CONFLICT, STYLES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION, STRESS AND JOB
SATISFACTION AMONGST VETERINARY HEAL THCARE WORKERS IN
CLINICAL SETTINGS
by
Deborah L. Kalyn
D.V.M. , Western College of Veterinary Medicine, 1988

PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

February 2013
© Deborah L. Kalyn, 2013
UNIVERSITY of NORTHERN
BRITISH COLu MBIA
LIBRARY
Prince George, B.C.

ii

ABSTRACT
This project looks at sources of stress and conflict, styles of conflict resolution
and their outcomes in veterinary healthcare workers.
An on-line survey was developed and sent to veterinary hospitals. Results
included :
•
•
•
•

•

Positive correlation between task and relationship conflict
Positive correlation between conflict and avoiding, dominating and obliging
styles of conflict resolution
Negative correlation between job satisfaction and stress
Negative correlation between job satisfaction and an avoiding style of
conflict resolution and a positive correlation between job satisfaction and
an integrating style of conflict resolution
Positive correlation between job satisfaction and intent to stay with both
the current employer and the occupation

It is hoped this research can be used as a starting point to open dialogues about
sources of stress and conflict, differing styles of conflict resolution and their benefits
in terms of improved job satisfaction, decreased stress and intent to leave.

I

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .............................. .............................. ... .... .... ...... .............................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .... ... ........ .. .. ............ ........................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES ...... ... ... ... .... ........ .................................... .. ........ ... .......... ........... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .... ................................................................... ....................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......... ... .............. ................. ....... ..... .... ...... ................. viii
1.

INTRODUCTION ..... ..................................................................................... 1

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................. 1
2.1 Definition of Conflict .. ......... ..... ......... .. ......... ... ............................................. 1
2.2 Types of Conflict .... ...... .... .... ..... ...... ... .......... .. ... ... .. ..................................... 4
2.2.1 Task Conflict ......................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Relationship Conflict ............................................................................. 5
2.2.3 Total Conflict ......................................................................................... 6
2.3 Sources of Conflict ............... .. .... ..... ..... ..................................................... .. 8
2.3.1 Resource Scarcity as a Source of Conflicts ....... ..... ................ .. ............ 8
2.3.2 Values Disparity as a Source of Conflicts ............................................. 8
2.3.3 Informational Disparity as a Source of Conflicts ................................. 10
2.4 Styles of Interpersonal Conflict Resolution ................ ................................ 11
2.4.1 Avoiding Style .................................................. ................................... 13
2.4.2 Dominating Style ................................................................................. 14

I

iv
2.4.3 Integrating Style .................................................................................. 15
2.4.4 Obliging Style ... ................................................................................... 15
2.4.5 Compromising Style ............................................................................ 16
2.5 Outcomes of Conflict.. ............................................................................... 16
2.6 Improving Conflict Resolution ................................................................... 18
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 20
3.1 Survey Design ........................................................................................... 20
3.2 Survey Sample .......................................................................................... 20
3.3 Instruments ................................................................ ............................... 21
3.3.1 Types of Conflict ................................................................................. 21
3.3.2 Sources of Conflict.. ............................................................................ 22
3.3.3 Styles of Conflict Resolution ............................................................... 23
3.3.4 Outcomes of Conflict.. ......................................................................... 25
3.3.5 Improving Conflict Resolution ............................................................. 27
4. RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Demographics ........................................................................................... 27
4.2 Types of Conflict ....................................................................................... 28
4.3 Sources of Conflict .................................................................................... 29
4.4 Styles of Conflict Resolution ..................................................................... 32
4.5 Cost of Conflict. ......................................................................................... 41

I

v
4.6 Outcomes of Conflict ................................................................................. 42
4.7 Improving Conflict Resolution .................... ............................................... 46
5. DISCUSSION .................................................................. .. ............................. 48
5.1 Type of Conflict ..... ...... .............................. ..... ............................. .. ............ 48
5.2 Sources of Conflict .................................................................................... 48
5.3 Styles of Conflict Resolution ..................................................................... 49
5.4 Outcomes of Conflict.. ............ ...... .. ........................................................... 52
5.5 Improving Conflict Resolution ................................................................... 53
5.6 Limitations of this Study .................................. ..... .. ... ................................ 54
5.7 Suggestions for further research ...................................... .. .. .... .. ............ ... 55
6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. ........... .............. .. . 56
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................... .... ... 57
APPENDIX A: Research and Ethics Board Approval Letter ............................... 61
APPENDIX B: Letter of Explanation I Consent.. ................... .... .. ... .... ............. ... . 62
APPENDIX C: On Line Research Survey .... ..... .................................................. 64
Appendix D: Correlation Table ........................................................................... 72
APPENDIX E: Stressors from Most to Least Stressful ............................... .... .. .. 73

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Pearson Correlations Task v. Relationship Conflict by Work Group ..... 29
Table 2: Pearson Correlations Sources of Conflict.. .................. ......................... 31
Table 3: Ranking of Sources of Conflict ......... ........ ............................................ 32
Table 4: Gender v. Style of Conflict Resolution .................................................. 34
Table 5: Age v. Style of Conflict Resolution ........................... ............................ 35
Table 6: Work Group v. Style of Conflict Resolution .... ....................................... 37
Table 7: Stressors Related Directly to Conflict ................................................... 43
Table 8: Pearson Correlations Conflict v. Satisfaction and Intent to Leave ........ 44

I

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Venn diagram of Interpersonal Conflicts' Properties ............................. 3
Figure 2: Nomenclature for Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict ................ 12
Figure 3: Predominant Type of Conflict .............................................................. 28
Figure 4: Styles of Conflict Resolution -All Respondents ............. .. ....... ... ......... 33
Figure 5: Age v. Style of Conflict Resolution ............................................. ..... .... 36
Figure 6: Work Group v. Style of Conflict Resolution ... ......... ........ ....... .............. 38
Figure 7: Predominant Management Styles ....................................................... 39
Figure 8: Who is Conflict With? .. ... ..................................................................... 41
Figure 9: Time Spent on Conflict Daily (Percentage) ............. ......... ........ ........... 42
Figure 10: Job Satisfaction ............ ......... ... .... ..... ...... .... ..... .............. ................... 43
Figure 11: Intent to Leave Occupation .. ... .............................. ............. ............... 45
Figure 12: Intent to Leave Employer ....... .. ................................... ...................... 45
Figure 13: Training by Work Group ..................................... ...... ..... .................... 46
Figure 14: Improving Conflict Resolution ... ............ ..... .. ... .... .... ........................... 47

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I must acknowledge all of my coworkers who have given me
so much support throughout this project and during the past two years while I have
been enrolled in the MBA program. I have appreciated all of the help in making my
job easier; allowing me to use you as sounding boards and letting me sneak away to
my office to do homework.
I must also thank my husband, Chuck, for his unwavering support throughout the
program. Without his help I would not have been able to succeed.
Special thanks must also be given to Dr. Rick Tallman. His patience at
answering all of my questions, and developing the statistical analysis as well as
directing me throughout this project has been invaluable.
Lastly, I would like to thank all of the people who took time out of their busy lives
to answer my rather lengthy survey! The encouraging comments and support
received have only strengthened my belief that veterinary medicine is the best
profession. We all enter this for the animals, but stay for the people.

Thank you all.

Dr. Deb Kalyn

1

1. INTRODUCTION
Healthy relationships include conflict. Conflict is a part of every work
environment to some degree. No one, particularly not people in any high-stress
profession would expect otherwise . At issue are the sources and types of conflict,
how conflict is approached and resolved, and the success of these approaches.
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationships between sources of
conflict, types of conflict, and styles of conflict resolution as well as the outcomes of
conflict as related to job stress, job satisfaction , and intent to leave both the current
employer and the current occupation among veterinary healthcare workers.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2. 1 Definition of Conflict
While the term conflict is used frequently, and volumes have been written about
conflict in the literature, there is still no clear definition. The term conflict has been
used in different ways , referring to different contexts of conflict such as racial , ethnic,
religious , political, marital, personality, gender, role or value. It has also been used
in the context of levels of analysis that are involved such as within the individual ,
between individuals, between groups, between organizations or between nations. It
has also been defined by the different situational contexts where it occurs such as at
home, in organizations or on the battlefield (Barki H. a. , 2004)

2
This paper will limit discussion to inter or intragroup conflict in a workplace
setting; more specifically in the clinical settings of human healthcare and veterinary
healthcare.
Even with this narrowed discussion to conflict within an organization, definitions
are not clear. Intragroup conflict has been defined as "the actual or perceived
opposition of needs, values and interests between people resulting in unwanted
stress or tension and negative feelings between disputants" (Bishop, 1997). Another
definition (Barki H. a., 2004) of interpersonal conflict is:
A dynamic process that occurs between interdependent parties as they
experience negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and
interference with the attainment of their goals.
This definition appears to fit the current consensus for a general definition of
conflict. Most definitions involve three or four themes: interdependence between the
parties thereby each has the potential to interfere with the other, perception of
incompatibility among the parties' concerns, negative emotions and some form of
interaction (Thomas, 1992) (Barki H. a., 2001) (Barki H. a., 2004 ). This multiple
theme view is defined by the inclusion of all components; disagreement, negative
emotion, and interference. In one study this was able to explain 95% of the variance
in individuals' perceptions of interpersonal conflict as measured through
assessments of conflict frequency and intensity (Barki H. a., 2001 ). It is this
definition of intragroup conflict which will be used for the purposes of this paper.

3
Figure 1: Venn diagram of Interpersonal Conflicts' Properties
(Barki H. a., 2004)

Negative Emotion

Disagreement

Interference

It is important to remember that these themes are the perceptions of those
involved in conflict. They can also be thought of as cognitive, affective or emotional,
and behavioural. The cognitive aspect is usually described by words such as
disagreement or differences. The emotional or affective aspect of conflict almost
always involves negative emotions with words such as fear, jealousy, anger, anxiety,
and frustration. The third aspect is behavioural and involves the interference of
those involved in the conflict. Debate, argument, competition, political maneuvering,
back-stabbing, aggression, hostility, and destruction are some examples of the
behaviours commonly cited. (Barki H. a., 2004). There is also a situational element

4
to conflict which is the interdependence of the parties involved. This may be better
considered as an antecedent for conflict rather than a requirement. (Barki H. a.,
2004)
However it is defined , conflict is an accepted part of daily and work life.
Kunaviktikul et al. (2000) describe conflict as "natural and inevitable", but if we can
reduce any of the three perceived properties, interference, negative emotion or
disagreement, we can decrease overall conflict in that setting.

2.2 Types of Conflict
There are two main forms of intragroup conflict; task conflict and relationship
conflict (de Wit, 2012) with a third form, process conflict proposed by some (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001 ).

2.2.1 Task Conflict
Task conflict is disagreement about the content or outcomes of the task being
performed. It is also called cognitive conflict. It is a condition in which group
members disagree about task issues, including goals, key decision areas,
procedures, and the appropriate choice for action (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).
It can be considered to be good, or at least not always detrimental, as it allows for
creativity and innovation by stimulating more critical thinking and preventing
premature consensus from being reached (de Wit, 2012). Examples of task conflict
are conflicts about the distribution of resources, procedures and policies, and
judgments and interpretation of facts (De Dreu C. a., 2003). In a study of conflict in
operating rooms , the most common, specific, task-related sources of conflict were

5
related to equipment needs and scheduling (Rogers, 2011 ). The most common
positive consequence of task-related conflict was improved working efficiency.
Negative consequences included an increase in mistakes made, an increase in the
time required to perform tasks and a decrease in the contribution of team members
towards the completion of a task (Rogers, 2011 ).
Process conflict may be considered a subset of task conflict. It is conflict about
how a task is to be performed; centered on disagreements about how a task will be
accomplished rather than the content of the task itself (Jehn & Mannix, 2001 ). This
would include such items as delegation and scheduling. Although some studies (de
Wit, 2012) have found that at the beginning of a task, process conflict can be useful
by encouraging alternative ways to complete the task at hand, other studies (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001) have found process conflict to be negative to outcomes, likely by
misdirecting the focus to irrelevant discussions.

