differences in moral reasoning, asserts that men handle conflict according to the moral principle of justice, whereas women prefer the principle of caring. Central to Gilligan's framework is scepticism directed at Kohlberg's (1969) claim that justice reasoning alone acts as the basis of moral development. A justice perspective refers to the attention to obligations and rights, an equal respect for individuals, and impartiality, whereas a care perspective refers to the attention to needs of others in a context of relationships (Flanagan & Jackson, 1987; Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988). Gilligan maintains that for men, moral development  32 refers to a desire for separation and a view of self as independent or separate; an objective compatible with the justice principle. However, for women, Gilligan asserts that moral development centres around attachment and a conception of self connected to others; a goal compatible with the principle of caring. Despite Gilligan's (1982) strong claim for sex differences in moral reasoning processes, Gilligan herself could not find any empirical evidence to support her assumptions or provide any philosophical foundations for them. Furthermore, Gilligan's conclusions were based on one study, rather than across several investigations, which most certainly would have enhanced the veracity and generalizability of findings. Several researchers have failed to find consistent support for Gilligan's theory. First, Thoma (1986) found that females scored higher than males on moral judgment directed at concepts of justice, thus refuting Gilligan's notion of men employing the concept of justice more than women. Second, Walker (1984), upon reviewing the literature, asserted that only a small number of studies reveal sex differences in moral reasoning, and of those studies that do, the differences are minimal. Third, Lifton (1985) noted that of the 45 studies conducted through 1983 that dealt specifically with sex differences in moral development, 60% of these studies found no significant differences between men and women. Moreover, Ford and Lowery (1986) failed to find significant differences between male (N=101) and female (N=101) college students' use of "justice" and "care" orientations in moral reasoning, although results did indicate that males were more consistent in their use of a justice  33  orientation than a care orientation, and females were more consistent in their use of a care orientation than a justice orientation. Most notably, these researchers found that high-expressive males were more likely than low-expressive males to use a care orientation, thus suggesting that the use of justice and care orientations to resolve moral dilemmas is not solely determined by biological sex. Finally, a study by Pratt, Golding, and Hunter (1984), which examined sex differences using Kohlberg's (1976) standard Moral Judgment instrument, found only limited evidence to show sex differences in moral orientation at the principled level of moral judgment, and no significant difference overall. It is problematic^ however, to use Kohlberg's scale to explicate sex differences in moral reasoning because Kohlberg did not incorporate women in his studies. It appears, therefore, that research, such as Pratt et al.'s, is based on a theoretical and an operationalization framework inappropriate to the objective of their study (i.e., sex differences), thus the relevance and validity of such findings can be questioned. Although Gilligan's (1982) cognitive-developmental theory of morality has helped to provide a greater understanding of the justice and care constructs individuals use to resolve moral dilemmas, researchers have failed to show that these constructs are exclusive to males and females, respectively (Ford & Lowery, 1986; Lifton, 1985; Thoma, 1986; Walker, 1984). The assumption, therefore, is that sex differences alone cannot account for differences in moral development. Rather, the following studies provide evidence to suggest that sex-role orientation may account for differences in  moral development (Ford & Lowery, 1986; Johnston, 1988; Lyons, 1988), although recent research still has not begun to address fully how sex-role orientation impacts conflict handling styles within organizational settings. Past research has also failed to discriminate between the specific conflict situations, such as ethical and interpersonal conflict, and to assess whether type of conflict affects conflict handling style usage. Thus, the present study addresses the extent to which factors of sex-role orientation, ethical conflict, and interpersonal conflict, impact the conflict styles women managers use at work.  Sex-Role Orientation and Mora! Conflict Sex-role orientation is an appropriate area to examine, particularly because males and females have been found to express behaviours and self-perceptions contrary to conventional stereotypical norms. Findings suggest that an individual's way of viewing morality is related to one's conception of self (Gilligan, 1982). Referring to the area of sex-role orientation, one might expand this statement to add that an individual's perceived gender identity and sex-role behaviour impacts his or her way of viewing moral or ethical issues. Bern (1974) suggests that both sexes are capable of viewing the self in a non-stereotypical fashion, and that feminine and masculine orientations may co-exist in one individual, thus supporting the view that gender roles or sex-role orientation may be more relevant to study than biological sex. Several studies indicate that biological sex alone is not an adequate indicator of behaviour and attitudes. Arbuthnot (1975), for example, studied college male (N=31)  and female (N=47) undergraduate students using the Moral Judgment Scale (Kohlberg, 1976), and found no main effect for sex, but a significant relationship between sexrole orientation and level of moral reasoning. Findings showed that instrumental females and males obtained significantly higher moral judgment scores than expressive females and males. Smetana (1984) has provided additional support for the viewpoint that sex alone may not account for differences in level of moral reasoning. Specifically, the author critiqued Pratt et al.'s (1984) study of sex differences and noted the researchers' failure to mention that females, in addition to using a care orientation, also used a fairness orientation towards moral judgment. Smetana, however, does acknowledge and support Pratt et al.'s view that justice, rights, caregiving, and responsibility moral orientations all co-exist in both male and female's moral judgments, thereby indicating that sex-role orientation may be more relevant to the study of moral decision making than sex differences. Further research conducted by Geckler (1985) examined the relationship between sex-role orientation and moral stage reasoning, employing a sample of 63 women. Although chi square analysis failed to find significant differences between androgynous and expressive sex-typed females, percentage trends did support the researcher's original hypothesis that sex-role orientation impacts stage of moral reasoning. Geckler's study, however, is problematic in that select types of occupations, whether typically traditional or non-traditional in nature, were not represented. The failure to control for traditional and non-traditional occupations may  36 account for the study's inability to find significant differences in sex-role orientation between women grouped into paid working and non-paid working or traditional categories. Using a sample of women at each occupational level would have helped to provide a more definitive comparison between traditional and non-traditional women, thus facilitating the generalizability of results to a more instrumental or androgynous paid working group, such as the supervisory/managerial population. Nonetheless, Geckler's thesis on moral reasoning among working women, is important in its focus on sex-role orientation, rather than sex differences. Additional research also corroborates the viewpoint that sex-role orientation is an important predictor of moral conflict resolution. First, Block (1973) suggested that a more androgynous view of oneself is associated with greater maturity in one's moral judgment, regardless by biological sex. Second, Johnston's (1988) study of adolescent's solutions to moral dilemmas in fables found that the females were able to use both the justice and care perspectives to generate solutions to the conflict, thereby refuting the contention that there are clearly defined sex differences in moral conflict resolution. Finally, Lyons (1988) attempted to provide empirical validation for Gilligan's theory, and found that regardless of sex, individuals who defined themselves predominantly as separate/objective were found to use the consideration of rights mode to resolve real-life moral dilemmas more frequently than persons who described themselves in connected terms. Conversely, individuals who described themselves predominantly in connected terms were found to employ a response and care  37 perspective to construct and resolve moral conflicts more frequently than persons who described themselves as separate/objective. These findings support the contention that an instrumental sex-typed individual may be more likely to use a rights perspective to resolve moral conflict than a care perspective, and an expressive sex-typed individual more likely to employ a care perspective than a rights perspective. Yatsko and Larsen (1990) examined the relationship between sex-role orientation and moral decision making, administering the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (Bern, 1974) and six of Kohlberg's (1969) moral dilemmas. They predicted that expressiveness would be related to an empathic and caring moral orientation, and instrumentality would be related to a justice focus. Individuals were grouped into sexrole categories according to the median-split method, and divided into moral decisionmaking groups according to the respondents' number of empathy and/or justice responses. Using an analysis of variance, no significant relationships between sextyped traits and moral decision making were found. The findings, however, were based on a relatively small sample (N=71) of college undergraduate students, with a disproportionately greater number of males (N=45) than females (N=26). Furthermore, Yatsko and Larsen suggest that the forced-choice format of the Kohlbergian scale may have been an inadequate measure of moral reasoning, thus accounting for the failure to find a relationship between sex-role orientation and ethical decision making. It is noteworthy that despite the minimal research conducted regarding sex-role orientation and moral conflict, there are virtually no known studies incorporating the  38 effects of moral or ethical conflict within the organizational domain. However, there does appear to be a relationship between Gilligan's (1982) concepts of justice and care, sex-typed traits of instrumentality and expressiveness, and conflict handling styles. For example, consistent with Gilligan's justice perspective is Bussey and Maughan's (1982) definition of instrumentality as being autonomous and problem solving in nature, and Rahim's (1983b) notion of an integrating conflict handling style. Also, Gilligan's care perspective parallels Bussey and Maughan's definition of expressiveness as maintaining a sense of connectedness, and the notion of a compromising conflict handling style. It is proposed that the constructs of justice and care, central to Gilligan's cognitive-developmental theory of morality, encompass sexrole orientation and managerial conflict handling strategies. This study examines how specific contexts impact one's conflict handling behaviour; that is, within a managerial setting and between two types of conflict situations. The importance of context is consistent with Mischel's (1966) sociallearning theory, which asserts that all behaviour is determined by the specific situation in which it is exhibited. Similarly, Spence and Helmreich's (1978) social learning perspective contends that sex-role orientation is situation-specific and not consistent across all contexts. Thus, the present study addresses the extent to which conflict handling styles among women managers vary depending on sex-role orientation and conflict type.  39  Summary In summary, previous research that has examined the relationship between sex differences, sex-role orientation, and conflict resolution styles provides the rationale for two research questions. The first research question addressed whether women managers resolve conflicts differently according to their sex-role orientation, regardless of type of conflict. It was expected that (a) high-instrumental managers use more dominating and competitive conflict handling styles, compared with low-instrumental managers, and (b) high-expressive managers use more compromising and