Conflict in schools: Student nurses’ conflict management styles

Introduction 

Conflict, which is a natural result of human communication, is generally defined as an internal misunderstanding that occurs from the differences in thoughts, values and feelings between two organizations or people (Marquis and Huston, 2000, Rahim et al., 2000). It is natural and unavoidable that conflict will occur in schools like it does in other work environments (Miklas and Kleiner, 2003, Çetin and Hacıfazlıoğlu, 2004). Just as conflict can occur in schools between students and faculty management, between students and managers, and between faculty management and instructors, it can also occur between students and instructors as well (Miklas and Kleiner, 2003). Conflicts between faculty management and students have a different significance because of the basic relationship that is formed in the teaching center of student–faculty relationships and because the results of these relationships have a direct effect on student outcomes (Gillespie, 2004, Ang, 2005, Frymier and Houser, 2000).

Conflicts in the relationship between students and instructors may occur for a several reasons. In a study conducted by Adrian-Taylor (2007), the reasons of conflict were found to be the lack of openness, time and feedback as well as the equivocal expectations (Adrian-Taylor (2007). In a similar study, the reasons of conflict, as defined by the students, were reported to be communication problems, difficulty in compromising with the values and the rules of the society, authority issues, anger and irritation, low performance and responsibilities, and disobedience to the rules and policies (Osinchuk, 1995).

The presence of a conflict between a student and faculty can have both negative and positive results (Rahim et al., 2000, Kaushal and Kwantes, 2006). The negative results of conflict include weak interpersonal relationships, high stress, decrease in student success, increase in absenteeism (Morris-Rothschild and Brass, 2006, Tantleff-Dunn et al., 2002, Güneri and Çoban, 2004, Sava, 2002), the potential positive results include increase in creativity and innovation, a decision to have higher quality, and the development of a reciprocal understanding (Rahim et al., 2000, Mamchur and Myrick, 2003, Longaretti and Wilson, 2000). Whether conflicts produce negative or positive results depends on the fact that how conflicts are managed (Park and Antonioni, 2007). The effective and constructive management of conflict can minimize the negative effects and decrease its negative effects on the school environment, family, students, and faculty (Kaushal and Kwantes, 2006).

One of the most important factors on effective and constructive management of interpersonal conflict is the conflict management style that individuals use to resolve conflicts (Rahim et al., 2000). Conflict management style is the general attitude reflected in responding to conflict in reciprocal interactions of individuals’ (Xu and Davidhizar, 2004). During the socialization process, individuals develop their own unique conflict management styles on the basis of their personal experiences with conflict, cultural values, and education (Karip, 2000, Xu and Davidhizar, 2004).

There are many approaches for measuring individual styles in the management of interpersonal conflict. Although every one of these approaches has created its own terminology for conflict management strategies (Rahim, 1983, Kaushal and Kwantes, 2006), the conflict management conceptualization of Rahim and Bonoma (1979) is the most popular (Brewer et al., 2002). They consider interpersonal conflict in five different dimensions, integrating, obliging, dominating, compromising, and avoiding (Rahim, 2000, Rahim and Bonoma, 1979).

In integrating style, also known as a problem solving style, an individual shows more interest in the concerns of the self and the others. This style includes cooperation between groups (openness, sharing of ideas, examination of differences to reach a solution that can be accepted on both sides, etc.). In the obliging style the individual shows less concern for the self and a high level of concern for the other side. This style emphasizes shared aspects to satisfy the concerns of the other side and is combined with efforts to decrease differences. In the dominating style, which is also known as the competing style, the person shows a high level of concern for self and a low level of concern for the other side. This style can also be described as being consistent with a win-lose resolution or as an individual strengthening their position to win. In the avoiding style, the individual shows a low level of concern for the self and for the other side. This style is also known as assimilation or suppression and is a combination of withdrawal, passively assuming responsibility, avoiding or acting like “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” In the compromising style the individual shows intermediate level of concern for the self and the other side. This style uses give-and-take or sharing the willingness to give up something to be able to make a decision that is acceptable to both sides (Rahim, 1983, Rahim, 2000, Rahim and Bonoma, 1979). Using the terminology of game theory, integrating style is identified with win–win term, obliging with no win/no lose, compromising style with lose–win, dominating style with win–lose, and finally avoiding style with lose–lose terms (Rahim, 2000).