2.2.2 Relationship Conflict
Relationship conflict is disagreements about personal issues such as personality
differences or differences in values (de Wit, 2012). It is defined as "a condition in
which group members have interpersonal clashes characterized by anger,
frustration, and other negative feelings" (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). There is a
strong presence of negative affect or emotion as its defining characteristic; tension,
frustration, anger, friction and hostility. Examples of relationship conflict are conflicts
about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style (De Dreu
C. a., 2003). Relationship-related sources of conflict in the operating room include
bad moods or attitudes, rudeness and inexperience (Rogers, 2011 ).

It appears to

6
always (Pearson, 2002) or almost always (Rogers, 2011) be negative, although
others (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999) found no relationship between increased
relationship conflict and poor outcomes. Some of these contradictory results can be
explained by different definitions used by various researchers. Part may also be
explained by poor job satisfaction, rather than poor job performance being the metric
used (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). Positive outcomes of relationship-associated
conflict cited by Rogers et al include increased satisfaction on the part of the team
and an improved working relationship between parties. Negative consequences
included feelings of incompetence or misery, a decrease in willingness to
communicate with the team and in some instances a permanent negative
consequence occurred when a team member was dismissed or refused to work with
that team or resigned from their position.

2.2.3 Total Conflict
The conventional separation perspective views task and relationship conflict as
separate and distinct. This perspective, while easier to understand, is likely too
simplistic. The complexity perspective views conflict as a single process, having
both task and relationship attributes. As an example, it is possible for task-related
disagreements to generate emotionally harsh language, which can be taken
personally. It is equally possible for relationship conflict to develop some task
conflict. Individuals who feel frustrated or angry with other members of their group
may dispute the ideas of those members, simply because angry people tend to be
less agreeable. The complexity perspective appears to be better than the separation

7
perspective in an operating room setting (Rogers, 2011) and likely is superior in
most situations of solving complex, non-routine problems.
Not all conflict is bad. In order for conflict to be considered functional it is
generally task oriented and focused on how best to achieve a common goal. This is
also called cognitive conflict and is considered beneficial to quality decision making
and to improving commitment, understanding and acceptance (Amason, 1996). The
reasons for this are that the antecedents of good decision making, which include
diversity and interaction, hinder the development of consensus and acceptance
(Amason , 1996). Simply put, vigorous debate of differing opinions may produce a
solution which is different and superior from either view initially proposed . If the
initial proposals were merely voted on, there would be no conflict but there would
also be no alternate solutions found and there would be less understanding and
commitment to the final solution.
Dysfunctional conflict, also called affective conflict, tends to be emotional and
focused on personal incompatibilities (Amason, 1996). This type of conflict impedes
good decision making, commitment, understanding and acceptance. The problem ,
at a working level, is for those involved is to be able to distinguish between
functional, task-related conflict and dysfunctional , relationship conflict as they often
occur together.

Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive association between task conflict and
relationship conflict.

8

2.3 Sources of Conflict
There are three root causes of conflict. These are scarce resources, value
disparities and informational disparities. Value disparities can be thought of as the
search for maintaining and promoting a positive view of self. Informational
disparities are the desires to hold consensually shared and socially validated
opinions and beliefs (De Dreu C. K., 2008).

2.3.1 Resource Scarcity as a Source of Conflicts
Resources within any organization are scarce and finite. Availability, access to
and distribution of these resources are a major source of conflict. This would include
wanting more time off, wanting a larger share of bonuses due to perceived higher
inputs and striving for work/family balance to name a few examples. Finite
resources as a source of conflict can be explained by interdependence theory which
assumes that anyone within a social system, an organization in the confines of this
paper, depend on each other to obtain positive outcomes and prevent negative
outcomes (De Dreu C. K., 2008). It is the way people in these social systems relate
or, more importantly, perceive to relate which is the source of conflict.

2.3.2 Values Disparity as a Source of Conflicts
People in general have a need to develop, maintain and protect a positive view of
self (De Dreu C. K., 2008). The types of conflicts that emerge due to this need for
positive self-image are often ideological and value driven. The major assumption to
explain this source of conflict is social identity theory whereby individuals define
themselves and others in terms of group memberships (De Dreu C. K., 2008).
Prejudice, harassment, feelings of superiority and an "us against them" attitude are

9
all examples of this source of conflict. There are two key factors which help to
explain how the need for social identity becomes a source for conflict in the
workplace; categorization and social comparison (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).
Categorization is the tendency of people to try to simplify perceptions of their
situation by sorting themselves and others into groups, often based on social
demographics (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). Conflict arises when they perceive
members of their own social category as superior and engage in stereotyping,
distancing, and disparaging of members of other categories. Members of other
social categories, in turn, resent such stereotyping and unfavourable treatment, and
hostile interactions erupt. These antagonistic exchanges constitute relationship
conflict (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). This can also be thought of in terms of
team-game analysis where hostility towards the "out-group" is perceived as loyalty to
the "in-group" and cooperation with the "out-group" is considered disloyal (De Dreu
C. K., 2008). Categorization tends to occur with traits which do not change much
over time. These attributes include characteristics such as age, gender, and
ethnicity as well as attributes that describe individuals' relationships with the
organization such as tenure, functional work background or work area and attributes
that describe the individuals' positions within society, such as marital status (Pelled,
Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).
With social comparison, people compare themselves with similar others. This
preference exists because comparison with someone similar is more meaningful
than comparison with someone who is very different. Most people feel pressure to
improve their abilities, and, as a result, they strive to be better than the targets of

10
their comparisons. This leads to competition among similar others and an increase in
relationship conflict among more homogeneous demographic traits. Career related
traits, such as age, tenure and educational background appear to be most related to
conflict (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).
It is important to differentiate value conflicts from resource conflicts as the types
of solutions possible are very different. In a conflict with values as the source,
compromise and trade-offs are often not possible whereas in resource conflicts
these are commonly held as good solutions (De Dreu C. K., 2008). A medical
example would be right to euthanasia; a possible solution would never be to
randomly grant euthanasia to 50% of the patients! Perhaps a more realistic example
would be if two people or groups in a workplace have differing values, simply telling
them to become friends will never be successful.

2.3.3 Informational Disparity as a Source of Conflicts
Informational conflicts arise out of incompatible or diverging understanding and
interpretation of facts (De Dreu C. K., 2008). Socio-cognitive conflict theory can be
used to explain these types of conflict and is based on three assumptions. The first
assumption is that people want to have accurate perceptions. The second
assumption is that people lack all the relevant information and/or information
processing capacities required to make accurate assumptions which lead them to
develop differing insights and understandings of otherwise identical situations.
Third , it is assumed that people seek consistency and social validation of their
beliefs and understandings and that any divergence in this causes tension (De Dreu
C. K., 2008). A common example of this in a healthcare setting would be

11
disagreements about the care plan of patients. In operating room settings studies
noted conflict occurs during the management of between 50% and 78% of patients
(Katz, 2007). In a pediatric intensive care unit, one study found intragroup conflict to
be present in 38% of cases with disagreement about the care plan accounting for
33% of this (Studdert, Burns, Mello, Puopolo, & Truog, 2003).

Differing viewpoints

between different physician specialties, nursing staff, the patient and their families
are all sources of informational conflict. This type of conflict has much in common
with task-related conflict; an important consideration as it has been shown that
diversity can increase task-related conflict which can lead to improved outcomes.
Simply put, allowing all interested parties, including physicians, nursing staff, the
patient and their family to have input, while time consuming would likely lead to
improved patient care.

Hypothesis 2a: There will be a positive association between task conflict and
scarcity of resources as a source of conflict in work groups.
Hypothesis 2b: There will be a positive association between relationship
conflict and values as a source of conflict in work groups.
Hypothesis 2c: There will be a positive association between task conflict and
informational disparity as a source of conflict.

2.4 Styles of Interpersonal Conflict Resolution
Styles of interpersonal conflict resolution have commonly been divided into four
or five categories based on levels of concern for self and concern for others (Rahim
M. &., 1995). These include avoiding, dominating, integrating, obliging and
compromising. There are many different nomenclatures for these categories in the
literature, but most follow a similar classification (Pruitt, 1983) (Thomas, 1992) (Barki

12
H. a., 2001 ). Some (Pruitt, 1983) consider concern for self to be analogous to
assertiveness and concern for others to be analogous to cooperativeness. The fifth
type of conflict resolution, compromising, has been included in many studies.
Figure 2: Nomenclature for Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict

Concern For Self (Assertiveness)
LOW

HIGH

-

Integrating

Obliging

Problem Solving

;>

Collaborating
Cooperating

Yielding
Accomodating

rn
rn
Q)

cQ)

...

:I:

C'CS

-:I:

Sacrificing

C)

Q)

Q.

0
0

Compromising

-...
0
rn

Lazy Problem Solving
Sharing

J:

Splitting the Difference

Q)

0

...0

Dominating

LL.

c...
Q)
(.)

c
0

0

3:

0

....I

'-

Contending
Competing
Asserting
Forcing

Avoiding
Inaction

Withdrawal
Escape
Apathy
Evade

One author (Thomas, 1992) feels it is important to consider concern for self and
concern for others as merely taxonomy. That is, we should consider these as

13
labeling rather than as causal. If we consider these as causal, we may be missing
opportunities to further investigate other causes.
It is important to realize that the style of conflict resolution chosen is the single
most important determinant of a successful outcome (Barki H. a., 2001 ). While
certain individuals will have a predominant style, there are other situational factors
which will affect the style utilized. Aside from behavioural predispositions, other
factors include social pressures, incentive structures, rules and procedures in place,
time frames and emotions (Thomas, 1992).
Age and experience also affect styles of conflict resolution with communication
being a skill that can be developed. Communicating directly with a colleague during
conflict can be risky, particularly if that person has some authority or power, but has
been described as the only effective strategy for attempting to resolve conflicts
(Bishop, 1997).
In general, it is believed that an integrating style of conflict resolution is most
effective and an avoiding style is least effective, however in some situations this may
not be true. All styles of conflict resolution may be appropriate in certain situations.
2.4. 1 A voiding Style
An avoiding style of conflict resolution is low concern for self and low concern for
others (Rahim M.A., 1983). Avoiding in most cases is simply not addressing the
conflict but can include passive/aggressive subversion, such as not informing others
what is going on (Barki H. a., 2001) or engaging in "hallway gossip" (Skjorshammer,
2001 ). It is most often cited as a "lose-lose" situation for all involved. It may

14
however be an appropriate choice in some situations (McElhaney, 1996). These
may include a temporary avoidance strategy such as to enable a person to gain their
composure or to gather more facts, or a permanent avoidance such as when the
issue is not important and the cost of addressing the conflict is higher that the
benefits expected in resolving it. In general it is important to remember, however,
that avoiding the issue never resolves it; it only prolongs the inevitable confrontation
(McElhaney, 1996). The primary conflict strategies of many nurses are avoidance
and obliging (Kunaviktikul, Nuntasupawat, Srisuphan, & Booth, 2000) with avoidance
being more common in younger nurses (Iglesias & Becerra de Bengoa Vallejo,
2012).

2.4.2 Dominating Style
A dominating style of conflict resolution is considered high concern for self and
low concern for others (Rahim M.A., 1983). This is often referred to as a "win-lose"
situation in which one person 's gain must come at another's loss; if one person is
right the other must be wrong (Barki H. a., 2001 ). This style is thought to potentially
lead to deadlocks or one-way solutions where one party is satisfied in the short run,
but this style can also lead to an escalation of conflict or to the emergence of new
and different conflicts later on (Barki H. a., 2001 ). There are times, such as when a
quick or unpopular decision needs to be made, that this may be an appropriate style
of conflict resolution (McElhaney, 1996). An example in a hospital setting would be
emergencies where the stakes are high and there needs to be quick decisions made
with no time for discussion (Vivar, 2006).