accommodating conflict handling styles, compared with low-expressive managers. The second question assessed whether the manner in which women managers resolve conflicts differently according to the type of conflict engaged in (interpersonal or moral) and their sex-role orientation. It was expected that (a) high-instrumental managers use more integrating conflict handling styles for interpersonal conflict vs. moral conflict, compared with low-instrumental managers; (b) high-instrumental managers use more dominating conflict handling styles for moral conflict vs. interpersonal conflict, compared with low-instrumental managers; and (c) androgynous sex-typed managers use more integrating conflict handling styles for both interpersonal and moral conflict, compared with managers who score high on the undifferentiated dimension. Support for these predictions has been provided by researchers who have examined the effects of sex differences and sex-role orientation on areas of  interpersonal conflict handling styles, moral decision making, leadership styles, and power strategies (Baxter & Shepherd, 1978; Falbo, 1982; Gever, 1988; Korabik, 1981, 1982a, 1982b; Korabik & Ayman, 1987; Lyons, 1988; Mainiero, 1986; Yelsma & Brown, 1985). Few empirical studies, however, have specifically addressed the area of sex-role orientation and conflict management strategies within the workplace, particularly as it relates to ethical conflict. Current research that examines this area must rely primarily on findings based on research conducted with interpersonal relationships, using college student samples, which does not fully take into account contextual variables specific to organizational settings. Kipnis et al. (1980) have also indicated that the majority of research on leadership behaviour has focused on the ways in which leaders exert influence over subordinates, and have failed to examine how influence strategies may vary among peers and bosses, thus providing a very limited perspective on managerial leadership styles. In order to provide a more comprehensive analysis, the focus of this study was to test the moderating effects of type of boss-directed conflict and sex-role orientation on conflict management strategies. It was expected that the type of conflict and the individual's sex-role orientation determine how women managers resolve conflict within the workplace.  41 Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Rationale Extending existing knowledge and theory, the questions this study sought to address and its corresponding hypotheses were as follows: Research Question 1. Does the manner in which women managers resolve conflicts differ according to their sex-role orientation, regardless of type of conflict? Hypothesis 1. Managers who score high on the instrumentality dimension report greater overall means on the dominating conflict handling style, compared with managers who score low on the instrumentality dimension. Hypothesis 2. Managers who score high on the expressiveness dimension report greater overall means on the compromising conflict handling style, compared with managers who score low on the expressiveness dimension. The above hypotheses, testing the main effects of sex-role orientation on conflict management styles, are consistent with Bern's (1981) contention that sex-typed traits remain constant across various situations. The basis behind hypotheses 1 and 2 is consistent with Yelsma and Brown's (1985) contention that instrumental sex-typed individuals have a higher need for control than expressive sex-typed persons, and Baxter and Shepherd's (1978) assertion that instrumental persons are more competitive than expressive persons. Support for hypotheses 1 and 2 has also been provided by Korabik's (1981, 1982a) research on the effects of sex-role orientation on leadership style, which found that high-instrumentality was significantly correlated with the  42 initiating structure leadership style, whereas high-expressiveness was significantly correlated with the consideration style. These findings were similar to Korabik's (1981, 1982b) laboratory studies that found that high-instrumental persons preferred the task-oriented leadership style significantly more than the social-emotional style, and that high-expressive persons preferred the social-emotional leadership style significantly more than the task-oriented style. Korabik and Ayman (1987) also found that high-instrumental managers used the competitive conflict management strategy and the initiating structure leadership style significantly more than low-instrumental persons, whereas high-expressive managers used the accommodation conflict resolution style and the consideration leadership style significantly more than low-expressive persons. Finally, Lyons (1988) showed that regardless of biological sex, individuals who defined themselves predominantly as separate/objective, were found to more frequently use the consideration of rights mode of resolving moral dilemmas, whereas individuals who described themselves predominantly in connected terms were found to more frequently employ a response and care perspective to resolve moral conflicts. Lyons' findings offer further support for the hypotheses that (a) high-instrumental managers are more likely than low-instrumental managers to use the dominating conflict handling style, and (b) high-expressive managers are more likely than lowexpressive managers to use the compromising conflict handling style.  43 It was also predicted, however, that the moderating effects of both sex role orientation and conflict type would impact the respondents' reported used of conflict management strategies, as the following research question suggests. Research Question 2. Does the manner in which women managers resolve conflicts differ according to the type of conflict engaged in (interpersonal or moral) and their sex-role orientation? Hypothesis 3. Managers who score high on the instrumentality dimension report using a significantly greater integrating conflict management style for interpersonal conflict vs. moral conflict, compared with managers who score low on the instrumentality dimension. Hypothesis 4. Managers who score high on the instrumentality dimension report using a significantly greater dominating conflict management style for moral conflict vs. interpersonal conflict, compared with managers who score low on the instrumentality dimension. Hypothesis 5. Androgynous managers report using a significantly greater integrating conflict management strategy for both interpersonal and moral conflict, compared with managers who score high on the undifferentiated dimension. Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 arose from the theories and research related to sex-role orientation and conflict handling and leadership behaviour, whereby instrumental, expressive, and androgynous sex-role orientations are reported to exhibit characteristic sex-typed traits. The basic premise behind hypothesis 3 parallels Falbo's (1982)  44 research on sex-typed traits and power strategies, which found that instrumental persons preferred using a bargaining strategy within interpersonal conflicts. Both hypotheses 3 and 5 are consistent with Yelsma and Brown's (1985) findings that suggested that instrumental and androgynous sex-typed persons reported to handle conflict using a win-win approach more than persons with expressive or undifferentiated sex-role orientations. Similarly, the integrating conflict management style, central to hypotheses 3 and 5, may be considered the most constructive conflict handling style due to its creative basis and concern for all individuals involved. Hypothesis 3 predicted that persons high on instrumentality would use an integrating conflict management style within interpersonal conflicts, whereas hypothesis 4 maintained that persons high on instrumentality would employ a dominating style within moral conflicts. The difference in styles is attributed to the emphasis placed on adherence to personal values and beliefs more characteristic of a moral dilemma than of an interpersonal conflicts. Because a moral conflict involves core beliefs to which one is committed, an individual high on instrumentality may be more likely to employ his or her assertive and goal oriented traits to a greater degree when responding to an ethical dilemma, thus facilitating the use of a persuasive and dominating approach. By contrast, however, an individual high on instrumentality engaged in an interpersonal conflict may draw on bargaining capacities and be more willing to accommodate others' viewpoints, since there is not as great a threat of violating or compromising one's value system as when engaged in a moral conflict.  Because interpersonal conflicts do not typically compromise one's value system as much as ethical dilemmas, they do not justify the use of a dominating conflict handling style as might a moral conflict demand. Although a high instrumental individual may normally be predicted to exert a dominant approach, he or she may be strongly dictated by both social desirability factors characteristic of work environments and the extent to which he or she is justified in asserting him or herself. Furthermore, it is likely that the degree to which an individual high in instrumentality may assert herself or himself is attenuated by the type of conflict and the context. Gever (1988), for example, found that types of responses varied according to the setting. Specifically, instrumental sex-typed women were shown to use justice responses more frequently in a work context than in any other setting. Based on this viewpoint, it appears that one's sense of justice and fairness may be heightened within a work setting. Thus, hypotheses 3 and 4 are consistent with the social-learning perspective, which maintains that behaviour, such as conflict management styles vary across different contexts. Similarly, it was expected that the degree and manner to which individuals exhibit expressive and instrumental sex-typed responses are mediated by specific contextual factors, such as type of conflict (interpersonal or moral). Finally, the rationale for hypothesis 5 is that androgynous managers use an integrating conflict management strategy within both interpersonal and moral conflicts. Rahim (1983b) defines the integrating style as one which generates creative, problemsolving solutions and approaches acceptable to all parties involved. This assertion is  46 consistent with research that suggests androgynous persons possess more flexible behaviours than other sex-role orientations (Bern, 1975; Bern & Lenney, 1976; Spence & Helmreich, 1980; Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978), and are better equipped than instrumental and expressive sex-typed persons to deal with a variety of situations due to their ability to incorporate dual sex-typed behaviours into their perception of self (Baucom & Danker-Brown, 1979; Crane & Markus, 1982). Hypothesis 5 is also consistent with KorabhVs (1981, 1982a) assertion that androgyny was significantly related to both the instrumental-typed initiating and expressive-typed consideration leadership style. Korabik's (1981, 1982b) laboratory studies also found that androgynous persons were capable of using either the task-oriented or the socialemotional leadership style depending upon the sex-role composition of the laboratory group, thus further supporting the view that androgynous individuals exhibit a diversity of behaviours.  47  Method Subjects  Respondents included 134 female volunteers in supervisory and management positions from 12 federal government branches and 25 provincial government ministries and offices, spanning British Columbia and the Yukon Territories. A breakdown of respondent recruitment according to major organization appears in Appendix A. Eligibility criteria included having held a managerial or supervisory position for a minimum of 12 months. Women supervisors and managers were selfidentified.  Sample Characteristics Respondents ranged in age from 26 to 65 years (M=40.1, SD=7.0) (see Table 1 for complete demographic information). The average number of months that respondents were employed full-time in their current position was 46.5 months (approximately 4 years). Approximately 59% of respondents had college or more formal education. Job levels ranged from lower level management (66%), to middle management (31%), to top level management (2%).  