1

TITLE

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HEADS

AND THEIR INFLUENCE TO TEACHERS’ MORALE IN THE
DIVISION OF PUERTO PRINCESA CITY

CAROLYN M. ILLESCAS1, DAVID R. PEREZ2, Teacher III, Sta. Monica

Elementary School1, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines, Associate
Professor3, Western Philippines University, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
Philippines

Email Add: daveperez2004@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

This study focused on the conflict management styles of elementary school

heads and their influence to teachers’ morale as perceived by the elementary school
heads themselves and the elementary teachers in the Division of Puerto Princesa
City. Quantitative method of research was employed. Data were obtained through
the use of survey questionnaire. Frequency counts, percentages, mean, weighted
mean, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient r and Korin’s Correlation
were applied in the treatment of raw data.
Result of the study revealed that collaborating was evident and was the
dominant conflict management styles of elementary school heads. As to causes of
conflict, both school heads and teachers claimed that the variables under
personality factors are the major causes conflicts in school. Proposed solutions to
conflict are respect and obedience, sharing of interest and goals and improved
communication. The study revealed that conflict management styles of elementary
school heads influence teachers’ morale.
Significant difference existed on the perception of both elementary school
heads and teachers in terms of collaborating, competing, accommodating and
compromising as conflict management styles of elementary school heads. The
perception of elementary school heads and teachers are similar in terms of causes of
conflicts and proposed solution.

KEY WORDS: Conflict Management Styles, Teacher’s Morale, School

Heads

Introduction interactions. Conflict exists in

Conflict is certain as
long as there is a human
element present. Thus, conflict
is a pervasive aspect in both
social circles and professional
all human relationships: it
always has and probably always
will. Furthermore, individuals
who never experience conflict
at the workplace are living in a
dream world, blind to their

surroundings or are confined to
solitary confinement.
Conflict presently
continues to be a factor in
academic life. Schools
frequently appear to be centers
of tension; on occasion, they
are perhaps a manifestation of
problems in the community.
The term conflict is viewed in a
variety of ways because of its
confusion with those conditions
which lead to situations of
different conflict. Thomas
(2015) defines conflict as “the
process which begins when one
party perceives that the other
has frustrated, or is about to
frustrate, some concern of his”.
At schools conflicts may
be experienced in many issues
such as distribution of work
among personnel, financial
resources, in and out of class
teaching activities and
practices, rewards,
punishment, assessment
practices, use of power-
authority, being late for class,
leave of absences, political
views, negative personal
attitudes, passing grade levels
and scoring system, issues
regarding the legislation,
student behaviors, dress code,
assignments and
placements for staff and
distribution of resources
(Karip, 2000). Conflicts can
take place between
administrators-teachers,
teachers-teachers, teachers-
students or parents-parents or
among the students. It should
be kept in mind that regardless
of the type of conflict or the
group that take part in it,
2
conflicts will deepen and be
more complicated unless they
are resolved and people
involved in the conflict will
experience negative feelings
(Argon, 2014). This will
negatively affect the job
performances of the personnel
and will decrease the quality of
education and training at
schools. The current study,
undertaken in line with the
literature, examined and
discussed the conflicts
experienced at school based on
teacher views. In this respect,
the study aimed to determine
teacher views regarding the
conflicts experienced at
schools, the reasons behind
conflicts, the impact of conflict
on teachers and the responses
conflict generates.
When there is conflict,
there must be a resolution of
such conflict. This is where the
Conflict Management enters
the ring. Ghaffar (2007)
quoted the Conflict Resolution
Skills/Strategies of David W.
Johnson and Roger T. Johnson
which hold that Conflict
resolution and peer mediation
programs are often promoted
as a way to reduce violence in
schools. Management of
conflict is a human relations
concept long recognized in
business and industry as a
necessary component of the
developmental process.
Sweeney and Caruthers (2015)
define conflict resolution in a
most general and concise way
as the process used by parties
in conflict to reach a
settlement. A manager should