15
Several studies have shown that men tend to use this style of conflict resolution
more often than do women. This appears to be true regardless of the level of
responsibility (Iglesias & Becerra de Bengoa Vallejo, 2012).

2.4.3 Integrating Style
An integrating style of conflict resolution is considered a high concern for both self
and for others (Rahim M.A., 1983). This is a problem-solving style, which is usually
thought as a "win-win" situation where all parties can achieve their goals and
objectives, rather than as a right and wrong type situation (Barki H. a., 2001 ). This
style of conflict resolution tends to work best when there is a high potential of finding
a creative solution beneficial to all parties and when everyone involved maintains
high aspirations for that creative solution.
An integrating style of conflict resolution is infrequently used by nurses. This could
indicate that nurses may not view differences in opinion as opportunities to problemsolve (Iglesias & Becerra de Bengoa Vallejo, 2012).

2.4.4 Obliging Style
In an obliging style of conflict resolution, individuals or groups sacrifice their own
needs and desires in order to satisfy others. This is generally thought of as low
concern for self and high concern for others (Rahim M.A., 1983). This may be
appropriate in situations where the issue at hand is more important to someone else
or that someone else is more powerful or the obliging party realizes they are wrong.
This can improve harmony and perhaps gain credits for future conflicts (McElhaney,
1996).

16

2.4.5 Compromising Style
The fifth type of conflict resolution, compromising, has been included in many
studies, however some (Pruitt, 1983) feel this style is merely lazy problem solving; a
watered down version of an integrating style. It is thought of as "splitting the
difference" or "you win some, you lose some" (Barki H. a., 2001 ).

Hypothesis 3a: There will be statistically significant differences in styles of
conflict resolution with different genders.
Hypothesis 3b: There will be statistically significant differences in styles of
conflict resolution with different ages.
Hypothesis 3c: There will be statistically significant differences in styles of
conflict resolution with different work groups.
Hypothesis 4: Conflict will have a negative correlation with integrating
styles and positive correlations with dominating and avoiding styles of
conflict resolution.

2.5 Outcomes of Conflict
The costs of poor conflict resolution are high. They include absenteeism, high
turnover rates of workers, stress and increased disability and worker's compensation
claims (Barki H. a., 2001) (Bishop, 1997) (Friedman, 2000) (Katz, 2007). Other
negative outcomes of poorly managed conflict include lack of trust, hostility,
decreased group cohesiveness, reduced job satisfaction and motivation, grievances,
and lower performance and productivity. Examples of positive outcomes include
greater self-awareness, creativity, adaptation, and learning (Barki H. a., 2001 ).
Symptoms of conflict have been identified including hostility, jealousy, frustration,
poor communication, a proliferation of technical rules, norms, and regulations and
low morale (Barki H. a., 2001 ).

17
Other studies have shown correlations between conflict styles, amounts of
conflict (Barki H. a., 2001) and stress (Friedman, 2000). Occupational stress has
been linked to worker dissatisfaction, depression, and absenteeism, in addition to
physiological changes in such parameters as heart rate, blood pressure and
cholesterol levels- all with well-known relationships to disease and even death.
In the healthcare field, there has been a proven link between conflict-laden
environments, low job satisfaction, compromised patient care leading to increased
patient mortality, and decreased retention of nurses (Bishop, 1997) (Katz, 2007).
Conflict has even been seen to exceed incompetence as the instigating event in
malpractice claims (Katz, 2007). In Bishop's study, all the nurses interviewed
reported experiencing negative impacts on their work and home lives as a direct
result of workplace conflict. Several of the participants also claimed to have left
positions after realizing that their work environments were no longer tolerable due, at
least in part, to an atmosphere of conflict in the workplace culture. They felt that
moving on became the only action open to them; the ultimate avoidance behaviour.
One study found managers spent an average of 20% of their time dealing with
conflict (McElhaney, 1996). A second, more recent study (Pavlakis, 2011) of
health care workers found that 37% of those surveyed said they come into conflict
daily and devote a mean of 90 minutes per shift to conflict resolution; an astounding
19% of their working day.

Hypothesis 5a: Conflict will be positively correlated with stress.
Hypothesis 5b: Conflict will be negatively correlated with job satisfaction.

18

Hypothesis 5c: Conflict will be negatively correlated with intent to stay.

2.6/mproving Conflict Resolution
Studies have shown that conflict resolution is not a personality trait, but can be
learned (Friedman, 2000). In a research paper of nurses in British Columbia,
(Bishop, 1997) each nurse interviewed spoke of growing self-respect, awareness of
what she faced, and an internal commitment not to take it anymore. They spoke of
pursuing further education, becoming generally more confident and mature, of
making a deliberate choice to initiate a change from having conflict being something
that happens "to" them, to being an active participant in the issues affecting
themselves, their workplace, and their patients (Bishop, 1997).
There is currently very little research regarding educating nursing students about
conflict, addressing the likelihood of their encountering conflict, or preparing them to
practice in a conflict-laden environment (Bishop, 1997). There is even less research
on this topic for veterinary students. Acknowledging and understanding the cost
associated with conflict is an important first step in providing motivation for change.
One challenge to teaching some to manage conflict differently is illustrated in the
finding that surgeons believe that their use of behaviours such as blaming, harsh
language, yelling and personal attacks are sometimes justified in order to
accomplish task-related goals. Nurses, however, never described any positive
outcomes arising from these behaviours (Rogers, 2011 ).

19
In an article by Jane Baltimore (Baltimore, 2006), a list of concrete, frontline steps
to decreasing gossip and other sources of conflict in a nursing setting was given. A
partial list is as follows:
•
•
•

•
•
•

Role model professional behaviors
If conflict arises, speak directly to the individual as soon as possible
Leave "management" to management; unless you have a formal management
role, resist the urge to meddle with issues related to other staffs workload,
schedule, salary, and priorities
Trust and respect the prior experience of new nursing staff and
management's decision to hire them
Increase management involvement in resolution of issues by providing strong
leadership
Actively engage in conflict resolution

An outline for management of conflict in operating room settings has also been
suggested and is listed below (Katz, 2007)
•
•
•

Establish an institution-wide conflict management program
Build a culture that welcomes normative conflict resolution
Foster group cohesion

Personal conduct should include:
• Anticipate conflict
• Develop communication skills
• Identify the precise source of the conflict
• Establish rules of conduct
• Find a nonjudgmental starting point for the discussion
• Establish shared standards and goals
• Recognize any shared frustrations with the "system"
• If confrontation with a colleague is necessary, it should be conducted in a
private setting
• Have a low threshold for intervention by a third party
• If conflict is ultimately irreconcilable, transfer patient care to an uninvolved
colleague

20

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Survey Design
Based on the information obtained in the literature review of nursing in human
healthcare, an on-line survey of veterinary healthcare workers was undertaken with
the approval of the Research and Ethics Board of the University of Northern British
Columbia (see Appendix A). This was a convenience sampling, which could have
introduced some bias into the survey. This survey was cross-sectional, that is, it
was done over a cross section of veterinary health care workers at the same time
rather than a longitudinal study where sampling is done over time. Studies have
shown that conflict is dynamic, changing amongst groups in types of conflict,
amounts of conflict as well as how conflict is handled (Jehn & Mannix, 2001 ). As this
study was cross sectional, and not related to a particular task it is not possible to
determine where in this dynamic process of conflict resolution each participant in this
survey was.
The design of this survey was non-experimental in that no changes were
introduced during the survey time.

3.2 Survey Sample
Veterinary healthcare workers were recruited via email to participate in this study.
An email was sent to veterinarians and veterinary hospital managers who were
identified as prospective participants, inviting them to voluntarily take part in this
study. The email included a consent form (see Appendix B) and a link to UNBC's
survey web site to an on-line survey (see Appendix C). Recipients were asked to
complete the survey within 3 weeks of receiving the email and were encouraged to

21
pass the link along to any others in the veterinary healthcare profession. Due to the
sensitive nature of the questions, responses to the survey were anonymous and all
questions could be left blank.
The only criterion for inclusion was current employment in a clinical veterinary
setting.

3.3/nstruments
3.3.1 Types of Conflict
A set of questions, based on a modified Jehn's intragroup conflict scale was
included to explore types of conflict. This section consisted of six questions to
assess whether conflict was predominantly task based or relationship based
(Pearson, 2002). A five point Likert scale was utilized with 1 representing "none"
and 5 representing "a great deal". The questions were as follows:

Relationship Conflict:
1. How much anger is there among those you work with?
2. How much personal friction is there among those you work with?
5. How much tension is there during decisions?

Task Conflict:
3. How many disagreements over different ideas are there?
4. How many disputes about the content of decisions are there?
6. How many differences of opinion are there among the people you work with?
This scale has been used extensively and has been validated by many (Pelled,
Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999) (Jehn & Mannix, 2001 ). Cronbach's alpha was utilized to
assess reliability.

22

3.3.2 Sources of Conflict
To determine sources of conflict amongst veterinary healthcare workers, a
modified version of a questionnaire designed by Tengilimoglu and Kisa
(Tengilimoglu, 2005) was utilized. This questionnaire was designed to measure
sources of conflict in a hospital workplace setting. Basic sources which were
targeted were differences in educational levels, workload, supervision hierarchy,
departmental allocations and potential for career advancement. Modifications to this
questionnaire were made to reflect different terminologies within the veterinary
healthcare field. A few questions were omitted for brevity. The questions were
answered utilizing a five point Likert scale with 1 representing "not at all" and 5
representing "very much". Grouping these questions into the three theoretical root
causes of conflict led to the following categorizations:
Scarcity of Resources as a Source for Conflict:

2. Do you get the rewards you think your performance deserves? (early promotion,
financial gain, vacation, appreciation etc.)
4. Do you think there is fair distribution of rewards across different work groups?
10. Do you think your wage is enough to motivate you sufficiently for your workload?
Value Disparity as a Source for Conflict:

6. How much do your promotions and career advancement match your
expectations?
7. How much are you personally satisfied by the role and duties you are assigned?
9. Do you think you work more when you compare your workload with the workload
of those in similar work groups in the human health field?
11. How much does your current job resemble your ideal job?
12. Do you think you would be more happy, peaceful and efficient if you worked in a
different occupation?

23
Informational Disparity as a Source for Conflict:
1. How much do you think educational differences lead to communication problems
at your work?
2. Are your messages clearly understood and your job expectations shared by
others at your work?
5. How much do you think hospital management is aware of your contribution at
work?
8. How much do your expectations of the organization match with the organization 's
expectations of you?
13. If you are responsible to more than one supervisor, does this affect your work
performance negatively?
14. If you are responsible to more than one supervisor, does this cause conflict
among them?
15. If you are in a supervisory role , how much conflict do you have with other
supervisors at your level because of their having authority on your subordinates?
16. Do you consider your authority sufficient for the duties you are responsible for?
17. How much do you think legal regulations define your duties and help you to
accomplish them efficiently?
18. When making work related decisions, how independent do you feel, in terms not
feeling pressured, obstructed or directed by others?
Cronbach 's alpha was used to analyse reliability.