Approximately 4% of respondents  reported their combined annual income as $40,000 CDN or less; 36% reported between $41,000 and $60,000; with the balance of 60% reporting above that. The demographic information from women managers who returned complete and incomplete questionnaires was compared (see Appendix A). A visual inspection of the means revealed that respondents from the incomplete data indicated a higher median  Table 1 Demographic Information of Managerial Women (N=134)  Age  40.1  7.0  46.5  42.6  26-65  Months in Present Position  12-204  Education High School Completed Some College Graduate Degree Post-graduate Degree Organizational Level Top Middle Lower  16 79 31 8  11.9 59.0 23.1 6.0  3 42 89  2.2 31.3 66.5  Functional Area Production Personnel General Management Marketing Finance and Accounting Policy Analysis Administration Health Care Other  4 20 49 6 16 8 14 6 11  3.0 14.9 36.6 4.5 11.9 6.0 10.4 4.5 8.2  Combined Annual Income $26,000 - $ 40,000 $41,000 - $ 60,000 $61,000 - $ 80,000 $81,000 - $100,000 Greater than $100,000  5 49 21 35 24  3.7 36.6 15.7 26.1 17.9  income level than those from the complete data. Also, 36.6% of managers from the complete data vs. 25.5% from incomplete data were employed in general management and administration positions, whereas 27.7% of managers from the incomplete data vs. 14.9% from complete data were employed in personnel positions. Other demographic characteristics were similar across groups.  Procedure Federal government organizations provided 12 mailing lists of female supervisors and managers employed in their Western Region (British Columbia and the Yukon Territories). Questionnaire packages were distributed via each federal government organization's internal mailing system. With respect to the provincial government employees, the government's Centre for Managers and Executives provided the researcher with a random sample of 200 names and addresses generated by computer program. The sample also consisted of female supervisors and managers employed throughout the province. Questionnaire packages in this group were not distributed by internal mail, but rather, through the postal system. Respondents were sent a covering letter requesting their participation in the study (see Appendix B). A face sheet outlined general instructions for completing the questionnaires and informed the respondents that the completed questionnaires would be taken as their consent to partake in the study (see Appendix C). Part one of the questionnaire consisted of the following components: (a) general demographic questions (see Appendix D); (b) the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (Bern, 1981; see  Appendix E); and (c) Form A of the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROCIII; Rahim, 1983a) specifying an interpersonal conflict (see Appendix F). Part two of the questionnaire consisted of an adaptation of the ROCI-II specifying a moral conflict (see Appendix G). Respondents were requested to return the completed survey in a self-addressed stamped envelope provided in the questionnaire package. Part one and part two of the ROCI-II were counterbalanced when distributed to ensure that any directional bias effects did not occur. A total of 445 questionnaires were distributed; 245 to federal government employees, and 200 to provincial government employees. One-hundred and eightyfive questionnaires were returned, resulting in a 42% return rate. Of the returned questionnaires, 134 were used in data analyses. The remaining 51 questionnaires were unusable primarily due to incomplete or missing data (38), or failure to fulfil eligibility requirements (9). Appendix A reports the breakdown of missing data. Pilot Study  A pilot study was undertaken prior to the study to reveal and remedy potential flaws in the questionnaire design. Nine working females, seven of whom were currently in managerial positions, volunteered to complete the questionnaire. Upon completion, each individual was asked to comment on the ease of instructions, appropriateness of items, and general reactions to the questionnaire. Changes in the question and instruction format were made when respondents noted that the directions  51 were confusing, or following observation that respondents required further clarification surrounding the differentiation of interpersonal conflict and ethical conflict concepts. Independent Measures  Personality traits. Instrumentality and expressiveness dimensions were measured by the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bern, 1981), which requires persons to rate the extent to which they identify with each of 20 masculine (instrumental), 20 feminine (expressive), and 20 neutral trait adjectives. Bern (1974) defines instrumentality and expressiveness as stable attributes that an individual incorporates into his or her identity. Instrumentality and expressiveness are defined in the present study, however, as consistent with Spence and Helmreich's (1978) conceptualization of sex-typed characteristics as personality traits that vary across situations. Respondents were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale ranging from (1) "never or almost never" to (7) "always or almost always true" the degree to which each characteristic was "true of them". The number of responses on each 20-item instrumental and expressive scale are summed so that the higher score the greater the attribute. Bern (1981) reported that the psychometric properties of the BSRI-Long Form (Bern, 1981) are acceptable, with internal consistency coefficients ranging from .75 to .87, and test-retest reliabilities over 1-month periods are reported to range from .78 to .84. Instrumental and expressive scores derived from the BSRI have also been shown to be uncorrelated (Bern, 1974). The BSRI is reported to hold adequate construct validity, as demonstrated by several experiments using the instrument to measure  instrumental and expressive characteristics (Bieger, 1988). Cronbach's alpha was calculated to measure the internal consistency for the expressiveness and instrumentality scales of the BSRI. High internal consistency coefficients for the Long-form were obtained for this sample for expressiveness (.76) and for instrumentality (.84). They were similar to Bern's (1981) normative sample scores of .75 and .87 for expressiveness and instrumentality, respectively. Respondents were classified as instrumental or expressive according to the median score for each trait (Md=4.8, Expressiveness; Md=5.2, Instrumentality). The term psychological androgyny refers to the extent with which an individual integrates both instrumental and expressive traits into his or her personality according to the specific situation. There are two methods of deriving androgynous scores: the additive approach, which tests the main effects of instrumentality and expressiveness, and the balance approach, which tests the interactive effects of instrumentality and expressiveness (Cook, 1987; Hall & Taylor, 1985; Payne, 1985). The additive approach assumes that an individual is androgynous when he or she possesses high levels of instrumentality and expressiveness. Thus, the additive approach examines the independent influences or main effects of instrumentality and expressiveness. The balance approach, however, examines the interactive effects of instrumentality and expressiveness when high levels of both traits appear together. Tests of analysis of variance allowed testing of both the additive and the balance approaches as they relate to use of conflict management strategies.  53 Conflict Types. Form A of the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (Rahim, 1983a) involves asking persons to respond to 28 items related to conflict situations directed at one's boss. However, for the purpose of this study, Form A used to measure self-reported preferences for conflict handling styles was adapted into two separate forms: (a) one form requiring participants to respond to items according to an interpersonal conflict they have had with their boss (i.e., disagreements originating from the people involved, such as differences in communication style, personality, or manner of decision-making; see Appendix F); and (b) another form requiring participants to respond to items according to a moral or ethical conflict they have had with their boss (i.e., disagreements regarding principles or core beliefs, such as company ethics or procedures, employee rights and discrimination, or personnel selection criteria; see Appendix G). A validity check was incorporated into each form, whereby respondents were asked to briefly describe in three sentences or less an example of an interpersonal and moral conflict experienced with a current or former supervisor. In addition, individuals were requested to indicate the gender of their boss with whom they were in conflict. Dependent Measure  Conflict management strategies were assessed by the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II; Rahim, 1983a). The ROCI-II consists of 28 items that measure five major styles of resolving conflict: integrating, compromising, dominating, avoiding, and obliging. However, only the extent to which persons used the  54 integrating, dominating, and compromising styles were assessed because one could infer that they appear to be more frequently used within organizational settings than the avoiding and obliging styles. Responses were scored on a 5-point scale, from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. Mean scores for each conflict handling style ranged from 1 to 5, with high scores indicating greater use of the particular conflict management strategy. ROCI-II (Rahim, 1983b) test-retest reliabilities over 1-week intervals have been reported to range from .60 to .83, the mean being .76. Six successive factor analyses were performed during test development to ensure the instrument's construct validity. The factor loadings of greater than or equal to .40 were determined to represent the items selected to construct the five scales. Item-total correlations for the five scales range between .34 and .62, thereby supporting the discriminant validity of the items (Rahim, 1983b). Additionally, Thornton (1989) reported that the intercorrelations between the scales are very low, ranging from .08 to .31 (median of .12), thus indicating that the ROCI-II is measuring distinct behavioral styles. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to measure the internal consistency for the six ROCI-II scales (both conflict types). The internal consistency coefficients obtained from this study ranged from .76 for the dominating (interpersonal conflict) scale to .82 for the integrating (interpersonal and moral conflict) scale. They were slightly higher than those reported in Rahim's sample, which ranged from .72 to .77.  Support for integrating both the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (Bern, 1974) and the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (Rahim, 1983b) in empirical research is provided by Yarnold (1984), and Baxter and Shepherd (1978). Specifically, the researchers have suggested that conflict handling measures, such as Rahim's, which are based on Kilmann and Thomas' (1975) "concern for self and "concern for other", and Blake and Mouton's (1978) "concern for production" and "concern for people" conceptualizations, are theoretically compatible with Bern's concept of expressive and instrumental sex-typed traits, and thus, may complement each other when used jointly in research. Organizational Commitment Measure Three items were used to indicate level of attitudinal commitment to the organization and were selected from Mowday, Steers, and Porter's (1979) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. According to Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982), the three items characterize the basic principles of attitudinal commitment: (a) "... a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values"; (b) "a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization"; and (c) "a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization" (p. 27). Responses were scored on a 7 point scale, from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Mean :  scores for each commitment item ranged from 1 to 7, with high scores indicating higher level of organizational commitment.  Data Analysis Preliminary analysis included descriptive data, such as means, standard deviations, frequencies, and Pearson-product moment correlation matrices. To examine the relation of sex-role orientation and conflict management strategies (hypotheses 1-5), one 2 X 2 X 2 (High vs. Low Instrumentality X High vs. Low Expressiveness X Conflict Type) multivariate of analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed. Conflict type was used as the repeated measures factor as it was assessed twice (interpersonal conflict and moral/ethical conflict). Dependent measures were dominating, integrating, and compromising conflict management strategies. The BMD4V computer program was used.  