be able to see emerging
conflicts and take appropriate
pre-emptive action. The
manager should understand
the causes creating conflict, the
outcome of conflict, and
various methods by which
conflict can be managed in the
organization. With this
understanding, the manager
should evolve an approach for
resolving conflicts before their
disruptive repercussions have
an impact on productivity and
creativity. Therefore, a
manager should possess special
skills to react to conflict
situations, and should create an
open climate for
communication between
conflicting parties.
The aforementioned
paragraphs serve as important
reasons why there is a need to
conduct this study.
Statement of the Problem
The general aim of this
study is to determine the
conflict management styles of
the elementary school heads in
the Division of Puerto Princesa
City Specifically, it sought to
answer the following aspects of
the main problems:
1. What is the demographic
profile of the elementary school
heads in the Division of Puerto
Princesa City in terms of:
a. age;
b.gender;
c. number of years in teaching;
d. highest degree earned and;
e. attendance to seminar and
3
trainings related to conflict
management?
2. How conflict management
styles of the elementary school
heads describe as perceived by
elementary school teachers and
elementary school heads
themselves in terms of:
a. collaborating;
b. competing;
c. avoiding;
d. accommodating and;
e. compromising?
3. What describes the causes of
conflict as perceived by the
elementary school heads and
elementary school teachers in
terms of:
a. situational factors ;
b. personality factors;
c. power factors and;
d. conflict of interest?
4 .What describes the proposed
solution to conflict as perceived
by the elementary school heads
and elementary school teachers
in terms of:
a. improved communication;
b. values integration;
c. respect and obedience and;
d. sharing of interests/goals?
5. How do conflict management
styles of the elementary school
heads influence the teachers’
morale as perceived by the
elementary school heads and
elementary school teachers?
6. Is there a significant
relationship between
demographic profile of the
elementary school heads and

their conflict management
styles?
7. Is there a significant
relationship between the
conflict management styles of
elementary school heads and
the teachers’ morale?
8. Is there a significant
relationship between the causes
of conflict and proposed
solution as perceived by school
heads?
9. Is there a significant
difference on the perception of
the elementary school heads
and elementary school teachers
in terms of conflict
management styles of the
elementary school heads?
10. Is there a significant
difference on the causes and
solution to conflict as perceived
by the school heads and
elementary school teachers?
Significance of the Study
The study is deemed
essential to the following;
Schools. This study is
considered important for the
schools since conflict is an
essential and unavoidable
human phenomenon because
where the.re is human
interaction; there is a
likelihood of personal likes and
dislikes. These agreements and
disagreements among
individuals and groups lead
them to conflicts in schools.
4
Conflicts are neither
constructive nor disruptive but
the ways these are handled
make them either positive or
negative. Schools, like other
human organizations, are
prone to one or other type of
conflict. Various conflict
management strategies are
adopted for handling conflict;
the most important among
these are mediation,
negotiation, avoidance,
collaborating etc. Main thrust
of this paper is on the
exploration of the nature of
conflicts in schools, its causes
and techniques adopted for its
management.
Schools Division
Supervisor. This study will
make the following significant
contribution to City Schools
Division of Puerto Princesa in
terms of providing fresh data
and study on the schools’
conflict management including
policy and program
adjustments if there is really a
need especially in the said
division.
Students. This study will
eventually benefit the students
because a conflict free school or
conflict less school will boost
the morale of teachers; thus, in
return shall be expecting to
make students more interested
in studying.
School heads. This study can
enhance school heads to a
better understanding about
their existing level of conflict
management strategies.