3.3.3 Styles of Conflict Resolution
Rahim 's Organizational Conflict Inventory- II (ROCI-11) with slight modifications
was utilized to determine styles of conflict resolution. The original instrument
consisted of twenty-eight questions designed to measure the five styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: Integrating (IN), Obliging (08), Dominating (DO), Avoiding
(AV), and Compromising (CO). It was designed to take approximately eight minutes
to complete. The original instrument contained Forms A, B, and C to measure how
an organizational member handled conflict with supervisors, subordinates, and
peers, respectively (Rahim M.A., 1983). The reliability and validity of this test has
been confirmed over the past decades (Rahim M. &., 1995). In order to keep the

24
current survey to a more workable length it was decided not to have each person
answer this group of questions three times. The wording was changed to "people at
work" rather than subordinate , peer and supervisor. This was in keeping with a
similar survey done by Friedman (Friedman, 2000) who felt that while the responses
to the various forms were different and significant, the magnitude of these
differences was quite small in absolute terms; thus the added time and frustration to
respondents of answering the same question three times outweighed the additional
knowledge gained.
Answers to these questions were based on a five point Likert scale with 1 as
"never" and 5 as "always". Grouping these questions into the five styles of conflict
resolution gives the following:

Integrating
1. I try to investigate an issue with people at work to find a solution acceptable to us
2. I try to integrate my ideas with those I work with to come up with a decision jointly
3. I try to work with people at work to find solutions to a problem which satisfy our
expectations
9. I exchange accurate information with people I work with to solve a problem
together
19. I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved
in the best possible way
20 . I collaborate with the people I work with to come up with decisions acceptable to
us

Avoiding
4. I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with the people I work with
13. I try to stay away from disagreement with the people I work with
14. I avoid encounters with the people I work with
23. I try to keep my disagreement with those I work with to myself in order to avoid
hard feelings
24. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with those I work with

25

Dominating

5. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted
6. I use my authority to make a decision in my favour
15. I use my expertise to make a decision in my favour
18. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of an issue
22. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation

Obliging

7. I usually accommodate the wishes of those I work with
8. I give in to the wishes of those I work with
10. I usually allow concessions to my co-workers
16. I often go along with the suggestions of those I work with
21. I try to satisfy the expectations of those I work with

Compromising

11. I usually propose a middle ground for breaking dead-locks
12. I negotiate with my co-workers so that a compromise can be reached
17. I use "give and take" so that a compromise can be made

3.3.4 Outcomes of Conflict
This section of the survey was intended to gain some understanding of the costs
of conflict, both in terms of time spent dealing with conflict as well as stress levels,
job satisfaction and intent to remain within the occupation and the current
employment. A section was added relating to which group most intergroup conflict
was associated with . These groups included peers, supervisors, subordinates,
those with less education and administration. A question on how respondents
perceived management's style of conflict resolution was also added, as were some
questions regarding the amount of time spent on conflict resolution. While this was

26
very subjective, it was felt important to try to ascertain a general idea about the
amount of time spent dealing with conflict and conflict resolution in a veterinary
setting.
Measurements of stress, job satisfaction and intent to stay at both a current place
of employment and a current field within the veterinary medical field were also
undertaken.
To measure stress, the Expanded Nursing Stress Scale was utilized (Williams,
2003) in combination with the Health Professionals Stress Inventory (Spooner-Lane,
2004) modified to reflect the veterinary setting. This group of questions was
answered on a five point Likert scale with 1 being "never" and 5 being "always".
To measure job satisfaction, the seven question Job Satisfaction Scale as
outlined by Williams (Williams, 2003) was utilized with one additional question
added. This eighth question , "Conflict with the people I worked with/for has been a
factor in changing jobs" was added to help illuminate the extent to which conflict is
related to employee retention/turn over. Answers were given on a four point Likert
scale with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 4 being "strongly agree".
Two questions were asked to measure intent to stay with the current employment
and the current occupation. These were also answered on a four point scale with 1
being "definitely will not leave" and 4 being "definitely will leave".

27

3.3.5 Improving Conflict Resolution
The final section in this survey was questions regarding methods to improve
conflict resolution. This instrument was based on eleven questions from the pilot
study of Tengilimoglu and Kisa (Tengilimoglu, 2005) of the suggestions considered
most important for resolving conflict in a hospital setting. These were answered on a
five point Likert scale with 1 being "unimportant" and 5 being "very important". A
twelfth, open ended question was added for comments. Two yes/no questions were
also added regarding training and available support for conflict resolution.

4. RESULTS
4. 1 Demographics
A total of 155 people responded to this survey. Of this, 14.2% (n=22) were
male, 65.8% (n=1 02) were female and 20% (n=31) chose not to include their gender.
The predominant age group was 26 to 35 years and the predominant practice type
was small animal (52.2% n=70 of 134). Single vet practices accounted for 12.3%
(n=16 of 130) of practices and an additional 30.75% (n=40 out of 130) were
practices with 2 to 4 vets. In most practices, there was a single owner (54.5% n=61
of 112). Most respondents (56% n=75 out of 134) were from British Columbia with
all but one from North America.

In general, most respondents had been with their

current employer for more than five years and had been in their current occupation
for more than five years. The work group with the most respondents was
veterinarians (n=57 of 135). 41 ~% (n=56 of 135) of respondents indicated that they
supervised no-one and fully one third of those surveyed (n=45 of 135) said they had

28
no supervisors. Most practices had between 4 and 10 support staff (29.8% n=39 of
131) with the remainder being distributed between 11 to 20 (18.3% n=24 of 131) and
20 to 35 (17.6% n=23 of 131 ). 21 of 131 (16%) had more than 35 support staff.

4. 2 Types of Conflict
Good reliability was found utilizing all six questions in the Jehn 's intragroup
conflict scale. Cronbach 's alpha for relationship conflict was 0.886 and for task
conflict was 0.841 which is in keeping with reliabilities found in other studies.
Overall, the predominant type of conflict noted by respondents was relationship
conflict, with 48% indicating this was most prevalent compared to only 22% for task
conflict. This was calculated by averaging a respondent's answers to each of the
three questions in the ICS, with the higher score being considered the predominant
type of conflict noted.
Figure 3: Predominant Type of Conflict

Equal
30%

Relationship

48%

29
The first hypothesis; that there will be a positive correlation between task and
relationship conflict was supported. When there was increased task conflict, there
was increased relationship conflict. This was found to be highly significant (to the
0.01 level) when all respondents were included, as well as highly significant amongst
students, support staff, veterinarians and technicians. It was found to be significant
(to the 0.05 level) for management. The only work group to which this hypothesis
was rejected was professors.
Table 1: Pearson Correlations Task v. Relationship Conflict by Work Group
Correlation
.822**
All Workgroups
.858**
Students
Professors
.071
Support Staff
.969**
Management
.794*
Veterinarians
.816**
Animal Health Technicians (AHT)
.820**
*=significance to 0.05 **=significance to 0.01

4.3 Sources of Conflict
The three categories regarding sources of conflict were analyzed for reliability
using Cronbach 's alpha (please see Table 2).
With all ten questions relating to disparity of information , Cronbach 's alpha was
0.698 ; very close to the 0.7 hoped for in this study. It was noted that removing
question #18 , "When making work related decisions , how independent do you feel,
in terms of not feeling pressured , obstructed or directed by others" would improve
the reliability to 0.722. For the purposes of this analysis, all ten questions were

30
utilized as they were all part of the instrument developed. Future studies may
improve reliability by eliminating this question however.
There were five questions relating to disparity of values as a source of conflict.
With all five included, the Cronbach's alpha was only 0.636 whereas when question
#9, "Do you think you work more when you compare your workload with the
workload of those in similar work groups in the human health field" this was
improved to 0.705. For the purposes of this analysis the four questions, with
question #9 removed was utilized. It was also noted that by removing question #12,
"Do you think you would be more happy, peaceful and efficient if you worked in a
different occupation?" Cronbach's alpha could be further improved to 0.731.
The third group of sources of conflict, scarcity of resources, had a Cronbach's
alpha of 0.810 with all three of the original items.
Significant correlations were found between all three sources of conflict. That is,
an increase in any one of these sources of conflict was positively correlated with an
increase in the other sources of conflict using Pearson's correlations.

31
Table 2: Pearson Correlations Sources of Conflict
Informational Relationship
Scarcity of Value
Conflict
Resources Disparity Disparity
(0.81 0)

Scarcity of
Resources
(0.705)
Value
.662**
Disparity
Informational .605**
.500**
(0.698)
Disparity
-.088
-.357
Relationship -.119
Conflict
Task
-.135
-.178
-304
Conflict
*=significance to 0.05 **=significance to 0.01
Intersection of common variables = Cronbach's alpha

Task
Conflict

(0.886)
0.751**

(0.841)

For a complete list of correlations studied please refer to Appendix D.
Of interest, question #9, "Do you think you work more than those in similar work
groups in the human health care field" ranked highest for sources of stress with a
rating of 3.77 out of 5. Rankings were developed by averaging each answer with 1
being "not at all", 2="1ittle", 3="moderately", 4="much" and 5= "very much". Those
questions where "very much" would be associated with less stress rather than more
stress were simply given a negative value. Question #1 "How much do educational
differences lead to communication problems" with a score of 3.0 was the second
highest rated source of stress. On the side of decreasing stress, with a score of
-3.64, was question #7, personal satisfaction with the roles and duties assigned.

32
Table 3: Ranking of Sources of Conflict
Question

Ranking

#7 Personally satisfied
#8 Matched expectations
#16 Sufficient Authority?
#2 Job expectations
#5 Management Aware
#11 Ideal job
#18 Independent feeling
#6 Promotions
#3 Rewards?
#4 Distribution of rewards
#1 0 Sufficient wages
#17 Legal regulations
#13 >1 supervisor a problem?
#14 Problem between supervisors?
#12 Happier elsewhere?
#15 Conflict with other supervisors
#1 Educational Differences
#9 Workload

-3.657
-3.612
-3.577
-3.534
-3.516
-3.392
-3.371
-3.218
-3.172
-3.051
-2.990
-2.854
2.053
2.093
2.124
2.188
3.048
3.765

Hypotheses 2a, band c were not supported. No correlations were found
between sources of conflict and types of conflict.

4.4 Styles of Conflict Resolution
Reliability of information for the styles of conflict resolution was good for each
category and found to be similar to that in the literature.
In this study, the most common style of conflict resolution overall was integrating
and the least common style was compromising.

33
Figure 4: Styles of Conflict Resolution - All Respondents

Compromising
13%
Integrating
28%

Avoiding
21%

Dominating
16%

Hypothesis 3a; statistical differences would be noted in styles of conflict
resolution between different genders was only partially supported. As noted below,
there were statistical differences between genders for integrating and dominating
conflict styles, but no differences were noted for obliging, avoiding and
compromising. Males were found to utilize both an integrating and a dominating
style of conflict resolution more than females. Although there were no statistical
differences, females tended to use an avoiding style more than males.

34
Table 4: Gender v. Style of Conflict Resolution
Conflict Style

Gender

N

Mean

50

t

sig

Integrating

Male

18

24.11

2.89

2.71

.008**

Female

66

21.27

4.17

Male

20

14.95

4.38

-1.32

.191

Female

67

16.45

4.48

Male

17

14.35

3.87

2.41

.019*

Female

59

11.59

4.24

Male

18

17.72

1.87

0.953

.344

Female

57

16.95

3.28

Male

16

10.81

2.17

0.908

.367

Female

63

10.22

2.36

Avoiding

Dominating

Obliging

Com prom ising

*=significance to 0.05 **=significance to 0.01 using t-test

Hypothesis 3b, that there would be differences in styles of conflict resolution
between different age groups, was only found to be significant for an avoiding style,
with younger people using an avoiding style more often than older people. While
not significant, a trend was noted for both integrating and dominating styles, with
both being used more frequently with increased age .

35
Table 5: Age v. Style of Conflict Resolution
Conflict Style

Age Group

N

Mean

Integrating

<25 years
26-35 years
36-45 years
46-55 years
56-65 years
>65 years

12
33
12
22
7
4

21.83
21.48
20.08
22.68
23 .29
26.5

<25 years
26-35 years
36-45 years
46-55 years
56-65 years
>65 years

13
36
11
22
7
4

16.77
17.61
17.09
13.59
14.43
14.5

<25 years
26-35 years
36-45 years
46-55 years
56-65 years
>65 years

11
29
10
21
7
4

10.36
12.21
11.40
12.48
13.43
14.5

<25 years
26-35 years
36-45 years
46-55 years
56-65 years
>65 years

7
31
11
21
6
4

17.71
17.26
16.82
16.43
17.17
18.5

<25 years
26-35 years
36-45 years
46-55 years
56-65 years
>65 years

11
32
12
20
7
3

10.45
10.31
9.75
10.55
11.14
12.0

Avoiding

Dominating

Obliging

Compromising

Sig.