Results Descriptive Statistics Of the 134 respondents who completed the questionnaires, 24% were androgynous, 35% were instrumental, 27% were expressive, and 22% were undifferentiated, as determined by the BSRI (Bern, 1981). Bern's (1981) female sample consisted 30.3% androgynous, 12.4% instrumental, 39.4% expressive, and 17.9% undifferentiated persons. The current managerial sample had approximately 23% more instrumental women and 12% less expressive women than Bern's nonmanagerial sample. Based on the BSRI-Long Form (Bern, 1981), this study yielded a median item score of 4.8 for expressiveness (SD=.49) and a median of 5.2 for instrumentality (SD=.58), compared with the BSRI female normative sample scores of 5.1 (Md) for expressiveness and 4.8 (Md) for instrumentality. Compared to previous research using the BSRI-Long Form, Long's (1989) sample of working women in traditional and nontraditional jobs yielded median scores of 5.0 (expressiveness) and 4.9 (instrumentality), whereas Korabik and Ayman's (1987) sample of women and men middle to upper-level managers yielded scores of 4.7 (expressiveness) and 5.4 (instrumentality). The types of samples used (managerial vs. non-managerial sample) appears to reflect the differences in median scores and in the breakdown of sex-typed classifications.  58 The means and standard deviations for dependent variables by sex-role orientation (High vs. Low instrumentality and High vs. Low expressiveness) appear in Table 2. Conflict handling style means compared favourably to the managerial reference group norms reported by Rahim (1983b), ranging from a mean score of 3.2 for the dominating (interpersonal) conflict handling style, to a mean score of 4.1 for the integrating (interpersonal) conflict handling style. Intercorrelations for dependent and independent variables are shown in Table 3. There are no significant correlations between any of the conflict management strategies and expressiveness and instrumentality. Intercorrelations for dependent variables, independent variables, and age, experience, and commitment level are reported in Appendix H. Thefirsttwo commitment items are significantly positively correlated with instrumentality (r=.37 and r=.32, p_ <.01, p_ <.05, respectively), and the second commitment item is significantly correlated with the integrating (moral) conflict handling style (r=.34, JD <.05), although the magnitude of the relationships is weak. Neither age nor experience is significantly correlated with instrumentality, expressiveness, or any of the six conflict handling styles (both conflict types). The correlations between age and instrumentality, age and expressiveness, and age and each of the six conflict handling styles are all less than .11. The correlations between experience and instrumentality, experience and expressiveness, and experience and each of the six conflict handling styles are all less than .26.  59 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables by Sex-Role Orientation (Instrumentality and Expressiveness) (N=134)  Instrumentality High M  High Expressiveness (n)  Low  SD  33  M  SD  36  Conflict Handling Styles Integrating Interpersonal  4.30  .47  4.09  .39  Integrating Moral  4.27  .40  4.11  .41  Dominating Interpersonal  3.29  .70  3.04  .70  Dominating Moral  3.44  .84  3.05  .67  Compromising Interpersonal  3.70  .75  3.80  .45  Compromising Moral  3.50  .66  3.87  .61  Low Expressiveness (n)  35  30  Conflict Handling Styles Integrating Interpersonal  4.00  .68  3.92  .47  Integrating Moral  4.13  .52  3.84  .63  Dominating Interpersonal  3.51  .80  3.09  .52  Dominating Moral  3.50  .78  3.19  .51  Compromising Interpersonal  3.56  .85  3.57  .65  Compromising Moral  3.61  .66  3.53  .67  60 Table 3 Intercorrelations for Dependent and Independent Variables (N=134)  Variable 1  2  3  4  5  1.  Instrumentality  -  2.  Expressiveness  -.00  -  3.  Integrating Interpersonal  .14  .23  -  4.  Integrating Moral  .24  .16  .29  -  5.  Dominating Interpersonal  .24  -.18  .14  .12  -  6.  Dominating Moral  .26  -.18  .14  .20  .63  7.  Compromising Interpersonal  -.07  .15  .55  .12  .04  8.  Compromising Moral  -.13  .06  .17  .41  .02  r.05,130=.32, two-tailed test (Shevelson, 1988). r.01,130=.37, two-tailed test (Shevelson, 1988).  6  7  8  61 Hypotheses The following results are presented according to the original five confirmatory hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. It was hypothesized that women managers who scored high on instrumentality would report greater overall means on the dominating conflict handling style, compared with women who scored low on instrumentality. The MANOVA analysis yielded support for this hypothesis. A significant overall effect was found for instrumentality, F (3,128) = 6.47, p. <.0004, and high-instrumental managers were reported to score significantly higher on the dominating conflict handling style, compared with low-instrumental managers, univariate F (1,130) = 10.20, rj <.002 (see Table 4 for all F ratios). Hypothesis 2. It was hypothesized that women managers who scored high on expressiveness would report greater overall means on the compromising conflict handling style, compared with women who scored low on expressiveness. This hypothesis was not supported. Although MANOVA found a significant overall effect for expressiveness, F (3,128) = 4.24, 2 <-007, hypothesis 2 specifically was not supported. The univariate ANOVA indicated that high-expressive managers did not report significantly higher scores on the compromising style, compared with lowexpressive managers, F (1,130) = 2.30, 2 >-13. Hypotheses 3 and 4. Hypothesis 3 predicted that women managers who scored high on instrumentality would report using a significantly greater integrating conflict  Table 4 Instrumentality X Expressiveness X Conflict Type multivariate and univariate analyses of variance on the conflict management strategy variable (N=134).  Conflict Management Strategy F Ratios Effects  MANOVA Integrating  Dominating Compromising  Instrumentality  6.47*  6.21*  10.20*  1.26  Expressiveness  4.24*  9.26*  1.64  2.30  Conflict Type Effect  1.98  0.07  1.17  0.16  Instrumentality X Conflict Type  <1  <1  <1  <1  Expressiveness X Conflict Type  <1  <1  <1  <1  Note, df for Conflict Management Strategy MANOVA 3,128 and 1,130 for ANOVA terms. *p_<.01.  management style for interpersonal conflict vs. moral conflict, compared with managers who scored low on instrumentality. Hypothesis 4 predicted that women managers who scored high on instrumentality would report using a significantly greater dominating conflict management style for moral conflict vs. interpersonal conflict, compared with managers who scored low on instrumentality. Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not supported. MANOVA revealed no significant overall effect by conflict type for instrumentality, F < 1. Hypothesis 5. It was predicted that androgynous women managers would report using a significantly greater integrating style for both interpersonal and moral conflict, compared with managers who scored high on the undifferentiated dimension. Using the additive approach to test the main effects of instrumentality and expressiveness, hypothesis 5 was supported. The MANOVA revealed a significant overall effect for instrumentality, F (3,128) = 6.47, 2 <.0004, and found that highinstrumental managers reported to use a significantly greater integrating style for both conflict types, compared with low-instrumental managers, univariate F (1,130) = 6.21, p <.01. MANOVA also found a significant overall effect for expressiveness, F (3,128) = 4.24, 2 <.007, and revealed that high-expressive managers reported to use a significantly greater integrating style for both conflict types, compared with lowexpressive managers, univariate F (1,130) = 9.26, 2 < -003. Although the MANOVA supported hypothesis 5 using the additive or main effect approach, it failed to support hypothesis 5 using the balance approach (expressive and instrumental interaction), F  64 <1. In addition, the conflict type main effect (interpersonal and moral/ethical conflict) was nonsignificant, F (3,128) = 1.98, p_ >.05. This indicates that there were no differences in conflict handling styles for either the interpersonal or moral/ethical conflict type. Post-hoc Analyses  Due to the limited research in this area, an exploratory analysis of findings was conducted to assess whether there were any further effects of manager's organizational level and boss's gender on use of conflict management styles. ANOVAs with the three conflict styles as dependent variables (a total of six dependent variables for both conflict types) were performed to determine whether women managers, irrespective of sex-role orientation, handled conflict differently according to the boss's gender. ANOVA was significant for the gender of boss main effect for the dominating conflict handling style (interpersonal conflict), univariate F (1,132) = 3.82, 2 < -05. Thus, women managers reported using a dominating conflict management strategy for interpersonal conflict significantly more with male bosses than with female bosses. However, one is cautioned in interpreting these results due to the unequal cell sizes for men (N=103) and women (N=31) bosses. In addition, ANOVAs were performed to determine whether manager's organizational level affected their use of conflict handling styles. ANOVA was significant for the job level main effect for the dominating conflict handling style, for both interpersonal conflict, univariate F (1,132) = 5.29, 2 <.02, and moral conflict, F (1,132) = 4.25, 2  65 <.04.  Specifically, women employed in middle to upper-level managerial positions  reported using a significantly greater dominating conflict handling style, compared with lower-level women managers. Again, however, caution is required in interpreting these findings due to the unequal cell sizes for the lower-level managerial group (N=89) and the middle to upper-level managerial group (N=45). An examination of conflict handling style scores for each group revealed mean scores that ranged from 3.2 and 3.3 for the dominating style (interpersonal and moral conflict type, respectively), to 3.6 and 3.7 for the compromising style (moral and interpersonal, respectively), and to 4.1 for the integrating style for both conflict types. These means indicate that the integrating and compromising conflict handling styles are the most frequently used styles, regardless of sex-role orientation and organizational level. The present results were based on both the ROCI-II (Rahim, 1983b) and the BSRI-Original Form (Bern, 1981). A MANOVA analysis was also performed using the BSRI-Short Form, a revised and shortened version of Bern's earlier version, to determine if there were any significant differences in findings between the two versions of Bern's instrument. Based on the BSRI-Short Form, the main differences found were that instrumentality and the integrating conflict handling style did not show a significant interaction, F (1,130) = 2.52, £ >.l 1, whereas the univariate ANOVA revealed an expressiveness X compromising conflict handling style  interaction that approached significance, F (1,130) = 3.39, p_ >.07.  Appendix I reports  the findings based on the BSRI-Short Form as they relate to the present hypotheses.  Discussion This study was concerned with the way in which women managers handle boss-directed conflict according to the type of conflict (interpersonal and ethical conflict) and their sex-role orientation. Conflict management styles were assessed with an instrument measuring self-reported preferences of conflict handling styles, and was modified so that both types of conflict were incorporated into the questionnaire. When the interaction of high and low instrumentality and conflict type was assessed, results indicated that regardless of the type of conflict, high-instrumental sextyped women managers use significantly greater dominating and integrating conflict handling styles, compared with low-instrumental managers. When the main effects for high and low expressiveness and high and low instrumentality (i.e., androgynous managers) were examined, results indicated that managers who were high on both expressiveness and instrumentality use a significantly greater integrating conflict handling style, compared with undifferentiated sex-typed managers. These findings are consistent with previous studies that indicate that instrumentality is associated with a task-oriented leadership and conflict handling style, and that androgyny is associated with a combination of both dominating and consideration styles (Baxter & Shepherd, 1978; Korabik, 1981, 1982a, 1982b; Korabik, 1987; Lyons, 1988; Yelsma & Brown, 1985). Unexpectedly, high-expressive managers did not report a significantly greater use of the compromising conflict handling style, compared with low-expressive  68 managers. Although not hypothesized, analysis indicates that high-expressive women managers use a significantiy greater integrating conflict handling style for both interpersonal and moral conflict, compared with low-expressive managers. Thus, women are shown to respond to conflict in ways other than by using a solely expressive and nurturant style. The general results of the study provide some support for the structuralist perspective, which suggests that women's behaviours are dictated by job and organizational structure, rather than by socialization processes (Mainiero, 1986). Specifically, high-instrumental women used a greater