Therefore, from the
administration perspective they
would come up with new ways
to resolving conflict, for
example modifying the existing
school regulations, adding new
and value added members
welfare programs, and
recognizing the outstanding
performances efficiently and
fairly.
Teachers. This study will help
school principals better
understand about the existing
conflict among their teachers.
Conflict management reduces
tensions motivates the
employee to give their best to
the organizations.
Researchers. This study can
help future researchers who
will be conducting studies on
the conflict management styles
of school principals and
teachers involvement in
conflict resolution.
METHODOLOGY
This section presents
the locale of the study, research
design, and respondent of the
study, sampling procedure,
instruments, data collection
procedures and data treatment.
Locale of the Study
The study was conducted in
selected public elementary
schools in the Division of
Puerto Princesa City. Thirty
seven (37) school heads and
two hundred sixty four (264)
teachers were selected to
5
represent diverse schools,
gender, age, education and
other profile of school heads.
Research Design
The study utilized the
quantitative method. This
research method emphasizes
objective measurements and
the statistical, mathematical, or
numerical analysis of data
collected through polls,
questionnaires, and surveys, or
by manipulating pre-existing
statistical data using
computational techniques.
(Best, 2015).
The quantitative method
was employed through the use
of the survey questionnaire to
determine the demographic
profile, level of conflict
management of school heads,
causes of conflict, proposed
solution to conflict and
influence of conflict
management style to teachers’
morale. Likewise, significant
relationships and differences
were determined between and
among variables that were used
by the researcher in
consolidating findings and
formulating conclusions.
Respondents of the Study
Thirty seven (37) public
elementary school heads and
two hundred sixty four (264)
teachers were the respondents
of this study from District I,
District II and District III
schools. Slovin’s Formula was
used to determine the actual
sample size of the respondents.
 6

24. Cabayugan ES 1 7 2
25. Concepcion ES 1 8 3
Sampling Procedure 26. Francisco Austria MES
27. Kandes ES
1
1
7
5
2
2
A master list of public 28. Macarascas ES
29. Manalo ES
1
1
7
12
2
4
elementary school heads and 30. Maoyon ES
31. Maranat ES
1
1
7
7
2
2
teachers from the Human 32. Sabang ES
33. Salvacion Central
1 9 3
7
Resource Management Office School
34. San Carlos ES
1
1 5
2
2
of the Division of Puerto 35. San Rafael ES
36. Sta.Cruz ES
1
1
10
7
3
2
Princesa was used as basis of 37. Sta.Fe ES
Total
1
37
4
778
1
264
the study.
Simple random Instrumentation
sampling was used in this study The data for the quantitative
wherein each member of the aspect of the study was taken
subset of statistical population from the survey questionnaire.
has an equal probability of conflict among teachers Part
being chosen. All the names of IV, Solution to Conflicts
elementary school teacher Common Among Teachers and
respondents were chosen out of Part V Teachers’ Morale. There
a hat. In this study, total are three sets of
enumeration of the school questionnaires. The first set is
heads was employed while the intended for the elementary
teacher respondents’ school heads second set is for
population was computed using the teacher respondents.
the Slovin’s Formula. The
researcher shall have a total of The basis of the questionnaire
thirty seven (37) school heads was from Gaumer et al., (2016)
and two hundred sixty four entitled Conflict Management
(264) samples following a 5% Questionnaire published by the
margin of error. University of Kansas, United
States. This questionnaire
Size served as a reference of the
Numbe Sample
Number of r of
Name of School School
Heads
Teacher researcher in conducting the
1
N n
5
respective instrument of this
1. Don Ramon Roces MES 15
2. East Central School 1 53 18 study, hence the researcher
3. Gregorio Oquendo MES 1 20 7 modified it to fit in for this
4. Mauricio Reynoso MES 1 28 10 study and for the target
5. Puerto Princesa Pilot ES 1 99 34
respondents. ef
6. West Central School 1 13 4
7. Abanico Elementary
School
1
13
4
Scale Range Descripti
8. Aplaya Elementary 1
15
5 ve Rating
School
9. F. Ubay MES 1 52 18 5 4.20- Very
10. Manuel Austria MES 1 37 13
11. Mateo Jagmis MES 1 47 16 5.00 Effective
12. San Pedro CS
13. Sta. Lourdes ES
1
1
39
34
13
7
4 3.40-4.19 Effective
14. Sta. Monica ES 1 58 20 3 2.60- Neutral
15. Sicsican ES 1 22 12
16. Tagburos ES 1 12 4 3.39
17. Tiniguiban ES
18. Valentin Macasaet MES
1
1
38
19
13
6
2 1.80-2.59 Ineffective
19. Virgilio R. Magbanua 1
8
3 1 1.00-1.79 Very
MES
20. Wescom ES 1 23 8 ineffective
21. Anilawan ES 1 10 3
22. Bacungan ES 1 7 2
23. Bahile ES 1 14 5
 7