0.087

0.012*

0.497

0.786

0.675

*=significance to 0.05 **=significance to 0.01 using ANOVA

36
Figure 5: Age v. Style of Conflict Resolution
35 .00% . , . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

~

~ ~~~~~ ~

-

-

~ Dom inating

~

~

~

0.00% + - - - - , - - - - - , - - - , - - - - - - , . - - - r - - - - - .
<25 years 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 >65 years

years

years

years

years

Hypothesis 3c was not supported. There were no statistically significant
differences between styles of conflict resolution and various work groups measured.
Although no significant differences were found, there were some trends. These
included professors tended to use an integrating style more than other workgroups
and an avoiding style less. Management also tended to use an avoiding style less,
while veterinarians, technicians, support staff and students all used this style more
equally.

37
Table 6: Work Group v. Style of Conflict Resolution
Conflict Style

Work Group

N

Mean

Integrating

Student
Professor
Veterinarian
Technician
Support Staff
Management

9
7
42
18
8
7
10
7
43
19
8
7
9
7
40
16
4
6
6
6
41
16
6
6
9
7
40
16
6
7

21.56
23.57
22.76
20.72
20.50
21.14
16.4
13.86
16.47
16.58
16.25
14.71
10.33
12.14
13.35
11.44
8.75
11.00
17.67
17.33
17.34
17.50
15.50
15.50
9.56
10.57
10.78
10.38
9.67
10.29

Avoiding

Dominating

Obliging

Compromising

Student
Professor
Veterinarian
Technician
Support Staff
Management
Student
Professor
Veterinarian
Technician
Support Staff
Management
Student
Professor
Veterinarian
Technician
Support Staff
Management
Student
Professor
Veterinarian
Technician
Support Staff
Management

..
..
*=s1gn1f1cance to 0.05 **=s1gn1f1cance to 0.01 us1ng ANOVA

Sig.

.322

.689

.118

.509

.725

38

Figure 6: Work Group v. Style of Conflict Resolution

120.00%

100.00%

80.00%

• Obliging

60.00%

• Integrating
• Dominating

40.00%

• Compromising
• Avoiding

20.00%

0.00%

The main management style as noted by percentage of respondents answering
often or always compared to never or occasionally to the questions "Top
management resolves conflict by: ... " was problem solving/integrating with majority
vote/obliging the least predominant. For this calculation, responses listed as not
applicable were excluded.
a more definitive answer.

Responses of sometimes were also excluded, enabling

39
Figure 7: Predominant Management Styles

#5 Majority

Ignore

12%

#4Regulations
25%

Hypothesis 4 related to correlations between styles of conflict resolution and
amounts of conflict encountered; specifically, conflict will have a negative correlation
with an integrating style of conflict resolution and a positive correlation with avoiding
and dominating styles of conflict resolution. This was found to be partially
supported. Although a negative correlation was found between an integrating style
of conflict resolution and conflict, it was not statistically significant. An avoiding style
was found to be significantly correlated to relationship, task and total conflict
supporting this hypothesis. A dominating style was positively correlated with total
conflict (sig. 0.05) but not significantly correlated with either task or relationship
conflict individually.

40
There was also a significant positive relationship noted between an obliging style
of conflict resolution and task, relationship and total conflict.

Avoiding and obliging

styles were found to be positively correlated as were integrating and compromising
styles (sig 0.01) with obliging and compromising also correlated, although only to the
0.05 significance. The only significant negative correlation was between avoiding
and integrating styles.
Table 5: Pearson Correlations Type of Conflict v. Style of Conflict Resolution
IN

AV

DO

OB

co

Relation

Task

~
IN

0.842

AV

-.241 *

0.824

DO

.122

.165

0.851

OB

.071

.437**

.134

0.783

co

.592**

-.052

.122

.239*

0.814

Relation

-.104

.311**

.210

.222*

-.066

0.886

Task

-.069

.351**

.192

.302**

.019

.751**

0.841

Total

-.097

.353**

.219*

.275*

-.032

.955**

.913**

Total

IN=integrating style AV=avoiding style DO=dominating style OB=obliging style
CO=compromising style
*=significance to 0.05 **=significance to 0.01
Intersection of common variables = Cronbach's alpha
Based on questions relating to "I have conflict with", the following summary was
obtained. For purposes of this calculation, not applicable was excluded.

41
"Sometimes", being the median in the five-point Likert scale utilized was also
excluded as vague.

Figure 8: Who is Conflict With?

4.5 Cost of Conflict
Cost of conflict was measured both by how often conflict arose and how many
minutes per day were spent dealing with conflict. While most people felt they spent
no time or less than ten minutes daily on conflict, a trend of increasing time spent
dealing with self-doubt and conflict with clients and less time spent dealing with
conflict with co-workers was noted.

42
Figure 9: Time Spent on Conflict Daily (Percentage)
----·--·----··-··--·--·----····-···························--·--·-·······················-······-···-·-·······-

60
50

• None

40

• <1 0 minutes
• 10 - 20 minutes

30

• 21 - 30 minutes

20

• 31 - 60 minutes

10

• > 90 minutes

0

61 - 90 minutes

Coworker

Supervisor

Subordinate

Client

Self

4. 6 Outcomes of Conflict
There are many potential sources of stress in the veterinary health care
profession. From the extensive list of potential stressors listed in the survey,
Cronbach's alpha for the entire list was 0.982.
The largest stressor was found to be watching a patient suffer with a rating of
3.256 where 1 is never stressful and 5 is always stressful.

Having so much work to

do that you are unable to do it well ranked second at 3.247 and having to base
decisions on money was third at 3.234. The least stressful of the items listed were
being sexually harassed at work (1.153) and being discriminated against either for
race, ethnicity (1.153) or based on sex (1.606).
Relating more directly to conflict, rankings of stressors included conflict with vets,
coworkers and supervisors in that order.

43

Table 7: Stressors Related Directly to Conflict
Question

Score

2. Conflict with a veterinarian
17. Difficulty in working with a particular person or people in my
immediate work setting
53. Conflicts with coworkers
5. Conflict with a supervisor or administrator
18. Difficulty in working with a particular person or people outside
my immediate work setting

2.772
2.620
2.519
2.391
2.221

For a complete list of stressors, ranked from most to least stressful, please see
Appendix E.
Overall, veterinary healthcare workers were satisfied in their positions. In a
similar study in a human hospital setting, the majority surveyed, at 72.9% were
largely satisfied with their job. This compares to 87% in this survey which answered
agree or strongly agree to the question "I am fairly well satisfied with my job"

Figure 10: Job Satisfaction

~

Agree

:;.-: Agree
• Disagree
• Strongly Disagree

44
The last set of hypotheses studied in this survey was related to conflict, stress,
job satisfaction and the intent to leave. Hypothesis Sa stated that conflict would be
positively correlated with stress and this was supported for total conflict and
relationship conflict (sig. 0.05 level for both), but not for task conflict.
Hypothesis Sb, conflict is negatively correlated to job satisfaction was not
supported. There was a negative trend between job satisfaction and task,
relationship and total conflict, but it was not significant.
The final hypothesis was a positive correlation between conflict and intent to stay.
Again, while trends were observed, there was no significant correlation.
Table 8: Pearson Correlations Conflict v. Satisfaction and Intent to Leave
Relation

Task

Total

Stress

Relation

0.886

Task

.751**

0.841

Total

.955**

.913**

Stress

.204*

.182

.208*

0.982

Satisfaction -.056

-.153

-.105

-.312**

Satisfaction

Stay with
Employer

0.796

.525**
Stay with
.028
-.075 -.018
-.157
Employer
Stay with
-.012
.527**
-.080 -.045
-.297**
Occupation
*=significance to 0.05 **=significance to 0.01
Intersection of common variables = Cronbach 's alpha

.481**

45
Figure 11: Intent to Leave Occupation
_ _ _ Definitely
will leave
3%
Probably
will leave
5%

.
::: ¥/i!l:
~

\.

~

•
0
•

•

•
•
•
•
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
0
••
• • •
••
••
••
••
••
•
0
•
• • •
•
•
•
• • •
• • •
• • •
•
•
0
0
• • •
• • •
•
•
0
•
• • •
•
•
•
0
• • • •
•
•
•

0

0

•

0

0

•

•

•

•

•

0

••

•

•
•

~

•

0
0

•

0
0
0
•

••

•
•
•
•
0
•
••
• • •
•
0
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
0
••
•
• • • • • •
•
•
0
0
• • •
•
•
0

:: :::::

~

: : : : : : : : :v,ii!l: trqt :

::: ::: ::::laava: ·

~

···················· · ··

~

. ....... .

. . . . ..
.. .. .. .. ....
•

: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.~. o/o:
.
. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. .

<
.... . . . .. ... . .
·-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:·:·:·:
...·········
. ... ...

Figure 12: Intent to Leave Employer

.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·

~ ~ ~~
~

~~

.:::::::::::::::::::27%::::::::::::::::

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·.-:--. .- .-.-.-.-.

_..._j

• • • • • •

0

0

•

• • • •

•

•

••

• • • •

··: ·: ·: ·: · : ·: ·: f:lr9Qapjy·: ·: ·: ·: ·: · : ·: ··
. ·.. ·.. ·.. ·.. ·.. ·.. ·Will·riOl·.
. . . . . ·.. ·.. ·.. ·.. ·.. · .
·. ·. · . · . ·.

... .:. :. :

·. ·. ·. ·. ·. ·

~

~

....

46
Overall, the intent to leave the veterinary healthcare profession appears to
be low, with only 8% indicating they would definitely or probably leave. A slightly
higher percentage indicated intent to leave the current employer at 26%.

4. 7 Improving Conflict Resolution
Only 34.9% of respondents had training in conflict resolution (n=86). The
workgroups with the most training was administrators and professors.
Veterinarians, support staff and students were all very similar with only
approximately 25% reporting some training in conflict resolution.
Figure 13: Training by Work Group

100%
90%
80%

25.00%

25.00%

25.64%

Student

Support
Staff

Vet

44.44%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Admin.

AHT

Professor

A list of eleven questions was asked to gain some insight into what respondents
felt would improve their ability to cope with conflict at work. In order to develop more
meaningful data , responses of not applicable and blank were removed as were

47
"moderately important". Unimportant and of little importance were grouped together
as were important and very important.
In this study, the most important item for helping to cope more effectively and
positively with the conflicts experienced at work was "to detect the causes and both
sides should be listened to".

The least important was fairer distribution of

resources. The following graph depicts the responses as percentages.
Figure 14: Improving Conflict Resolution

3 Detect Causes

98.51%

11 fair wages

93.55%

6 No discrimination

92.75%

2 Communication

90.41%

5 Meetings

86.89%

8 Less Politics

83.61%

4 Punishment/Rewards

81.03%

7 Distribute Authority

76.92%

10 More respect

69.64%

9 Professional Mgmt

65.38%

1 Resources

45.83%

I
I
I
I
I

Important
• Unimportant

48

5. DISCUSSION
5. 1 Type of Conflict
As expected in keeping with the complexity perspective, with task and
relationship conflict being interconnected, there was a positive correlation between
task and relationship conflict. That is, with an increase in one type of conflict, there
was also an increase in the other. There was a declining significance of this
relationship for managers and no significance of this with professors. Several
factors may play a role in this: Results show that managers and professors have
more training in workplace conflict situations and it is possible that those with more
training in conflict would be better able to separate functional, task related conflict
from the less functional relationship conflict. It is also possible that in general,
managers and professors would be older and have developed the ability to separate
task and relationship conflict.