dominating conflict handling style, and androgynous women reported used a greater integrating conflict handling style, although the conflict handling styles did not vary according to the type of conflict experienced. In addition, middle to upper-level managers, regardless of their sex-role orientation, reported a greater dominating conflict handling style with their bosses for both interpersonal and moral conflict, compared to lower-level managers. Thus, women managers reported that they resolve conflict differently according to sex-role orientation, and job variables of organizational level and position, rather than by maintaining a stereotypical expressive style across all situations, which is more supportive of the socialization perspective. The pattern of results may have been influenced by several variables specific to the types of organizations that I examined. First, it is possible that many or all of the federal or provincial government companies have homogeneous organizational climates, which affect managers' use of conflict handling styles. Other factors, such  69 as the presence of unions (Kipnis et al., 1980) may impact both organizational climate and employee behaviour, although it is unknown whether unionized managers assert themselves more or less than non-unionized managers. Mainiero (1986) recommends that future research control for organizational culture or climate to assess its effect on managerial behaviour. Second, each federal and provincial government branch have introduced a women's employment equity program to its organization. This suggests that these specific organizations are concerned with women's roles and advancement in the workplace, and thus, that they may offer women more flexibility in their positions and managerial styles than those organizations without a strong equal rights mandate. In order to determine whether the presence of specific programs impacts managerial style and organizational climate, it may be useful to compare organizations which have women's programs in place to those organizations that do not. Another important aspect of this study is its concern with boss-directed conflict, rather than peer or subordinate-directed conflict. Detailed information was not obtained about the characteristics of the managers' bosses and the processes that occur between managers and their bosses. The boss-subordinate relationship is a complex process and should be controlled for in order to determine its impact on behaviour. Previous research has failed to adequately address how conflict handling styles differ according to the individual to which conflict is directed. Although subordinates may generally elicit accommodating or compromising boss-directed conflict handling styles, the present findings indicate that women managers use  70 predominantly integrating and compromising styles overall, regardless of sex-role orientation. This is encouraging for women, particularly in view of socialization theorists, such as Chodorow (1974), who contend that women are socially reinforced for conforming solely to stereotypical feminine or expressive behaviours. Finally, of interest are the ways in which managers behave according their boss's gender. Post-hoc analyses, for example, indicate that boss's gender may affect conflict handling styles. Specifically, women managers employed in federal and provincial government organizations reported using a dominating style for interpersonal conflict more with men supervisors than with women supervisors. Previous research has suggested that the sex of one's supervisor affects how both women and men resolve conflict (Berryman-Fink & Brunner, 1987; Offerman & Kearney, 1988). The present study addresses more specific ways in which women managers resolve conflict according to their boss's gender, conflict type (interpersonal and moral/ethical conflict) and managers' sex-role orientation. Interestingly, the majority of the respondents' bosses were men (N=103). It is unknown, however, whether these women experienced more conflict with men bosses than with women bosses, or simply whether they were supervised by men more frequently than by women. Perhaps women managers handle conflict similarly with men and women bosses when they have an equal opportunity to work with both-sexed supervisors. To investigate the role that gender plays on conflict handling styles, further research might examine how the sex of both the supervisor and his or her subordinate affect the  71 frequency and type of conflict. Researchers have found, for example, that men and women hold resistance towards opposite-sex managerial styles (Statham, 1987), and that they evaluate persons more favourably when they act in accordance with stereotypical sex-role behaviours than when they depart from them (Bartol & Butterfield, 1976; Korabik et al., 1990; Petty & Miles, 1976; Schein, 1973; Watson, 1988). Thus, it follows that men and women's perceptions and expectations of opposite-sex behaviour may impact conflict handling styles and the quality of working relationships. As noted above, the study's findings are limited to provincial and federal government women managers only. It is noteworthy that the majority of respondents occupied lower-level managerial positions (66%), compared to middle to upper-level positions (34%). One might expect lower-level managers to use predominantly compromising approaches to conflict resolution. The results indicate, however, that integrating, dominating, and compromising conflict management strategies were used, although it is noted that overall, integrating and compromising conflict handling styles were most frequently used. It is possible that a more representative sample of women across contrasting levels of responsibility among several private and public sector organizations, would yield different findings with respect to conflict handling styles used in interpersonal and moral conflict. Research is also needed to compare the extent to which conflict handling styles differ among lower, middle, and upper-level women managers. Kipnis et al. (1980)  72 suggest that job status may account for differences in influence tactics. Similarly, Ragins and Sundstrom (1990) contend that level of organizational power impacts managerial style and performance. Thus, individuals in high-level and prestigious positions may have more familiarity with both interpersonal and ethical conflict, and also have more flexibility to negotiate when involved in conflict, compared to lowerlevel managers. The results of post-hoc analyses, for example, support this notion. Specifically, middle to upper-level managers, regardless of sex-role orientation, reported to use dominating conflict handling styles for interpersonal and ethical conflict more than lower-level managers. Other characteristics of the women managers, which may have affected the pattern of results, include their marital status, managerial experience, and age. First, single women, for reasons of financial security, may use more assertive or dominant conflict handling styles than married women in order to maintain their employment positions and enhance their opportunities for job advancement. Married women may not rely solely on their personal income for economic survival, and thus, hold less commitment and vested interest in their positions than single women. By contrast, however, it is possible that single women may use more accommodating and less assertive approaches than married women so as not to risk unpopularity and job loss or demotion. Second, women's managerial or supervisory experience did not appear to influence how they reported to resolve conflict. Correlational data, based on women who have managerial experience ranging from 12 to 204 months, indicate  73 nonsignificant relationships between experience and each of the six conflict handling styles (see Appendix H). It is possible, however, that more experienced managerial women may deal with conflictual situations more confidently and effectively than their less experienced counterparts. In addition to marital status and experience, respondent's age was also not controlled for. Although correlational data indicate that age is not significantly related to any of the conflict handling styles and sex-typed traits, future research might examine women managers across a range of ages. A longitudinal inquiry would help to determine whether sex-role orientation changes over time and how it impacts managerial behaviours, such as conflict handling strategies. Conflict handling styles did not appear to vary according to type of conflict (interpersonal or moral), thus supporting Gilligan's (1982) assertion that women respond similarly to moral and interpersonal dilemmas. Women managers reported using integrating, compromising, and dominating conflict handling styles regardless of the type of conflict (see Table 4). For descriptive purposes, the relationships between the different conflict handling styles were examined. An examination of the correlations between conflict styles reveals a pattern that suggests individuals may not distinguish between interpersonal and moral conflict types for the dominating conflict handling style (r=.63, p_ <.01), and for the compromising conflict handling style (r=.46, E <.01) (see Table 3). These findings indicate that respondents may not be sensitive to the differences between conflict types^ or that different conflict types simply do not warrant different conflict handling styles. Results from the questionnaire's validity  check, however, indicated that respondents in the study and pilot study were able to provide clear examples of interpersonal and moral conflicts. Further research might examine whether there are factors common to specific conflict types that do not require the use of different conflict management strategies. It is possible that the ROCI-II (Rahim, 1983a), which measures conflict handling styles, was not sensitive to the differences between interpersonal and moral conflict. In addition, respondents' self-reported conflict handling styles may only have been true of the specific conflict examples that they provided, and not representative of their conflict styles across many different situations. A limitation inherent in this study is the use of self-report measures to assess both conflict handling styles and sexrole orientation. As an alternative to using self-report instruments, future research might employ behaviourial measures, such as simulation exercises, or experimental methodology to examine further the impact of sex-role orientation on conflict handling styles. A final interpretation of the study's failure to find any differences between interpersonal and moral conflict may have been due to the inappropriateness of the ethical conflict definition that was provided in the questionnaire. As Brief, Dukerich, and Doran (1991) posit, ethical conflict resolution in management may involve an employee's need to justify his or her ethical position to a higher person (i.e., boss) in accordance with the boss's viewpoint, rather than one's need to reconcile violated personal values. Jones' (1991) issue-contingent model of ethical decision making in  75 organizations suggests that conflict behaviour varies according to the intensity level that specific ethical issues provoke. Jones contends that moral issue factors such as immediacy, proximity, and consequences of actions are more important determinants of ethical decision making than characteristics of the decision maker (i.e., one's level of moral development) and organizational variables (i.e., corporate culture and policies). Because the present study does not specifically attend to issues of moral justification or intensity, it is suggested that further research consider a deeper level of analysis to define and measure moral conflict handling behaviour. It is noteworthy that overall women managers used predominantly integrating and compromising conflict handling styles, regardless of sex-role orientation and type of conflict. Descriptive data indicate that there is a moderate significant relationship between the compromising and integrating interpersonal conflict handling styles (r=.55, 2 <.01). Van de Vliert and Hordijk (1989) maintain, for example, that although compromising and problem-solving (or integrating) are distinct behaviours, both styles have some common features, particularly in the form of social-psychological outcomes. That is, individuals engaged in both the integrating and compromising conflict handling styles must compromise and relinquish their position in part so that a solution can be reached. Thus, respondents may not be able to differentiate between the two styles because of their similar outcomes. Future research, therefore, might refine existing instruments or develop new measures that clearly distinguish different conflict handling styles.  