Research on this issue has examined conflict management from different perspectives. Some researchers (Çetin and Hacıfazlıoğlu, 2004; Morris-Rothschild & Brass, 2006; Tabor, 2001, Valentine et al., 1998, Lee, 2003) have examined it from the instructors’ perspective, some from the student’s perspective (Tantleff-Dunn et al., 2002, Rahim et al., 2002, Jhonson et al., 1997), and some from both the student’s and the instructor’s perspectives (Mamchur and Myrick, 2003).

The shared opinion presented in all of these studies is that it is necessary to investigate the subject more broadly to decrease instructor–student conflict, ensure student and instructor satisfaction, and create healthy learning environments. However, it is also reported that this particular issue has been rarely investigated in the institutions of nursing education, on which this study was planned based on such a need. In this study, the conflict management styles used by nursing students in conflicts with faculty were examined and the differences in the use of style according to some variables were also examined. We hope that the research results will have a part in creating a knowledge base, although limited, in the development of strategies to decrease student–faculty conflicts in nursing schools, in creating healthy school environments, and in increasing positive student outcomes.

Method 

Results 

The students’ opinions about conflict situations are shown in Table 1. In this study 63.58% of the students stated that they had experienced conflicts with a faculty member during their education. Of the students who had experienced conflicts 61.46% had rarely had conflicts, 53.12% had experienced conflicts more in the practice field, 35.42% felt they had been successful in conflict management and 39.58% felt they had been partially successful.

Table 1. Distribution of students’ opinions about their conflict status

	Conflict experience (N=151)	n	%
	Yes	96	63.58
	No	55	36.42
	Frequency of experiencing conflict (N=96)
	Always/often	4	4.17
	Sometimes	33	34.37
	Seldom	59	61.46
	Conflict experienced environment (N=96)
	Classroom	37	38.54
	Practice area	51	53.12
	Both of them	8	8.34
	Status of feeling successful in conflict management (N=96)
	Successful	34	35.42
	Partially successful	38	39.58
	Unsuccessful	24	25.00

As shown in Table 2, there were significant differences between the conflict management style scores of students (F=49.71,p<0.05). It was noted that the reason was that the integrating (X=3.82) and obliging style (X=3.81) scores were higher than the scores for the other styles.

Table 2. Students’ conflict management style scores

	Conflict management style	N	Mean	SD	F	p
	Integrating	151	3.82	0.749	32.026	0.000
	Compromising	151	3.62	0.660
	Dominating	151	3.02	0.684
	Avoiding	151	3.37	0.903
	Obliging	151	3.81	0.701

∗p<0.05.

In the comparison of the conflict management styles according to class year (Table 3) there was a statistically significant difference between the obliging style score (F=3.446,p<0.05). In the advanced statistical analysis that was done (Tukey HSD test), it was determined that the source of this difference was the lower obliging style score for the fourth year students (X=3.52,SD=0.748) than the other classes.

Table 3. Comparison of classes with conflict management styles

	Conflict management style	Grade								F	p
		1 (n=45)		2 (n=35)		3 (n=30)		4 (n=41)
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
	Integrating	3.95	0.658	3.86	0.751	3.85	0.846	3.63	0.758	1.382	0.251
	Compromising	3.52	0.742	3.64	0.535	3.78	0.694	3.59	0.636	0.979	0.404
	Dominating	3.08	0.798	3.03	0.636	2.88	0.657	3.06	0.612	0.559	0.643
	Avoiding	3.37	0.944	3.42	0.819	3.21	1.028	3.42	0.847	0.392	0.759
	Obliging	3.96	0.635	3.91	0.707	3.87	0.639	3.52	0.748	3.446	0.018⁎

⁎ p<0.05.