5.2 Sources of Conflict
Sources of conflict were not found to be related to types of conflict. That is,
conflicts caused by scarcity of resources, values disparity or informational disparity
were not related to task, relationship or total conflict, but were strongly correlated
with each other. This would lead to the conclusion that similar to task and
relationship conflict, viewing these sources as separate and distinct is likely too
simplistic. A more complex, but likely more accurate explanation is that of mixed
motive interdependencies. Revisiting the definition of conflict; it is the perceptions of
those involved of disagreement, interference and negative emotion which combine to
create conflict. With this in mind, it is easy to see how sources of conflict are inter-

49
related. Hasty decisions, misunderstandings, inadequate or incomplete information
and lack of insight all contribute to perceived inequities of finite resources. That is, it
is often the result of misinterpretation of others' intentions or actions. It is rooted in
imperfect trust, where a grain of doubt brings out conflict over resources (De Dreu C.
K., 2008).
In summary, while sources of conflict can be categorized into three theoretical
groups, resource based , values based and informational based, from this study
mixed-motive interdependencies are likely the norm rather than the exception with
the dynamics changing depending on many factors including how the conflicts are
managed.
With this more complex, inter-related view of sources of conflict, open
communication to decrease the perceived inequities, differing values and
informational gaps would alleviate numerous causes of conflict.
Many of the results were similar between veterinary and human healthcare
professionals. One study found that more than 50% of respondents felt that
differences in educational levels led to communication problems to "a great extent"
(Pavlakis, 2011 ). This study showed educational differences to rank second only
behind comparison of workload between veterinary and human health care
professionals.

5.3 Styles of Conflict Resolution
The literature shows that there tend to be differences in styles of conflict
resolution related to gender, with men tending to utilize a dominating strategy,

50
regardless of position more than women. This was found to be statistically accurate
in this study. Of the other styles of conflict resolution, only integrating was also
found to show statistical differences between men and women. Further correlations
may have become apparent ifthere had been a larger sample size for men. The low
numbers of male respondents was in keeping with the general decline in numbers of
male veterinarians and the consistently low numbers of male health technicians.
With most of the respondents in this study being veterinarians, this may also create
an "age effect"; with fewer men entering the profession , those men who did respond
would be more likely to be older and also more likely to be practice owners (Jeanne
Lofstedt, 2003).
In this study, the most common style of conflict resolution overall was integrating
and the least common style was compromising. This is different from human
healthcare where the most common style of conflict resolution cited is compromising
for nursing managers and avoiding for nurses (Valentine, 1995). This difference
may be explained in that most of the literature is based on nurses rather than all
healthcare professionals. In this study the largest numbers of respondents were
veterinarians. A larger study with more technicians and support personnel may have
given more insight. There have also been some studies which have raised the
concern that the ROC I scale commonly used to determine conflict styles, and which
was used in this study, may not be valid for females . With the high percentage of
veterinary healthcare professionals being female , this could also be an area for
further investigation .

51
Some interesting correlations were found between styles of conflict resolution
and conflict.
An avoiding style of resolving conflict is generally considered to be the least
effective method. In this study, an avoiding style of conflict resolution was positively
correlated with task, relationship and total conflict. This finding has been alluded to
in the literature (Friedman, 2000). These researchers believe that conflict resolution
styles are partly situational, that is the situation may influence the style chosen, and
partly dispositional, meaning that a particular individual will have a tendency to
choose a particular style over the long term. That choice over the long term can
have tremendous effects on the overall level of conflict in that particular environment.
Given the normal day to day conflicts which occur in any work place, how a person
acts can alter the amount of conflict in their environment tremendously. Acting in
ways which tend to resolve the conflict (i.e. an integrating style) compared to leaving
conflicts unresolved (i.e. an avoiding style) or antagonizing the situation (i.e. a
dominating style) can decrease the amount of conflict in the workplace. Even with
two employees in the same job, with the same peers, bosses and clients, and the
same initial number of disputes, the degree of conflict in the workplace could be very
different.
An obliging style was also positively correlated with relation, task and total
conflict and was positively correlated with an avoiding style of conflict resolution.
That is, those that chose an avoiding style of conflict resolution were also more likely
to choose an obliging one. Both of these styles of conflict resolution are related to
low concern for self. Neither was effective at resolving conflict in this study.

52
A dominating style of conflict resolution was associated with an increase in total
conflict. This is also in keeping with the literature where it has been stated that a
dominating style may lead to stalemates, escalation of conflict and the emergence of
new, different conflicts (Barki H. a., 2001 ).

5.4 Outcomes of Conflict
The outcomes of conflict measured in this study were stress, job satisfaction and
intent to stay. All were found to be correlated, although in differing ways.
As has been reported in the literature (Friedman, 2000), this study has also
shown that stress is correlated with relationship and total conflict but not task
conflict. This can be explained by the looking at relationship conflict as dysfunctional
and negative, thereby increasing stress. Task conflict, on the other hand, can be
thought of as functional; stimulating creativity and opening up new avenues of
thought all of which may lower stress and self-doubt.
Stress was also found to be significantly correlated with lowered job satisfaction
and intent to stay in the current occupation. An avoiding style of conflict resolution
was associated with higher stress levels, lower job satisfaction and less likelihood to
stay in both the current job and current occupation. This was the only style of
conflict resolution with such significant, unhappy and unhealthy correlations. An
integrating style of conflict resolution was correlated with improved job satisfaction
(sig.05) and intent to stay with the employer, also to a significance of 0.05. This
would appear to uphold the generalizations found in the literature that an avoiding

53
style of conflict resolution is the least effective and an integrating style is the most
effective.

5.5 Improving Conflict Resolution
In this study, the most common response chosen as a way to help deal with work
place conflict was to detect the causes and listen to both sides. Communication was
a common theme through remarks received. There were comments made about
training being beneficial and meetings being wonderful if done properly, but often too
much time is spent on "housekeeping" and not enough on the issues; an indication
of the need for open, two-way dialogue perhaps.
It was noted that only 1 in 4 veterinarians, support personnel or students feel
they have had any training in conflict resolution. Managers and professors were
found to have the most training and also the lowest correlations between task and
relationship conflict and total conflict. While the sample size is small, this gives
credence to the opinions that styles of conflict resolution are, at least partially
learned rather than simply a behavioural trait; that by teaching conflict resolution to
veterinary healthcare workers, veterinarians and veterinary students, it should be
possible to decrease conflict in the workplace, thereby decreasing workplace
stresses and burnout and improving job satisfaction, communications and even
patient outcomes. It was disappointing to note that the perceived training for
veterinarians was almost identical to that for students. From this study, there does
not appear to be any discernible skills development for conflict resolution within the
veterinary curriculum.

54

5. 6 Limitations of this Study
There are several limitations to these findings. This study used volunteers, and
this lack of randomization creates selection bias. The attitudes of respondents may
be different from those of non-respondents.
A self-reporting style of survey could lead to bias, with a tendency for
respondents to answer some questions based on perceived accepted social norms
rather than a more realistic representation of their true nature.
There were several factors related to the survey itself which created limitations.
The original intent of this survey was to gain insight for all veterinary health care
workers, however many of the questions were found to be irrelevant to those in
academia, research, teaching or other non-clinical settings. The focus should have
been narrower; to those currently in clinical settings. Another possible limitation to
the survey itself was allowing questions to be left unanswered. Statistical analysis
would certainly have been easier and likely added more relevant data if "not
applicable" or another answer was required prior to continuing. A third problem with
the survey was its length. Some responses may have been answered in haste to
finish leading to inaccuracies.
While the overall sample size was acceptable, the low representation of certain
groups made statistical relevance difficult. Further studies with larger numbers of
support personnel would likely clarify some findings, as would a larger sample size
of men. Adding a category for veterinary practice owners would also have been
useful in the analysis.

55
Other factors may be associated with sources of conflict, styles of conflict
resolution, stress and job satisfaction but may not have been revealed in the present
study. More open ended questions may have elucidated further factors. Finally, the
study was limited to a specific period in time which may not reflect participants'
predominant styles in other situations or other time frames.

5. 7 Suggestions for further research
To this author, one major troublesome question remains. The literature for
conflict in human healthcare, nursing in particular relates to high levels of conflict,
likely related to high levels of avoidance behaviours. While much of the work in this
study matched with information already in the literature, veterinary healthcare
workers do not seem to "eat their young" as is so often mentioned in the nursing
literature nor did there seem to be as high a percentage of use of avoidance
behaviours. An important suggestion for further research would be more direct
comparisons of conflict and conflict resolution between the human and the veterinary
healthcare fields. This would be invaluable in trying to ascertain the differences and
similarities and their causes and perhaps help to decrease the conflict, stress and
intent to leave which appears to be so rampant in the human healthcare field.
There also needs to be more work done to research conflict and conflict
resolution within veterinary medicine. With additional confirmation of these findings,
practical applications could be developed for styles of conflict resolution in the
training of veterinary health care personnel. Furthermore, data obtained could be
adapted to different employment levels, work groups, and demographic
characteristics.

56

6. CONCLUSIONS
This study has confirmed several important links between amounts of conflict and
styles of conflict resolution within the veterinary field. Other useful correlations
include the link between stress, relationship conflict, job satisfaction and the intent to
leave or stay in the profession. Strong findings of the increased levels of conflict and
stress as well as decreased job satisfaction and intent to remain within the current
occupation or with the current employer in relation to avoidance tactics of conflict
resolution all point to this being a poor a choice for resolving conflict. This study has
also shown, however, that training can alter styles of conflict resolution.
The importance of this work is to help publicize information on conflict and
conflict resolution to veterinary healthcare workers. In terms of the practice
environment, one of the first steps to creating change is raising awareness of issues.
Until a problem is identified and named, it cannot be addressed. By increasing
awareness of sources of conflict and styles/types of conflict resolution in veterinary
medicine it is my hope to decrease the overall amount of conflict in veterinary
hospitals, improve job satisfaction, decrease stress and decrease the intent to leave
this profession.
Finally, organizations need to encourage training in types of conflict and effective
conflict management styles to promote better conflict resolution strategies for
everyone in the veterinary healthcare profession.

57

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amason, A. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict
on strategic decision making: resolving the paradox for top management
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 123 - 148.
Baltimore, J. J. (2006). Nurse collegiality: Fact or Fiction? Nursing Management, 2836.
Barki, H. a. (2001 ). Interpersonal conflict and its management in information systems
development. MIS Quarterly, 195-228.
Barki, H. a. (2004 ). Conceptualising the construct of interpersonal conflict.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 216- 244.
Bishop, S. R. (1997). Nurses and Conflict: Workplace Experiences. University of
Victoria.
De Dreu, C. a. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and
team member satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
741 -749.
De Dreu, C. K. (2008). The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in

Organization. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
de Wit, F. R. (2012). The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 360 - 390.

58
Friedman, R. T. (2000). What Goes Around Comes Around: The Impact of Personal
Conflict Style on Work Conflict and Stress. The International Journal of

Conflict Management, 32- 55.
Iglesias, M. E., & Becerra de Bengoa Vallejo, R. (2012). Confl ict resolution styles in
the nursing profession. Contemporary Nursing, 73- 89.
Jeanne Lofstedt, D. (2003). Gender and Veterinary Medicine. Canadian Journal of

Veterinary Medicine, 533- 535.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001 ). The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A longitudinal
study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 238 - 251.
Jordon, P. J. (2004). Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional
Intelligence and Conflict Resolution. Human Performance, 195- 218.
Katz, J. D. (2007). Conflict and its resolution in the operating room. Journal of

Clinical Anesthesia, 152- 158.
Kunaviktikul, W., Nuntasupawat, R., Srisuphan, W., & Booth, R. (2000).
Relationships among conflict, conflict management, job satisfaction, intent to
stay, and turnover of professional nurses in Thailand. Nursing and Health

Sciences, 9 - 16.
McElhaney, R. (1996). Conflict Management in Nursing Administration. Nursing

Management, 49-50.

59
Pavlakis, A. K. (2011 ). Conflict management in public hospitals: the Cyprus case .

International Nursing Review, 242 - 248.
Pearson, A. E. (2002). An Assessment and Refinement of Jehn's Intragroup Conflict
Scale. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 110 - 126.
Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K. , & Xin , K. (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An analysis of
work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 1 - 28.
Pruitt, D. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation . American Behavioral Scientist., 167
- 194.
Rahim, M. &. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its in variance across
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 122 - 132.
Rahim , M.A. (1983). A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict.