76 Implications The results of this study provide some implications for theory development associated with managerial and conflict processes. First, the findings of this study help to expand theory related to sex-role orientation and conflict because they address whether type of conflict (moral and interpersonal) attenuates conflict management strategies within organizational settings. The preliminary results indicate that sex-role orientation impacts conflict handling styles more than conflict type, although they require replication before generalizability can occur. Research to date has consistently yielded inconclusive findings with respect to sex differences and conflict, and has virtually ignored the area of sex-role orientation and organizational conflict, particularly ethical conflict. Further, as Sichel (1988) maintains, women have been excluded from voicing their values related to moral issues and decisions within public domains such as industry, thereby underscoring the need for addressing this area further. Second, study results hold valuable implications for clinical and practical application. Consistent with Korabik's (1981, 1982a, 1982b) and Korabik and Ayman's (1987) research, this study clarifies how factors of sex-role orientation impact conflict handling and leadership behaviour among women managers. A better understanding of issues central to the area of conflict resolution may help to equip counsellors and management training personnel to aid women to explore expectations surrounding managerial behaviour. Subsequently, this awareness may encourage  women to adopt and use a diversity of management approaches within the workplace, and dispel the myth that women are deficient in instrumental behaviours and ability. Korabik (1990) suggests that research that examines sex-role orientation rather than sex differences helps to provide support for the view that factors other than gender impact behaviour. This social-learning perspective encourages trainers and employees alike to challenge personal viewpoints that suggest sex-typed traits and behaviours are a fixed dimension of one's personality, and consequently, not amenable to change and training. Results of the present study indicate that high-instrumental women managers use a greater dominating conflict handling style for both moral and interpersonal conflict, compared to low-instrumental manager, whereas high-expressive and androgynous managers use a greater integrating style, compared to low-expressive and undifferentiated managers, respectively. It is noted, however, that the integrating and compromising conflict management styles were the most predominantly used styles overall, regardless of sex-role orientation and conflict type. Incorporating these and other related findings into management programs may encourage women managers to depart from circumscribed sex-role stereotypes and expectations, facilitate the development of conflict intervention strategies, and thus help managers of both sexes to cultivate appropriate situational-specific conflict intervention behaviours. Finally, research of this nature, which reveals women's capacity for expressing a wide range of  78 effective managerial abilities, may serve as an impetus for larger organizational change that promotes women's advancement in and contribution to the corporate structure. Suggestions for Further Research Much of organizational behaviour literature to date has yielded inconclusive findings regarding the combined effects of sex-role orientation on conflict handling styles. Other topics, such as ethical conflict management styles have been neglected almost entirely. Based on these data and knowledge of the study's limitations, directions for future research are as follows: 1.  The development of a reliable instrument to assess interpersonal and ethical  conflict within organizations would help to support and generalize the present findings. Additionally, further examination of the dynamics underlying ethical conflict within organizations would help to determine to what extent conflict type impacts conflict handling style usage. 2.  Studies that compare subordinate-, peer-, and boss-directed conflict would help  to determine whether conflict type impacts the use of conflict handling styles, and thus assist managers to identify and understand conflict behaviour. 3.  As a result of the controversy surrounding Bern's (1974) operationalization of  sex-typed traits (Hall & Taylor, 1985; Spence & Helmreich, 1978), and in light of the fact that different forms of the BSRI (Bern, 1981) yielded different findings, it is recommended that future research address the validity of instruments that assess sexrole orientation.  79 4.  Studies that control for variables of job level, job type, power level, sex-role  orientation, boss's gender, and time in the position would provide clarification as to how conflict is both generated and resolved. 5.  In order to generalize the study's findings to the management population,  future research needs to examine how women managers among contrasting levels of responsibility and across a diversity of organizations handle conflict. 6.  Studies are needed that assess the mediating effects of sex-role orientation on  biological sex. This area of research may help to understand and challenge the view that men and women display marked differences in managerial style and ability, and are limited to sex-specific stereotypical behaviour. 7.  In order to address the impact of context on conflict resolution styles and sex-  role orientation, it is recommended that future research compare the conflict management styles used at home and at work. 8.  Longitudinal studies that examine the way in which women managers develop  styles and handle conflict may provide insight into whether conflict styles change over time. 9.  The use of experimental methodology or behaviourial measures to assess  conflict handling styles would help to alleviate the limitations of cross-sectional selfreport research design. 10.  Future research might address how conflict theory can be incorporated into  management training programs designed to equip managers with effective conflict  80 resolution skills. Skill-development programs may assist managers to enhance communication skills, self-efficacy, and organizational commitment and contribution, which may ultimately strengthen the organization's overall viability.  Summary This study contributes knowledge to the broader area of women in management, with particular emphasis on conflict handling styles, sex-role orientation, and conflict type (interpersonal and moral/ethical conflict). The findings help to explain how women managers resolve conflict with their bosses according to the type of conflict engaged in and their sex-role orientation. Research of this nature, however, is only in its preliminary stages, and must assume a deeper level of analysis in order to fully explain women's managerial behaviour. Thus, it is recommended that further research examine how factors of conflict type, organizational level and power, and job position impact conflict handling strategies, and the extent to which sex-role orientation moderates biological sex. This knowledge may then be integrated into organizational programs so that managerial personnel may have the opportunity to understand better their conflict handling behaviour, and to develop more effective styles of resolving conflict.  81 References Arbuthnot, J. (1975). Level of moral judgment as a function of sex and sex role identity. Journal of Social Psychology. 97, 297-298. Arkkelin, D., & Simmons, R. (1985). The "good manager": Sex-typed, androgynous, or likable? Sex Roles. 12, 1187-1198. Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of the type A behaviour pattern and self-monitoring. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 44, 281-296. Bartol, K. M., & Butterfield, D. A. (1976). Sex effects in evaluating leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology. 61, 446-454. Baucom, D. H., & Danker-Brown, P. (1979). Influence of sex roles on the development of learned helplessness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 47, 928-936. Baxter, L. A., & Shepherd, T. L. (1978). Gender-role identity, sex of other, and affective relationship as determinants of interpersonal conflict management styles. Sex Roles. 4, 813-825. Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 42, 155-162. Bern, S. L. (1975). Sex-role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31., 634-643. Bern, S. L. (1981). Bern sex-role inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bern, S. L., & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex-typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 48-54. Berryman-Fink, C, & Brunner, C. C. (1987). The effects of sex of source and target on interpersonal conflict management styles. The Southern Speech Communication Journal. 53, 38-48. Bieger, G. R. (1988). Bern sex-role inventory. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol. Ill, pp. 51-57). Kansas City, MI: Test Corporation of  82 America. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1978). The new managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co. Block, J. H. (1973). Conception of sex role. Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist. 28, 512-526. Brenner, O. C, Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal. 32, 662-669. Brief, A. P., Doran, L. I., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Resolving ethical dilemmas in management: Experimental investigations of values, accountability, and choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 21, 380-396. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78. Bussey, K., & Maughan, B. (1982). Gender differences in Moral reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42, 701-706. Chanin, M. N., & Schneer, J. A. (1984). A study of the relationship between Jungian personality dimensions and conflict-handling behaviour. Human Relations. 37, 863-879. Chodorow, N. (1974). Family structure and feminine personality. In M. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (Eds.), Woman. Culture and Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Chusmuir, L. H., & Mills, J. (1989). Gender differences in conflict resolution styles of managers: At work and at home. Sex Roles, 20, 149-163. Cook, E. P. (1987). Psychological androgyny: A review of the research. Counseling Psychology. L5, 473-513. Crane, M., & Markus, H. (1982). Gender identity: The benefits of a self-schema approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1195-1197. Day, D. R., & Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Leader behaviour of male and female  83 supervisors: A comparative study. Personnel Psychology. 25, 353-360. Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: How real are they? Academy of Management Review. 11. 118-127. Donnell, S. M., & Hall, J. (1980). Men and women as managers: A significant case of no significant difference. Organizational Dynamics. 8, 60-77. Duane, M. J. (1989). Sex differences in styles of conflict management. Psychological Reports. 65, 1033-1034. Falbo, T. (1982). PAQ types and power strategies used in intimate relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 6, 399-405. Falbo, T., Hazen, M., & Linimon, D. (1982). The costs of selecting power bases or messages associated with the opposite sex. Sex Roles, 8, 147-157. Flanagan, O., & Jackson, K. (1987). Justice, care, and gender: The Kohlberg-Gilligan debate revisited. Ethics. 97, 622-637. Ford, M., & Lowery, C. (1986). Gender differences in moral reasoning: A comparison of the use of justice and care orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50, 777-783. Frost, J. H., & Wilmot, W. W. (1978). Interpersonal conflict. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Geckler, C. L. (1985). The relationships among moral judgement reasoning, sex role identity, social roletaking experiences and occupational role complexity in adult women (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Dissertation Abstracts International. 46, 4422-4423. Gever, S. (1988). Gender differences in interpersonal conflict (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 2884B. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, C, & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 34, 223-237. Hall, J. A., & Taylor, M. C. (1985). Psychological androgyny and the masculinity X  femininity interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 429-435. Harding, R. E. (1989). Review of the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. In J. C. Conoley and J. J. Kramer (Eds.), The tenth mental measurement yearbook, (pp. 866-868). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press. Johnston, D. K. (1988). Adolescent's solutions to dilemmas in fables: Two moral orientations-two problem solving strategies. In C. Gilligan (Ed.), Mapping the moral domain: A contribution of women's thinking to psychological theory and education (pp. 49-71). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 2, 366-395. Kabanoff, B. (1987). Predictive validity of the MODE conflict instrument. Journal of Applied Psychology. 72, 160-163. Kilmann, R., & Thomas, K. (1975). Interpersonal conflict-handling behaviour as reflections of Jungian personality dimensions. Psychological Reports, 37, 971-980. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Exploration in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral states and moralization. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behaviour (pp. 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Korabik, K. (1981). Androgyny and leadership: An integration. A paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Women and Psychology, Boston, MA. Korabik, K. (1982a). Sex-role orientation and leadership style. International Journal of Women's Studies. 5, 329-337. Korabik, K. (1982b, August). Sex-role orientation and leadership: Further explorations. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Korabik, K. (1990). Androgyny and leadership style. Journal of Business Ethics, 9,  85 283-292. Korabik, K. & Ayman, R. (1987, August). Androgyny and leadership: A conceptual synthesis. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY. Korabik, K., Baril, G. L., & Watson, C. (1990, June). Managers' conflict management and leadership effectiveness: The moderating effects of sex. A paper presented at the third conference of the International Association for Conflict Management, Vancouver, B.C. Lifton, P. E. (1985). Individual differences in moral development: The relation of sex, gender, and personality to morality. Journal of Personality, 53, 306-334. Long, B. C. (1989). Sex-role orientation, coping strategies, and self-efficacy of women in traditional and nontraditional occupations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 307-324. Lyons, N. P. (1988). Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and morality. In C. Gilligan (Ed.), Mapping the moral domain: A contribution to women's thinking to psychological theory and education (pp. 21-47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mainiero, L. A. (1986). Coping with powerlessness: The relationship of gender and job dependency to empowerment-strategy usage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 633-653. Marshall, J. (1984). Women managers: Travellers in a male world. Chichester: Wiley. Mischel, W. (1966). A social-learning view of sex-differences in behaviour. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences, pp. 56-81. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages. New York: Academic Press. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 14, 224-247. Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger.  86 Offermann, L. R., & Kearney, C. T. (1988). Supervisor sex and subordinate influence strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 360-367. Offermann, L. R., & Schrier, P. E. (1985). Social influence strategies: The impact of sex, role, and attitudes toward power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, i i , 286-300. Orlofsky, J. L., & Stake, J. E. (1981). Psychological masculinity and femininity: Relationship to striving and self-concept in the achievement and interpersonal domains. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 6, 218-233. Payne, F. D. (1985). Review of Bern sex-role inventory. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurement yearbook (pp. 178-179). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press. Petty, M. M., & Miles, R. H. (1976). Leader sex role stereotyping in a female dominated work culture. Personnel Psychology, 29, 393-404. Powell, G. N. (1988). Women and men in management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pratt, M. W., Golding, G, & Hunter, W. J. (1984). Does morality have a gender? Sex, sex role, and moral judgment relationships across the adult lifespan. MerrillPalmer Quarterly. 30, 321-340. Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communication strategies in organizational conflict: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 629-652). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1990). Gender and perceived power in managersubordinate relations. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 273-287. Rahim, A. (1983a). Rahim organizational conflict inventory I & II: Forms A. B. & C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Rahim, A. (1983b). Rahim organizational conflict inventory I & II: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Renwick, P. A. (1977). The effects of sex differences on the perception and management of superior-subordinate conflict: An exploratory study. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance. i9, 403-415.  87 Reichers, A. (1986). Conflict and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 7J_, 508-514. Rosenthal, D. B., & Hautaluoma, J. (1988). Effects of importance of issues, gender, and power of contenders on conflict management style. Journal of Social Psychology. 128. 699-701. Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology. 57, 95-100. Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60, 340-344. Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1981). The effects of sex differences on the preference for utilization of conflict styles of managers in a work setting: An exploratory study. Public Personnel Management Journal. 10, 289-295. Sichel, B. A. (1988). Moral education: Character, community, and ideals. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Shevelson, R. J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Smetana, J. G. (1984). Morality and gender: A commentary on Pratt, Golding, and Hunter. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 30, 341-348. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviours. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 5, 147-163. Statham, A. (1987). The gender model revisited: Differences in the management styles of men and women. Sex Roles. 16, 409-429. Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behaviour: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.  88 Thoma, S. J. (1986). Estimating gender differences in the comprehension and preference of moral issues. Developmental Review. 6, 165-180. Thornton, G. C. (1989). Review of the Rahim organizational conflict inventories. In J. C. Conoley and J. J. Kramer (Eds.), The tenth mental measurement yearbook (pp. 676-677). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press. Van de Vliert, E., & Hordijk, J. W. (1989). A theoretical position of compromising among other styles of conflict management. Journal of Social Psychology. 129, 681-690. Walker, L. J. (1984). Sex differences in the development of moral reasoning: A critical review. Child Development, 55, 677-691. Watson, C. (1988). When a woman is the boss. Dilemmas in taking charge. Group & Organization Studies. 13. 163-181. Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1978). Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behaviour. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 40-52. Yarnold, P. R. (1984). Note on the multidisciplinary scope of psychological androgyny theory. Psychological Reports. 54, 936-938. Yatsko, C, & Larsen, J. D. (1990). Relationship between sex-role and moral decisionmaking. Psychological Reports. 66, 59-64. Yelsma, P., & Brown, C. T. (1985). Gender roles, biological sex, and predisposition to conflict management. Sex Roles. 12, 731-747. Zammuto, R. F., London, M., & Rowland, K. R. (1979). Effects of sex on commitment and conflict resolution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 227-231.  89  Appendix  A  R e s p o n d e n t R e c r u i t m e n t B r e a k d o w n M a j o r O r g a n i z a t i o n Missing  b y  Data  D e m o g r a p h i c C o m p a r i s o n o f C o m p l e t e Incomplete Data  a n d  90  R e s p o n d e n t R e c r u i t m e n t B r e a k d o w n  b y M a j o r O r g a n i z a t i o n  Questionnaires Distributed Organization Employment and Immigration Canada  Questionnaires Returned f  f  %  104  38  36.5  Revenue Canada  42  15  35.7  Public Works  23  8  34.8  Indian and Northern Affairs  18  5  27.8  Health and Welfare Canada  16  7  43.8  Public Service Commission  15  5  33.3  Note. Percentage figures (%) return rate of questionnaires per organization.  91  Missing  Data  Responses were checked prior to data analyses to determine whether there were consistent patterns of missing data. Of the 134 questionnaires used in data analysis, there were no missing data. Of the 51 incomplete questionnaires, three questionnaires were unusable because they were completed by nonmanagement employees, and 1 questionnaire was returned completely blank. Of the remaining 47 unusable questionnaires, the breakdown of missing data was as follows: Failure to identify interpersonal or moral conflict - 31 respondents. Failure to provide examples of conflict, but responded to 28-item questionnaire - 7 respondents. Failure to fulfil eligibility criteria of time employed in present position - 9 respondents (of these 9, 4 respondents also failed to identify interpersonal or moral conflict, and 3 respondents failed to provide examples of conflict, but responded to 28item questionnaire).  D e m o g r a p h i c C o m p a r i s o n o f C o m p l e t e a n d I n c o m p l e t e D a t a  Variable  C o m p l e t e D a t a (N=134)  Incomplete Data (N=47)  %  %  M  SD R a n g e  Age  40.1  Months in Present Position  46.5 42.6 12-204  7.0 26-65  M 39.3  S D  R a n g e  5.3 28-54  43.4 47.2 2-242  Education High School Completed Some College Graduate Degree Post-graduate Degree Missing  11.9 59.0 23.1 6.0 -  8.5 57.4 27.7 4.3 2.1  Organizational Level Top Middle Lower  2.2 31.3 66.5  2.1 19.1 78.8  Functional Area Production Personnel General Management Marketing Finance & Accounting Policy Analysis Administration Health Care Other  3.0 14.9 36.6 4.5 11.9 6.0 10.4 4.5 8.2  2.1 27.7 25.5 2.1 17.0 12.8 2.1 10.7  Combined Annual Income $26,000 - $ 40,000 $41,000 - $ 60,000 $61,000 - $ 80,000 $81,000 - $100,000 Greater than $100,000  3.7 36.6 15.7 26.1 17.9  4.3 21.3 23.4 21.2 29.8  93  Appendix B Covering Letter  Appendix C Instructions and Participant Informed Consent  97  Appendix D e m o g r a p h i c  D Q u e s t i o n s  98 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Age (years):  2. Full-time experience in your current position (mths):  3. Education (check one):  4. Organizational Level (check one):  Some high school  Top: President, Vice-President  High school completed  Middle: Department Managers, Directors  Some college  Lower: Supervisors, Managers  Bachelor's degree  Nonmanagement staff  Some graduate work Master's degree Some post-graduate work Post-graduate degree 5. Your functional area (check one): Production  Marketing  Engineering  Finance & Accounting  Personnel  Other (specify)  General Management  6. Your combined annual household income is: Less than $15,000  $41,000 to $60,000  $15,000 to $25,000  $61,000 to $80,000  $26,000 to $40,000  $81,000 to $100,000 Greater than $100,000  7. Please indicate on a scale from 1 to 7, the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each of the following 3 statements. Write the number corresponding to your answer in the space provided beside each question. 1 strongly disagree  2 moderately disagree  3 slightly disagree  4 neither disagree or agree  5 slightly agree  6 moderately agree  7 strongly agree  I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful. I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar. I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was similar.  Appendix E The Bern Sex-Role Inventory  100  We would like you to use the following characteristics In order to describe yourself. That Is, Indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7, how true of you these various characteristics are. Please do not leave any characteristics unmarked. Place appropriate number In the box beside the word.  