Likewise, a 5 point sent to the Division

rating scale below was be used Superintendent asking
to determine the common permission to conduct the
issues of conflicts and solutions study. The same request was
to conflicts among teachers and submitted to Public Schools
teachers’ morale. District Supervisor Team
Leader.
Scale Range Descripti
ve Rating Treatment of Data
5 4.20- Almost
5.00 Always
To describe the profile of
True the elementary school heads
4 3.40-4.19 Frequently and teachers the frequency
True counts and percentages were
3 2.60- Occasionall employed. Meanwhile mean
3.39 y True and weighted mean were
2 1.80-2.59 Seldom
True
employed to assess the
1 1.00-1.79 Almost elementary school heads’
Never True conflict management style and
common issues which cause
conflict among the teachers.
Reliability of the instrument On the other hand, to
was assessed via piloting the analyze the relationship
instrument to Matahimik- between demographic profile of
Bucana Elementary School the school heads and their
headed by teacher-in-charge conflict management styles, the
with 13 teachers. Pilot testing Pearson Product Moment
participants were given the Correlation Coefficient r was
instrument to complete and the used. The same statistical
opportunity to discuss purpose treatment was employed to
and clarity of items and make determine the relationship
suggestions for improvement in between causes of conflict and
both verbal and written form. the proposed solution.
In addition the questionnaire Lastly, to analyze
was submitted to three (3) relationship between the
members of advisory conflict management styles of
committee. the elementary school heads
and teachers’ morale Korin’s
Data Collection Procedure Correlation was used. Lastly, t-
A survey questionnaire was test was used to determine the
used in the gathering of data significant difference on the
needed. The researcher perception of the elementary
personally administered the school heads and teachers in
survey questionnaire to the terms of conflict management
respondents. All respondents styles of elementary school
were given time to go over and heads, causes and proposed
accomplish the questionnaire. solution to conflict.
A letters of request was
 8

Eleven or 29.73 percent

RESULTS AND of the school heads have earned
DISCUSSION units in Doctoral Degree. More
than half of the school heads
This chapter presents Masteral Degree holder with a
the findings, interpretation and frequency of 23 or 62.16 per
analysis of data specifically in cent. Only 3 or 8.11 percent
determining the profiles of have earned Bachelor’s Degree.
elementary school heads and This implies that the school
teachers in the Division of heads in the Division of Puerto
Puerto Princesa City, the Princesa City were proactive in
conflict management of school terms of professional
heads and their influence to development.
teachers’ morale. Correlations All school heads had
and comparisons between and attended the School Heads
among variables considered in Development Program while 12
the study are also highlighted. or 32.43 percent attended
Gender and Equality Seminar.
This implies that the numbers
Profile of School of seminar incurred by the
Elementary School Heads school heads regarding conflict
management are insufficient.
Table 1 shows the
demographic profile of the
selected elementary school Table 1. Demographic
heads in the Division of Puerto profile of the elementary school
Princesa City. heads in the Division of Puerto
It can be seen from the Princesa City
table that most of the school Profile Frequency Percentage
N=37
heads belonged to the age Age
bracket between 39 and 45 with 53 – 59
46 – 52
5
9
13.51
24.32
a frequency of 14 or 37.85 39 – 45
32 – 38
14
9
37.85
24.32
percent. The least number of Mean 44.14
Gender
school heads have ages between Female 26 70.27
53 to 59 with a frequency of 5 Male
Highest degree earned
11 29.73

or 13.51 percent. The mean age Doctoral Degree 11 29.73

Masteral Degree 23 62.16
of school heads is 44.14, which Bachelor’s Degree 3 8.11
mean they were on the peak of Attendance to seminars
and trainings related to
their career as school manager. conflict management
School Heads
37
12
100.00
32.43
In terms of gender, Development Program
Gender and Equality
majority of the school heads are Seminar
female with a frequency of 26
or 70.27. This means that the
schools in the Division Puerto
Princesa are managed and
under the leadership of woman
power.