Academy of Management Journal, 368 - 376.
Rogers , D. L. (2011 ). Teaching operating room confllict management to surgeons:
clarifying the optimal approach . Medical Education, 939- 945.
Skjarshammer, M. (2001 ). Conflict management in a hospital. Designing processing
structures and intervention methods. Journal of Management in Medicine , 156
- 166.

60
Skjorshammer, M. (2001 ). Co-operation and conflict in a hospital: interprofessional
differences in perception and management of conflicts. Journal of

lnterprofessional Care, 7- 18.
Spooner-Lane, R. (2004 ). The Influence of Work Stress and Work Support On Burn-

out in Public Hospital Nurses. Queensland University of Technology.
Studdert, D., Burns, J., Mello, M., Puopolo, A., & Truog, R. &. (2003). Nature of
conflict in the care of pediatric intensive care patients with prolonged stay.

Pediatrics, 553 - 558.
Tengilimoglu, D. a. (2005). Conflict Management in Public University Hospitals in
Turkey: A Pilot Study. The Health Care Manager, 55 - 60.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 265 - 27 4.
Valentine, P. (1995). Management of Conflict: Do nurses/women handle it
differently? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 142 - 149.
Vivar, C. G. (2006). Putting conflict management into practice: a nursing case study.

Journal of Nursing Management, 201 - 206.
Williams, A. (2003). Job Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Intent to Leave Employment

among Maternal-Child Health Nurses. Huntington, West Virginia: Marshall
University.

61

APPENDIX A: Research and Ethics Board Approval Letter

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD

MEMORANDUM
To:

Deborah L. Kalyn
Rick Tallman

Fr o m:

Michael Murphy, Chair
Research Ethics Board

Date:

January 18, 2013

CC :

Re:

E2012.1212.164.00

Co n flict Resolution Amongst Veterinary Healthcare Workers

Thank you for submitting the above-noted proposal to the Research Ethics Board. Your
proposal has been approved.
We are pleased to issue approval for the above named study for a period of 12 months
from the date of this letter. Continuation beyond that date will require further review and
renewal of REB approval. Any changes or amendments to the protocol or consent form
must be approved by the Research Ethics Board.
Good luck with your research .

Dr. Michael Murphy
Chair, Research Ethics Board

'

62

APPENDIX B: Letter of Explanation I Consent
Email which was sent to veterinary clinics, hospitals and offices
Dear Colleague:
My name is Deb Kalyn and I am a graduate student at the University of Northern
British Columbia (UNBC) preparing for a Master's degree in business administration
(MBA). I am also working as a small animal veterinarian and a veterinary practice
owner.
At the bottom of this letter, there is a link to an on-line survey hosted by UNBC.
am hoping that you will complete this on-line survey and pass it along to other
colleagues as well as to any support staff, students and coworkers in your
organization. I am hoping to receive input from all areas of veterinary medicine
including:
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./

Professors/instructors
Students
Veterinarians
Animal health technicians/technologists (registered or unregistered)
Administrative staff
Receptionists
Ward/kennel/barn helpers
Any others working in this diverse field that defy a category!

The purpose of this study is to examine the extent and sources of conflict
amongst veterinary healthcare workers as well as the styles of conflict resolution
commonly used to solve these issues and the nature of the outcomes. I believe that
this research is timely and important and a high participation rate from all of the
above work groups will help to validate my findings, allowing me to draw more
accurate conclusions and develop more meaningful solutions.
Explanation of Procedure: You are deemed eligible if you currently work in the
veterinary healthcare field. Please take the time to read this form carefully and to
understand any accompanying information. You may ask questions about this
research either today or in the future. If you would like more detail about something
mentioned here, or information not included here, please e-mail kalyn@unbc.ca or
tallmanr@unbc.ca or telephone Dr. Tallman at 250-960-5404. If you have any

63
complaints concerning your rights as a research participant, please phone the UNBC
Research Ethics Board (250-960-6735), or email reb@unbc.ca
Participation in this study is voluntary. If at any time you do not wish to take
part, you may simply quit. Further, you may withdraw at any time or refuse to answer
any question without prejudice even after agreeing to participate. If you decide to
withdraw, please do so prior to completing this survey. Because of the confidential
nature of this survey, I will have no way of knowing which responses are yours,
therefore it will not be possible to withdraw your information after it has been
submitted. The returned surveys are not identified by number or name and your
identity will not be known . To guarantee anonymity and confidentiality, please do not
attach any identifying marks.

All information will be safeguarded and if the results are published in the future,
all information will be provided anonymously, and hence, cannot be traced back to
you at any later point in time. The results of this study will be shared with other
researchers and may be published in a journal. All electronic files will be password
protected. Surveys will be kept no longer than three months after the project is
completed at which time the electronic data files will be deleted.
There are no known risks associated with this study. Due to the nature of the
questions, some negative emotions may be felt. If you want to discuss these
feelings, please contact your family physician, local hospital or crisis center.
Telephone numbers for the University Hospital of Northern BC is 250-565-2000 and
the Prince George Crisis Center is 1-888-563-1214. The potential benefits include
improved knowledge relating to conflict, conflict resolution and stress in veterinary
health care.
If you would like a summary of the results, please send a separate email to
kalyn@unbc.ca and I will be happy to forward them to you upon completion of this
project.
By clicking on the link below you are indicating that you have understood
to your satisfaction the information regarding participation in the research
project and are agreeing to participate. If you agree to participate, the
questionnaire will take you approximately 45 minutes to complete. If you agree
to participate please complete this survey by February 15, 2013.

"http ://survey.unbc.ca/name"
Thank you in advance for taking time out of your busy life to complete this survey
and to pass it along to others.
Sincerely,Dr. Deb Kalyn

64

APPENDIX C: On Line Research Survey
Research Questionnaire:
Please base your answers on your current job position.
Please respond to the following questions by clicking the circle by the appropriate
response . If you do not find an exact answer for your case, please choose the
response closest. There is no right or wrong answer.
Demographics:
1 . Gender: Male ( ) Female ( )
2. Age :
3. How long have you worked for your current employer?
Student ( ) 1-6 months ( ) 6-12 months ( ) 1-2 years ( ) 2-5 years ( ) more than 5
years ()
4. How long have you worked at your current occupation?
Student ( ) 1-6 months ( ) 6-12 months ( ) 1-2 years ( ) 2-5 years ( ) More than 5
years ()
5. Predominant Work Group - please check only one
a. Professor/Instructor
b. Student
c. PractitionerNeterinarian
d. Animal Health Technician!Technologist- registered
e. Animal Health Technician!Technologist- not registered
f. Administration
g. Reception
h. Ward/Kennel
i. Other Please specify: _ _ _ _ _ __
6. How many people do you supervise?
None ( ) 1 to 5 ( ) 6 to 10 ( ) 11 to 20 ( ) don't know ( )
7. How many supervisors are you responsible to?
None ( ) 1 to 5 ( ) 6 to 10 ( ) 11 to 20 ( ) don't know ( )
8. Predominant type of practice - please check only one
a. Private Practice
i. Large Animal
ii. Mixed Animal
iii. Small Animal
iv. Exotic
v. Specialty/Referral
vi. Other: Please Specify: _ _ _ _ __

65

b. Public Practice
i. Education
ii. Regulatory
9. Location of Practice
a. Canada
i. Province: - - - - - - b. United States
i. State: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
c. Other: Please Specify_ _ _ _ _ __
10. Size of Practice
a. Number of veterinarians
One ( ) 2 - 4 ( ) 5 - 10 ( ) more than 10 ( )
b. If private practice: Number of owners
One ( ) 2 - 4 ( ) 5 - 10 ( ) more than 10 ( )
c. Total Number of Support Staff
Less than 3 ( ) 4 - 10 ( ) 11 - 20 ( ) 20 - 35 ( ) more than 35 ( )

Sources of Conflict
Please use the following scale to answer these questions:
1 - Not at all 2- Little 3- Moderately 4- Much 5-Very Much 6-Not applicable
1. How much do you think educational differences lead to communication problems
at work?
2. Are your messages clearly understood and your job expectations shared by
others at your work?
3. Do you get the rewards you think your performance deserves? (early promotion,
financial gain, vacation, appreciation etc.)
4. Do you think there is fair distribution of rewards across different work groups?
5. How much do you think management is aware of your contribution at work?
6. How much do your promotions and career advancement match your
expectations?
7. How much are you personally satisfied by the role and duties you are assigned?
8. How much do your expectations of the organization match with the organization's
expectations of you?
9. Do you think you work more when you compare your workload with the workload
of those in similar work groups in the human health field?
10. Do you think your wage is enough to motivate you sufficiently for your workload?
11. How much does your current job resemble your ideal job?

66
12. Do you think you would be more happy, peaceful and efficient if you worked in a
different occupation?
13. If you are responsible to more than one supervisor, does this affect your work
performance negatively?
14. If you are responsible to more than one supervisor, does this cause conflicts
among them?
15. If you are in a supervisory role, how much conflict do you have with other
supervisors at your level because of their having authority on your subordinates?
16. Do you consider your authority sufficient for the duties you are responsible for?
17. How much do you think legal regulations define your duties and help you to
accomplish them efficiently?
18. When making work related decisions, how independent do you feel, in terms of
not feeling pressured, obstructed or directed by others?
Types of conflict
Please use the following scale to answer these questions:
1 - none 2 - little 3 - somewhat 4 - much 5- a great deal

1. How much anger is there among those you work with?
2. How much personal friction is there among those you work with?
·3. How many disagreements over different ideas are there?
4. How many disputes about the content of decisions are there?
5. How much tension is there during decisions?
6. How many differences of opinion are there among the people you work with?
Styles of conflict resolution
Please use the following scale to answer these questions:
1 - never 2 -occasionally 3-sometimes 4-often 5-always 6- not applicable

1. I try to investigate an issue with people at work to find a solution acceptable to us
2. I try to integrate my ideas with those I work with to come up with a decision jointly
3. I try to work with people at work to find solutions to a problem which satisfy our
expectations
4. I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with the people I work with
5. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted
6. I use my authority to make a decision in my favour
7. I usually accommodate the wishes of those I work with
8. I give in to the wishes of those I work with
9. I exchange accurate information with people I work with to solve a problem
together
10. I usually allow concessions to my co-workers
11. I usually propose a middle ground for breaking dead-locks
12. I negotiate with my co-workers so that a compromise can be reached

67
13. I try to stay away from disagreement with the people I work with
14. I avoid encounters with the people I work with
15. I use my expertise to make a decision in my favour
16. I often go along with the suggestions of those I work with
17. I use "give and take" so that a compromise can be made
18. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of an issue
19. I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved
in the best possible way
20. I collaborate with the people I work with to come up with decisions acceptable to
us
21 . I try to satisfy the expectations of those I work with
22. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation
23. I try to keep my disagreement with those I work with to myself in order to avoid
hard feelings
24. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with those I work with

Dealing with Conflict
Please use the following scale to answer these questions:
1-never 2 - occasionally 3-sometimes 4-often 5 - always 6 - not applicable
1. I have conflict with:
a. Others in my work group
b. My supervisors
c. My subordinates
d. Those with less education than myself
e. Administration or management
2. Top management resolves conflicts by:
a. Authoritarian approach
b. Peacemaker approach
c. Problem solving approach
d. Following legislation and regulations for health professionals
e. Majority vote
f. Ignoring it
3. Please indicate how often you have conflict with your coworkers in a day:
None ( ) 1 - 2 times ( ) 3 - 6 times ( ) 7 - 10 times () Greater than 10 times ( ) Not
applicable ( )
4. Please indicate how often you have conflict with your supervisors or
management in a day:
None ( ) 1 - 2 times ( ) 3 - 6 times ( ) 7- 10 times () Greater than 10 times ( ) Not
applicable ( )