Never or almost never true  Usually not true  Sometimes but infrequently true  Occasionally true  Often  Usually true  true  Always or almost always true  Defend my own beliefs  Adaptable  Flatterable  Affectionate  Dominant  Theatrical  Conscientious  Tender  Self-sufficient  Independent  Conceited  Loyal  Sympathetic  Willing to take a stand  Happy  Moody  Love children  Individualistic  Assertive  Tactful  Soft-spoken  Sensitive to needs of others  Aggressive  Unpredictable  Reliable  Gentle  Masculine  Strong personality  Conventional  Gullible  Understanding  Self-reliant  Solemn  Jealous  Yielding  Competitive  Forceful  Helpful  Childlike  Compassionate  Athletic  Likable  Truthful  Cheerful  Ambitious  Have leadership abilities  Unsystematic  Do not use harsh language  Eager to soothe hurt feelings  Analytical  Sincere  Secretive  Shy  Act as a leader  Willing to take risks  Inefficient  Feminine  Warm  Make decisions easily  Friendly  Appendix F The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory(interpersonal conflict)  102 PART 1 Directions The following questions ask about interpersonal conflicts or disagreements that you may have had with your boss. A s you react to the questions, try to recall as many recent conflicts as possible that are interpersonal in nature (e.g., communication differences, personality conflicts, disagreements in decision making processes). Part 2 of the questionnaire will ask you to think of conflicts of an ethical nature, so we ask that you think of only interpersonal conflicts while completing Part One. What is the Difference between Interpersonal Conflict and Moral/Ethical Conflict? The major source of Interpersonal Conflict is the people involved (e.g., their communication style); disagreements of this type can involve many content areas. The major source of Moral or Ethical Conflict, however, is the principle or moral belief involved; ethical conflicts occur over core beliefs of what is right or wrong. In order to help you answer the questions, you will first be asked to provide a brief example of a specific interpersonal conflict you have had with your supervisor. Should you not be able to identify any conflict with your current boss, you are asked to answer the questions according to a conflict you had with a former supervisor. Please be reminded that all responses are strictly anonymous and confidential. There are no right or wrong answers. T h e response which is most characteristic of your behaviour in a situation of interpersonal conflict with your boss is the best answer. Select the response that describes how you have acted or would be most likely to act, N O T how you would like to act or think you should act. T h e questionnaire should take approximately 10 minutes to complete.  Please indicate briefly a specific example of an interpersonal conflict you have had with your boss.  Conflict:  Interpersonal Because:  What is the gender of the boss with whom you were in conflict? Female Male  How long ago did the conflict you experienced occur? (months)  PART 1 QUESTIONS: INTERPERSONAL CONFLICTS WITH YOUR BOSS Please indicate on a scale from 1 to 5, how true of you these various statements described below are. Please do not leave any statements unmarked. Write the number corresponding to your answer in the space provided beside each question.  1 Strongly Agree  2 Agree  3 Undecided  4 Disagree  5  Strongly Disagree  1. I try to investigate an issue with my boss to find a solution acceptable to us 2. I generally try to satisfy the needs of my boss 3. I attempt to avoid being "put on the spot" and try to keep my conflict with my boss to myself 4. I try to integrate my ideas with those of my boss to come up with a decision jointly 5. I try to work with my boss to find solutions to a problem which satisfy our expectations 6. I usually avoid open discussions of my differences with my boss 7. I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse 8. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted 9. I use my authority to make a decision in my favour 10. I usually accommodate the wishes of my boss 11. I give in to the wishes of my boss 12. I exchange accurate information with my boss to solve a problem together 13. I usually allow concessions to my boss 14. I usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks 15. I negotiate with my boss so that a compromise can be reached 16. I try to stay away from disagreement with my boss 17. I avoid an encounter with my boss 18. I use my expertise to make a decision in my favour 19. I often go along with the suggestions of my boss 20. I use "give and take" so that a compromise can be made 21. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of the issue 22. I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved in the best possible way  105 PART 1 QUESTIONS CONT'D: Please indicate on a scale from 1 to 5, how true of you these various statements described below are. Please do not leave any statements unmarked. Write the number corresponding to your answer in the space provided beside each question.  1 Strongly Agree  2 Agree  3 Undecided  4 Disagree  5 Strongly Disagree  23. I collaborate with my boss to come up with decisions acceptable to us 24. I try to satisfy the expectations of my boss 25. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation 26. I try to keep my disagreement with my boss to myself in order to avoid hard feelings 27. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my boss 28. I try to work with my boss for a proper understanding of a problem  Appendix G The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory(moral/ethical conflict)  107 PART 2 Directions T h e questions on the following form are identical to the ones you had completed in Part 1 of the questionnaire. T h e instructions are also the same. Whereas the questions in Part 1 asked you to think of an interpersonal conflict situation with your boss, the following questions ask you to indicate how you handle a moral or ethical conflict with your boss. Try to recall as many recent conflict situations as possible in ranking these statements that refer to conflicts of an ethical nature (e.g., disagreements regarding procedures, company ethics, employee rights, personnel selection criteria). What is the Difference between Moral/Ethical Conflict and Interpersonal Conflict? The major source of Moral or Ethical Conflict is the principle or moral belief involved; ethical conflicts occur over core beliefs of what is right or wrong. T h e major source of Interpersonal Conflict, however, is the people involved (e.g., their communication style); disagreements of this type can involve many content areas. In order to help you answer the questions, you will first be asked to provide a brief example of a specific moral conflict you have had with your supervisor. Shoud you have more than one supervisor, we ask that you think of conflicts engaged in with only one boss. Should you not be able to identify any conflict with your current boss, you are asked to answer the questions according to a conflict you had with a former supervisor. Please be reminded that all responses are strictly anonymous and confidential. There are no right or wrong answers. T h e response which is most characteristic of your behaviour in a situation of interpersonal conflict with your boss is the best answer. Select the response that describes how you have acted or would be most likely to act, N O T how you would like to act or think you should act. T h e questionnaire should take approximately 10 minutes to complete.  108 Please indicate briefly a specific example of a moral or ethical conflict you have had with your boss.  Conflict:  Moral/Ethical Because:  What is the gender of the boss with whom you were in conflict? Female Male  How long ago did the conflict you experienced occur? (months)  109 PART 2 QUESTIONS: MORAL OR ETHICAL CONFLICTS WITH YOUR BOSS Please indicate on a scale from 1 to 5, how true of you these various statements described below are. Please do not leave any statements unmarked. Write the number corresponding to your answer in the space provided beside each question. 1 Strongly Agree  2 Agree  3 Undecided  4 Disagree  5 Strongly Disagree  1. I try to investigate an issue with my boss to find a solution acceptable to us 2. I generally try to satisfy the needs of my boss 3. I attempt to avoid being "put on the spot" and try to keep my conflict with my boss to myself 4. I try to integrate my ideas with those of my boss to come up with a decision jointly 5. I try to work with my boss to find solutions to a problem which satisfy our expectations 6. I usually avoid open discussions of my differences with my boss 7. I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse 8. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted 9. I use my authority to make a decision in my favour 10. I usually accommodate the wishes of my boss 11. I give in to the wishes of my boss 12. I exchange accurate information with my boss to solve a problem together 13. I usually allow concessions to my boss 14. I usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks 15. I negotiate with my boss so that a compromise can be reached 16. I try to stay away from disagreement with my boss 17. I avoid an encounter with my boss 18. I use my expertise to make a decision in my favour 19. I often go along with the suggestions of my boss 20. I use "give and take" so that a compromise can be made 21. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of the issue 22. I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved in the best possible way  110 PART 2 QUESTIONS CONT'D: Please indicate on a scale from 1 to 5, how true of you these various statements described below are. Please do not leave any statements unmarked. Write the number corresponding to your answer in the space provided beside each question.  1 Strongly Agree  2 Agree  3 Undecided  4 Disagree  5 Strongly Disagree  23. I collaborate with my boss to come up with decisions acceptable to us 24. I try to satisfy the expectations of my boss 25. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation 26. I try to keep my disagreement with my boss to myself in order to avoid hard feelings 27. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my boss 28. I try to work with my boss for a proper understanding of a problem  Ill  Appendix  H  Intercorrelations for Dependent Variables, Sex-Role Orientation,and Age, Experience, a n d C o m m i t m e n t L e v e l  112  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n sf o r D e p e n d e n t a n d C o m m i t m e n t Variable  Variables. Sex-Role Orientation, and Age.  L e v e l ( N = 1 3 4 )  1  1. Instrumentality  -  2. Expressiveness  -.00  2  4  3  7  6  5  9  8  11  10  12  13  -  3. Integrating Interpersonal  .14 .23  4. Integrating Moral  .24 .16 .29  5. Dominating Interpersonal  .24 -.18 .14 .12  6. Dominating Moral  .26 -.18 .14 .20 .63  -  7. Compromising Interpersonal  -.07 .15 .55 .12 .04 -.06  8. Compromising Moral  -.13 .06 .17 .41  9. Age  -.02 .10 .09  10. Months Experience  -.07 .07 .01 .09  -  .02 -.05 .46  -  .10 .02 .03 .01 .00  -  .04 -.02 .01 .06 .25  -  11. Commitment Item 1  .37 .01 -.01 .23 .14 .15 -.05 -.02 .06 -.05  12 Commitment Item 2  .32 -.04 .17 .34 -.01  13. Commitment Item 3  Experience ,  .07 .11  -  .05 .07 .03 .27  -  -.21 -.08 -.17 -.18 -.22 -.18 -.04 -.07 .02 .07 .01 .09  r.05,130=.32, two-tailed test (Shevelson, 1988). r.01,130=.37, two-tailed test (Shevelson, 1988).  -  Appendix I Results Based on the Bern Sex-Role Inventory-Short Form  114 Hypotheses The following results are presented according to the original five confirmatory hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. It was hypothesized that women managers who scored high on instrumentality would report greater overall means on the dominating conflict handling style, compared with managers who scored low on instrumentality. The MANOVA analysis yielded support for this hypothesis. A significant overall effect was found for instrumentality, F (3,128) = 5.38, p_ <.002, and high-instrumental managers were reported to score significantly higher on the dominating conflict handling style, compared with low-instrumental managers, univariate F (1,130) = 10.08, p_ <.002. Hypothesis 2. It was hypothesized that women managers who scored high on expressiveness would report greater overall means on the compromising conflict handling style, compared with managers who scored low on expressiveness. This hypothesis was only partially supported. The MANOVA analysis found a significant overall effect for expressiveness, F (3,128) = 3.91, p_ <.01, and the univariate ANOVA indicated that the expressive sex-role orientation and the compromising conflict handling style interaction approached significance, F (1,130) = 3.39, p. >.07. Hypotheses 3 and 4. Hypothesis 3 predicted that women managers who scored high on instrumentality would report using a significantly greater integrating conflict management style for interpersonal conflict vs. moral conflict, compared with managers who scored low on instrumentality. Hypothesis 4 predicted that women  115 managers who scored high on instrumentality would report using a significantly greater dominating conflict management style for moral conflict vs. interpersonal conflict, compared with managers who scored low on instrumentality. Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not supported. MANOVA found no significant overall effect by conflict type for instrumentality, F (3,128) = .79, p. >.50. Hypothesis 5. It was predicted that androgynous women managers would report using a significantly greater integrating conflict management for both interpersonal and moral conflict, compared with managers who scored high on the undifferentiated dimension. Hypothesis 5 was not supported by using either the additive approach (main effect) or the balance approach (expressive and instrumental interaction), F < 1.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0302111/manifest

Comment

Related Items