Conflict Management
Styles of the Elementary
School Heads
Table 2 presents the conflict
management styles of the
elementary school heads as
perceived by themselves and
elementary school teachers.
For the school heads,
collaborating got the highest
rank, under this conflict
management style the
statement “gather as much
information as I can and keep
the lines of communication
open” ranked first with a mean
of 4.62 described as very
effective; followed by “attempt
to deal with all of his and my
concerns, attempt to get all
concerns and issues
immediately out in the open
and share the problem with the
other persons so that we can
work it out.” with a mean of
4.59 described as very effective.
The least is “try to see conflict
from both sides.” with a mean
of 4.38 described as effective.
Similarly, teachers gave
highest rating under
collaborating, the statement
“attempt to deal with all of his
and my concerns” ranked first
with the mean 0f 4.25 followed
by “tell him my ideas and ask
him for his ideas”, with the
mean of 4.23. The top two
statements were described as
effective. The statement that
got the lowest mean was “try to
see conflict from both sides”
with mean of 4.02 described as
effective.
This implies that
elementary school heads
9
practice collaborative conflict
management style by
attempting to deal with all the
concerns of teachers to solve
concerns and issues
immediately.
Ghaffar et al., (2010) has
the same recommendation that
all the principals should adopt
the best style of conflict
management according to the
situation. The respondents of
their study preferred
collaboration as conflict
management style.
The level of conflict
management styles of
elementary school heads in
terms of competing is as
perceived by themselves is
effective with the mean of 4.41.
The statement “am firm in
pursuing my goals” ranked first
with the mean of 4.62
described as effective; followed
by “know when the outcome is
critical and cannot be
compromised” , with the mean
of 4.57, described as effective.
The statement “would argue my
case and insist on the merits of
my point of view” with the
mean of 4.08 got the lowest
rating.
For teachers the level of
conflict management styles of
elementary school heads in
terms of competing is effective
with the mean of 4.13. The
statement “am firm in pursuing
my goals” ranked first with the
mean of 4.33 described as
effective; followed by “know
when the outcome is critical
and cannot be compromised”
and “can figure out what needs
to be done and I am usually

right” with the mean of 4.22
described as effective. The
statement “would argue my
case and insist on the merits of
my point of view”, with the
mean of 3.86 got the lowest
rating.
This result reveals that
competing is effective in
resolving conflicts in school.
The school heads are firm in
their decision and use their
power of command.
Result conforms with
Pace (2013) who explained that
the first conflict management
style is that of the competitor
or tough battler. This style is
exemplified by the person who
ambitiously realizes his/her
goals at the expense of others.
The level of conflict
management styles of
elementary school heads got
the lowest mean of 4.08 is
avoiding as perceived by the
school heads. The statement
“try to avoid creating
unpleasantness for myself” and
“avoid taking positions which
could create controversy”
ranked first with the mean of
4.27 described as effective;
followed by “try to do what is
necessary to avoid useless
tensions” with the mean of 4.24
described as effective. The
statement “let others take
responsibility for solving the
problem” with the mean of 3.84
got the lowest rating.
Teachers gave their
lowest rating to avoiding as
conflict management style of
the school heads with the mean
of 3.93 described as effective.
The statement “try to do what
10
is necessary to avoid useless
tensions.” ranked first with the
mean of 4.09 described as
effective; followed by “try to
avoid creating unpleasantness
for myself” with the mean of
4.03 described as effective. The
statement “feel uncomfortable
and anxious when the persons
involved are closely related to
me” with the mean of 3.72 got
the lowest rating.
The findings imply that the
least conflict resolution the
school heads employ is
avoiding eluding from taking
positions and useless tensions
that creates controversy.
This is similar with Deetz and
Stevenson (2014) who proved
that avoidance may be regarded
as a negative strategy, in some
cases it can be viewed as
valuable. Avoidance can delay
the discussion of the conflict
until participants have "cooled
down” and could be used
positively when whether the
issue is not really worth the
effort.
The findings conform to
Kilmann and Thomas (2015),
they agreed that avoiding is
unassertive and uncooperative
when a person is avoiding
he/she does not want to resolve
her concerns or to solve other’s
concerns.
Table 2 Level of conflict
management styles of the
elementary school heads as
perceived by themselves and
elementary school teachers
School Heads Teachers
Mean Descriptiv M Descriptive
Statement e ea Interpretation
Interpretat n
ion
Collaborating 4.53 Very 4. Effective
 11