68
5. Please indicate how often you have conflict with those you supervise in a day:
None ( ) 1 - 2 times ( ) 3- 6 times ( ) 7 - 10 times () Greater than 10 times ( ) Not
applicable ( )
6. Please indicate how often you have conflict with clients in a day:
None ( ) 1 - 2 times ( ) 3 - 6 times () 7 - 10 times ( ) Greater than 10 times ( ) Not
applicable ( )
7. Please indicate how often you experience inner conflict in a day (self-doubts):
None ( ) 1 - 2 times ( ) 3 - 6 times () 7 - 10 times ( ) Greater than 10 times ( ) Not
applicable ( )
8. Please indicate how many minutes per day you devote to dealing with conflict
with your coworkers:
None ( ) <1 0 minutes ( ) 10- 20 minutes ( ) 21 - 30 minutes ( ) 31 - 60 minutes () 61
- 90 minutes () Greater than 90 minutes ( )

9. Please indicate how many minutes per day you devote to dealing with conflict
with your supervisors and management:
None ( ) <1 0 minutes ( ) 10- 20 minutes () 21 - 30 minutes () 31 - 60 minutes () 61
- 90 minutes () Greater than 90 minutes ( )
10. Please indicate how many minutes per day you devote to dealing with conflict
with those you supervise:
None ( ) <1 0 minutes ( ) 10- 20 minutes () 21 - 30 minutes () 31 - 60 minutes () 61
- 90 minutes () Greater than 90 minutes ( )
11 . Please indicate how many minutes per day you devote to dealing with conflict
with clients:
None ( ) <1 0 minutes ( ) 10- 20 minutes ( ) 21 - 30 minutes ( ) 31 - 60 minutes ( ) 61
- 90 minutes () Greater than 90 minutes ( )
12. Please indicate how many minutes per day you devote to dealing with inner
conflict and self-doubt:
None () <1 0 minutes ( ) 10- 20 minutes () 21 - 30 minutes () 31 - 60 minutes () 61
- 90 minutes () Greater than 90 minutes ( )

Outcomes - Stress
Below is a list of situations that commonly occur in a work setting. For each situation
you have encountered in your present work setting, please indicate how stressful
it has been for you. Enter the number that best applies to you. Please remember
there is no right or wrong answer.

69
Please use the following scale to answer these questions:
1 - never 2 - occasionally 3 - sometimes 4 - often 5 - always 6 - not applicable
1. Performing or helping to perform procedures that patients experience as painful
2. Conflict with a veterinarian
3. Feeling inadequately prepared to deal with the emotional needs of a pet
owner/client
4. Lack of opportunity to talk openly with other people about problems at work
5. Conflict with a supervisor or administrator
6. Possessing inadequate information regarding the medical condition of a patient
7. Dealing with difficult or aggressive patients
8. Being sexually harassed at work
9. Feeling helpless in the case of a patient who fails to improve
10. Being asked a question by an owner for which I do not have a satisfactory
answer
11 . Unpredictable staffing and scheduling
12. Animal's owners making unreasonable demands
13. Experiencing discrimination because of race or ethnicity
14. Listening or talking to people about their pet's death
15. Discussing or performing euthanasia
16. Fear of making a mistake in treating a patient
17. Difficulty in working with a particular person or people in my immediate work
setting
18. Difficulty in working with a particular person or people outside my immediate
work setting
19. Not enough time to provide emotional support to pet owners/clients
20. Having so much work to do, that you cannot do everything well
21. A veterinarian not being present in a medical emergency
22. Being blamed for anything that goes wrong
23. Experiencing discrimination on the basis of sex
24. The death of a patient
25. Disagreement concerning the treatment of a patient
26. Feeling inadequately trained for what I have to do
27. Lack of support of my immediate supervisor
28. Criticism by a supervisor
29. Not knowing what a patient's owners ought to be told about the patient's
condition and its treatment
30. Being the one that has to deal with owners
31. Being exposed to health and safety hazards (chemicals, drugs, radiation,
scratches, bites, kicks etc.)

70
32. The death of a patient with whom you developed a close relationship
33. Making a decision concerning a patient when the primary veterinarian is
unavailable
34. Being in charge with inadequate experience
35. Too many non-patient related tasks required
36. Not being allowed to participate in making decisions about my job
37 . Not enough staff to adequately provide necessary services
38. Uncertainty regarding the operation and functioning of specialized equipment
39. Having to deal with abusive clients
40. Being interrupted by phone calls or people while performing job duties
41 . Not enough time to respond to the needs of clients
42. Being held accountable for things over which I have no control
43. Having to make decisions based on money
44. Veterinarian(s) not being present when a patient dies
45. Supervising the performance of coworkers
46. Having to organise doctors' work
47. Lack of support from administrators
48. Difficulty in working with people of the opposite sex
49. Not receiving the respect or recognition that I deserve
50. Not knowing what type of job performance is expected
51 . Watching a patient suffer
52. Feeling that I am inadequately paid as a veterinary healthcare provider
53. Conflicts with coworkers
54 . Having to work through breaks
55. Not knowing whether owners/clients will report me for inadequate care
56. Having to make decisions under pressure
57. Having job duties which conflict with family responsibilities
58. Feeling that opportunities for advancement on the job are poor
59. Not being able to use my abilities to the fullest extent on the job
Outcomes - Job Satisfaction
Please use the following scale to answer these questions:
1 -Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 -Agree 4- strongly Agree 5 - Not applicable

1. I find real enjoyment in my job
2. I consider my job rather pleasant
3. I am often bored with my job
4. I am fairly well satisfied with my job
5. I definitely dislike my job
6. Each day on my job seems like it will never end

71
7. Most days I am enthusiastic about my job
8. Conflict with the people I worked with/for has been a factor in changing jobs
Which of the following statements most clearly reflects your feelings about your
future with your current employment? - Please check only one
( ) Definitely will not leave
( ) Probably will not leave
( ) Probably will leave
( ) Definitely will leave
Which of the following statements most clearly reflects your feelings about your
future in your current occupation? - Please check only one
( ) Definitely will not leave
( ) Probably will not leave
( ) Probably will leave
( ) Definitely will leave

Improving conflict resolution
Have you had any training to assist you with workplace conflict situations?
Yes ()No ()
Is support available to assist you in coping with conflicts you experience at work from
your employer, professional organizations, or other sources?
Yes ()No ()
How important would the following items be at helping you to cope more effectively
and positively with the conflicts you experience at work?
Please use the following scale to answer these questions:
1 - Unimportant 2 - Of Little Importance 3- Moderately Important 4- Important 5Very Important 6 - Not applicable
1. Fairer distribution of resources
2. Better communication I less gossip
3. Causes of conflicts should be detected and both sides should be listened to
4. Fairer approach to reward and punishment
5. Meetings should be held
6. No discrimination, management should be neutral
7. Distribution of authority should be made
8. Less workplace politics
9. Professional management should take (more) control
10. More respect to personal rights, occupational career
11. Fair wages
12. Any other suggestions? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

-.178
-.304
-.069
.351**
.192
.302**
.019
.182

-.075
-.080

.955**
-.119
-.088
-.357
-.104
.311 **
.210
.222*
-.066
.204*
-.056
.028
-.012

Total

Scarce
Resources
Value
Disparity
Info Disparity

Integrating

Avoiding

Dominating

Obliging

Compromising

Stress

Satisfaction

Stay with
Employer
Stay with
Occupation

-.153

-.135

.751**
.913**

Task

Task

Relationship

Relationship

Value
Disparity

.447**

.151
.263*

-.018
-.045

.535**

.698**

-.411**

.175

.326**
-.285**

-.074

.004

-.061

.410**

-.105

.208*

-.032

.275*

.091

.219*

-.382**

.353**

.448**
-.237*

.500**

.605**

.662**

Scarce
Resources

.353**

-.097

-.340

-.135

-.133

Total

Info.
Disparity

IN

AV

DO

08

co

Stress

-

-.081

.104
-.361**
.415

.134

-.192

.174

-.287**

-.177
.220*
.263

.061

-.311**

.142
.228*

.172

.239*

.523*

.279**

.122

.134

-.062

-.052

.437**
.071
.592**

.165

.122

-.241*

-.005

.306

-.316

.127

.062

.413

.143

.097

.025

.073

-.297**

-.157

-.312**

IN=integrating style AV=avoiding style DO=dominating style OB=obliging style CO=compromising style
*--=--=ticance to 0.05 **=sianificance to 0.01

Appendix D: Correlation Table

.527**

.525**

Satis.

2

.481**

Stay with
Employer

73

APPENDIX E: Stressors from Most to Least Stressful
51. Watching a patient suffer

3.256

20. Having so much work to do, that you cannot do everything well

3.247

43 . Having to make decisions based on money

3.234

52. Feeling that I am inadequately paid as a veterinary healthcare
provider

3.171

16. Fear of making a mistake in treating a patient

3.169

12. Animal's owners making unreasonable demands

3.115

32. The death of a patient with whom you developed a close relationship

3.068

7. Dealing with difficult or aggressive patients

3.063

9. Feeling helpless in the case of a patient who fails to improve

3.026

1. Performing or helping to perform procedures that patients experience
as painful

2.975

11. Unpredictable staffing and scheduling

2.974

41. Not enough time to respond to the needs of clients

2.886

6. Possessing inadequate information regarding the medical condition of
a patient

2.859

10. Being asked a question by an owner for which I do not have a
satisfactory answer

2.813

37. Not enough staff to adequately provide necessary services

2.810

40. Being interrupted by phone calls or people while performing job duties

2.805

30. Being the one that has to deal with owners

2.797

54. Having to work through breaks

2.780

2. Conflict with a veterinarian

2.772

19. Not enough time to provide emotional support to pet owners/clients

2.756

74
57. Having job duties which conflict with family responsibilities

2.756

24. The death of a patient

2.740

3. Feeling inadequately prepared to deal with the emotional needs of a
pet owner/client

2.713

39. Having to deal with abusive clients

2.658

56. Having to make decisions under pressure

2.643

17. Difficulty in working with a particular person or people in my
immediate work setting

2.620

15. Discussing or performing euthanasia

2.610

42. Being held accountable for things over which I have no control

2.588

49. Not receiving the respect or recognition that I deserve

2.580

47. Lack of support from administrators

2.563

58. Feeling that opportunities for advancement on the job are poor

2.562

33. Making a decision concerning a patient when the primary veterinarian
is unavailable

2.531

53. Conflicts with coworkers

2.519

22. Being blamed for anything that goes wrong

2.513

14. Listening or talking to people about their pet's death

2.512

59. Not being able to use my abilities to the fullest extent on the job

2.488

27. Lack of support of my immediate supervisor

2.469

4. Lack of opportunity to talk openly with other people about problems at
work

2.412

35. Too many non-patient related tasks required

2.405

5. Conflict with a supervisor or administrator

2.391

25. Disagreement concerning the treatment of a patient

2.378

29. Not knowing what a patient's owners ought to be told about the

2.375

75
patient's condition and its treatment
26. Feeling inadequately trained for what I have to do
38. Uncertainty regarding the operation and functioning of specialized
equipment

2.360
2.333

21. A veterinarian not being present in a medical emergency

2.298

28. Criticism by a supervisor

2.242

18. Difficulty in working with a particular person or people outside my
immediate work setting

2.221

45. Supervising the performance of coworkers

2.215

44. Veterinarian(s) not being present when a patient dies

2.179

34. Being in charge with inadequate experience

2.173

46. Having to organize doctors' work

2.167

50. Not knowing what type of job performance is expected

2.156

36. Not being allowed to participate in making decisions about my job

2.147

31. Being exposed to health and safety hazards (chemicals, drugs,
radiation, scratches, bites, kicks etc.)

2.122

55. Not knowing whether owners/clients will report me for inadequate care

1.627

23. Experiencing discrimination on the basis of sex

1.606

48. Difficulty in working with people of the opposite sex

1.229

13. Experiencing discrimination because of race or ethnicity

1.153

8. Being sexually harassed at work

1.113