The distributions of style scores according to the frequency of experiencing conflict are shown in Table 4. Those who experienced conflict always/often had higher avoiding style scores (X=3.75), those who experienced conflict occasionally had higher compromising style scores (X=3.82), those who experienced conflict rarely had higher obliging (X=3.86) and integrating style scores (X=3.84).

Table 4. Comparison of conflict management styles with frequency of experiencing conflict

	Conflict management style	Always/often (n=4)		Sometimes (n=33)		Seldom (n=59)		KW	p
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
	Integrating	2.61	1.473	3.61	0.772	3.84	0.661	4.895	0.086
	Compromising	3.04	1.040	3.82	0.738	3.54	0.603	4.189	0.123
	Dominating	2.85	0.640	3.05	0.621	3.07	0.701	0.456	0.796
	Avoiding	3.75	1.500	3.49	0.983	3.12	0.878	4.632	0.099
	Obliging	3.13	0.777	3.64	0.586	3.86	0.755	6.482	0.039⁎

⁎ p<0.05.

Comparing the style scores with the frequency of conflict (Table 4), it was suggested that there was a statistically significant difference between the obliging style score and the frequency of conflict (p<0.05), which was associated with relatively lower scores of those who often had conflicts than the others.

In the examination of the style scores according to the students’ evaluation of their success in conflict management (Table 5) it was stated that those who evaluated themselves as successful had higher obliging (X=4.21) and integrating (X=4.17) style scores, and those who evaluated themselves as unsuccessful had higher compromising (X=3.97) and avoiding (X=3.95) style scores. There was a statistically significant difference in all of the style scores, except for dominating, according to the evaluation of success (p<0.05). Further analyses have illustrated that the difference between integrating and obliging scores stemmed from higher scores of those who evaluated themselves as successful, and higher compromising and avoiding style scores of those who evaluated themselves as unsuccessful (p<0.05).

Table 5. Comparison of evaluation of success with conflict management style

	Conflict management style	Successful (n=34)		Partially successful (n=38)		Unsuccessful (n=24)		F	p
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
	Integrating	4.17	0.568	3.70	0.541	3.07	0.899	19.813	0.000⁎
	Compromising	3.46	0.680	3.52	0.608	3.97	0.710	4.816	0.010⁎
	Dominating	3.26	0.660	2.97	0.624	2.88	0.690	2.871	0.062
	Avoiding	2.78	0.803	3.30	0.945	3.95	0.738	13.459	0.000⁎
	Obliging	4.21	0.524	3.68	0.584	3.24	0.761	17.965	0.000⁎

⁎ p<0.05.

Discussion 

Although conflict experienced in schools cannot be entirely eliminated, it is possible to minimize its negative effects with effective management of conflict. The goal of conflict management is to interfere with negative or dysfunctional conflict while encouraging healthy conflict that will incite the individuals, primarily, and groups to be innovative and successful (Sims, 2002). In this study the styles that nursing students use in conflicts they have with faculty were examined and the differences in styles according to class year, frequency of experiencing conflict, and status of feeling successful in conflict management were also examined.

The results of this study have shown that the majority of students experienced conflict with faculty, that the majority of those who experienced conflict did so rarely, that the most common site for conflict was in the practice field, and that the students perceived that they were successful in conflict management. In previous studies Adrian-Taylor (2007) reported that 22% of the students experienced conflicts with instructors; Mamchur and Myrick (2003) reported that 28.2% of students and 24% of nursing students experienced conflicts with their preceptors, 51% of the students frequently and 84% occasionally experienced conflicts. The differences of this study from the previous studies were that the percentage of those experiencing conflict was higher (63.58%) but that the frequency of conflict was lower (61.46%, rarely).

Although the high rate of conflict experienced in our study appears to be a negative situation at first glance, the low frequency and the students’ self-assessment as successful in conflict can suggest that the problems that caused conflicts were not still in progress, or in other words, that these conflicts were effectively resolved. Besides, that the most common site of conflict was found to be the practice field may have had an effect on the high percentage of students who were experiencing conflicts. The reason was possibly that the students have more chance to develop a one-to-one relationship with their instructors in the practice field in comparison to the classroom environment and encounter a variety of field-specific problems. Studies have illustrated that anxiety levels and interpersonal relationships of the students may be adversely affected by a variety of factors such as being monitored by the instructors, being responsible for the previous experiences of the former students, fear of making mistakes or being assessed by the faculty management, and relationship with the health professionals in the unit, which seemingly support our thesis statement (Kim, 2003, Ulupınar and Ekizler, 1997).