Effective 17 4. Try to postpone 3.97 Effective 3. Effective

1. Attempt to deal 4.59 Very 4. Effective the issue until I 88
with all of his and Effective 25 have had some
my concerns. time to think it
2. Attempt to get 4.59 Very 4. Effective over.
all concerns and Effective 19 5. Feel that the 3.97 Effective 3. Effective
issues immediately differences are not 96
out in the open. always worth
3. Tell him my 4.51 Very 4. Effective worrying about.
ideas and ask him Effective 23 6. Avoid taking 4.27 Effective 3.99 Effective
for his ideas. positions which
4. Attempt to 4.46 Effective 4. Effective could create
immediately work 18 controversy.
through our 7. Might try and 4.22 Effective 4.01 Effective
differences. appease the other's
5. Lean toward a 4.54 Very 4. Effective feelings and
direct discussion of Effective 17 preserve our
the problem relationship.
6. Am very often 4.51 Very 4. Effective 8. Say a little and 4.11 Effective 3.90 Effective
concerned with Effective 09 leave as soon as the
satisfying all our issues have been
wishes. heard.
9. Feel 3.92 Effective 3.72 Effective
8. Share the 4.59 Very 4. Effective uncomfortable and
problem with the Effective 21 anxious when the
other persons so persons involved
that we can work it are closely related
out. to me.
9. Explore issues 4.54 Very 4. Effective 10. Avoid hard 4.03 Effective 3.82 Effective
with others so as to Effective 13 feelings by keeping
find solutions that my disagreements
meet everyone’s with others to
needs. myself.
10. Gather as much 4.62 Very 4. Effective Accommodating 4.33 Effective 4.11 Effective
information as I Effective 17
can and keep the 1. try to stress 4.38 Effective 4.06 Effective
lines of those things upon
communication which we both
open. agree rather than
11. Try to see 4.38 Effective 4. Effective negotiate the things
conflicts from both 02 on which we
sides. disagree
Competing 4.41 Effective 4. Effective 2. Try to appease 4.30 Effective 4.15 Effective
13 the other's feelings
1. Am firm in 4.62 Very 4. Effective and preserve our
pursuing my goals. Effective 33 relationship.
2. Try to win my 4.46 Effective 4. Effective 3. Try to be 4.49 Effective 4.19 Effective
position on the 17 considerate of the
matter. other person's
3. Make some 4.49 Effective 4. Effective wishes.
effort to make 16 4. would try to 4.27 Effective 3.97 Effective
things happen meet his wishes if
according to my the other's position
judgment. seems very
4. Know when the 4.57 Very 4. Effective important to him
outcome is critical Effective 22 5. might let him 4.43 Effective 4.20 Effective
and cannot be maintain his views
compromised. if it makes the
5. Try to show him 4.43 Effective 4. Effective other person happy
the logic and 18 6. Try to meet the 4.19 Effective 4.07 Effective
benefits of my expectations of
position. others.
6. Try to convince 4.35 Effective 4. Effective 7. Try to 4.08 Effective 3.99 Effective
the other person of 09 accommodate the
the virtues of my wishes of my
position. friends and family.
7. Emphasize the 4.35 Effective 4. Effective 11.value peace 4.54 Effective 4.22 Effective
power of my 16 within the school
command. rather than getting
8. Would argue my 4.08 Effective 3. Effective what he wants
case and insist on 86 Compromising 4.40 Effective 4.08 Effective
the merits of my
point of view. 1. Try to find a 4.49 Effective 4.05 Effective
9.find conflicts 4.19 Effective 3. Effective compromised
challenging and 95 solution.
exhilarating 2. Sometimes 4.43 Effective 4.05 Effective
10. Can figure out 4.54 Effective 4. Effective sacrifice my own
what needs to be 22 wishes for the
done and I am wishes of the other
usually right. person.
Avoiding 4.08 Effective 3. Effective 3. Consistently 4.46 Effective 4.14 Effective
93 seek other's help in
1. Let others take 3.84 Effective 3. Effective working out a
responsibility for 90 solution.
solving the 4. Communicates 4.46 Effective 4.17 Effective
problem. clearly about his
2. Try to do what is 4.24 Effective 4. Effective and our position on
necessary to avoid 09 the matter.
useless tensions. 5. Propose a middle 4.35 Effective 3.98 Effective
3. Try to avoid 4.27 Effective 4. Effective ground.
creating 03 6.try to find a fair 4.38 Effective 4.02 Effective
unpleasantness for combination of
myself. gains and losses for
 12