The results of this study have also shown that the students chose to use conflict management styles that result in win–win solutions. The most commonly used style by the students was the integrating management style, followed in second by the compromising style. In addition, the least used management style was the dominating style which results in win–lose solutions. These results support those of many previous studies. The most frequently used conflict management style by students in the educational environment has been noted to be the integrating style in previous studies (Rahim et al., 2000, Rahim et al., 2002), the obliging style (Chanın and Schneer, 1984) and the cooperating style (Saulo, 1987). Besides, the least used styles by students have been reported to be the dominating style (Rahim et al., 2002) and avoiding style (Rahim et al., 2000, Chanın and Schneer, 1984, Saulo, 1987).

In the integrating style, the opposing sides come together and discuss openly and confidently what the actual problem is and what can be done. Both sides of the argument analyze the differences between them to reach a solution acceptable to both sides (Karip, 2000, Rahim, 2000). In general, the integrating style can be used effectively to deal with conflicts about strategic and complex issues (Rahim, 2000). The dominating style is used by one of the sides who puts their own interests and outcomes in the forefront, and who intends to win against the other side no matter what it would cost. In student–faculty relationships, this style is more likely to be used by the faculty who has the position of power (Karip, 2000, Rahim, 2000, Gümüşeli, 2004). Accordingly, because a student has little chance of defying a faculty member (Burnard, 2006), it was expected that the students would use less aggressive styles in their conflicts with the faculty. The students’ choice of conflict styles in this study that have positive results for both sides in conflicts with the faculty can be interpreted as a positive result. In addition, the finding that the dominating style was chosen the least by nursing students can be interpreted to be an expected result when the power differences in faculty–student relationships are taken into consideration.

When some variables were compared with the conflict management styles, it was determined that there were statistically significant differences in style used according to the class year, frequency of experiencing conflict, and status of feeling successful in conflict. The obliging style was used less by those who experienced conflict frequently, in comparison to those who experienced conflict rarely and occasionally. Moreover, the compromising and avoiding styles were used more by those who evaluated themselves as unsuccessful in conflict management; and the integrating and obliging styles were used more by those who felt successful in conflict. These results that those using the integrating style experiencing infrequent conflict and those using dominating or avoiding styles having more experience with conflict support Rahim’s viewpoint (2000). In addition, these results are important in showing that if students can be helped to use effective styles of managing conflict, it will be possible to increase their perception of success in conflict management.

There are some limitations of this research. The foremost limitation was that the data were collected via self-report method, the research results reportedly expressed the personal statements of the nursing students about the conflicts they had with the faculty management. Furthermore, because the study included only one school and a limited number of students, the research results cannot be generalized to all nursing students. Finally, because the students’ conflict management styles were limited to those with faculty members they may not reflect how they deal with conflict they experience with managers, peers and their family members.

Conclusion 

In conclusion it was determined that students used the most the integrating and obliging styles which result in positive solutions in regard to conflict and used the least the dominating style which results in win–lose solutions to conflict. In addition, it was found out that the choice of style had an effect on the frequency of experiencing conflict and on the perception of success in conflict.

Based on the findings of this current study, school managers and instructors can be recommended to implement certain initiatives. The school environment has an important role in the socialization of students in the conflict management. Therefore, students need to be supported and encouraged in their use of effective conflict management styles with education and by rewarding them. In this way, students will be facilitated in coping with conflict in their future work and private lives in an effective and constructive manner.

In future studies it would be useful to use the observation method to determine students’ actual behaviors in solving conflict. In addition it is recommended that the study be repeated with a larger sample and that the relationship between use of style and reasons for conflicts between students and faculty members in the practice fields be examined.