both of us
7. Try to find a 4.32 Effective 4.02 Effective frequently true; followed by
position that is
intermediate “Balancing being the boss and
between his and
mine. being a friend” with a mean of
8. Try to get him to
settle for a
4.38 Effective 4.09 Effective
4.03 described as frequently
compromised
solution. true . The statement got the
9. Propose an 4.49 Effective 4.16 Effective lowest mean of 3.72 described
opinion that is
acceptable to both as frequently true is
parties.
10. Would meet 4.41 Effective 4.01 Effective “Dealing with pressure and
people halfway to
break deadlocks. shifting priorities from my
11. Negotiate and
adopt a give-and-
4.22 Effective 4.17 Effective
own boss and other higher
take approach to
problem situations. ups.”
Overall Mean 4.35 Effective 4.08 Effective
This implies that the
main cause of conflict in school
Causes of Conflict is due to contributing
personality factors as
Table 3 presents the perceived by the respondents.
mean for the causes of conflict Kennedy (2012)
as perceived by the elementary supported the result that the
school heads and teachers. sources of conflict include;
For school heads, shared resources, differences in
personality factors as goals, difference in perceptions
causes of conflict got the and values, disagreements in
highest mean of 3.97. The the role requirements, nature
statement “Different of work activities, individual
personalities of various approaches, and the stage of
employees”, ranked first with a organizational development.
mean of 4.38 described as Along power factors as
frequently true; followed by causes of conflict, school heads
“Balancing being the boss and perceived this as effective with
being a friend” with a mean of the mean of 3.79 described as
41.9 described as frequently frequently true. The
true . The statement that got statement “Getting employees
the lowest mean of 3.68 to understand and follow
described as frequently true instructions” ranked first with
was “Dealing with pressure a mean of 4.22; followed by
and shifting priorities from my “Ambiguity of duties and
own boss and other higher responsibilities and delegation
ups.” of tasks” with a mean of 4.11.
For teachers The statement that got the
personality factors as lowest mean of 3.32 is
causes of conflict got the “Insufficient authority and
highest mean of 3.99 described discretion to reward high
as frequently true. The performers.” All these results
statement “Different were described as frequently
personalities of various true.
employees” ranked first with a Power factors ranked
mean of 4.37 described as second as causes of conflict as
 13

perceived by teachers with the got the lowest mean of 3.19 is

mean 3.68 described as
frequently true. The
statement “Ambiguity of duties
and responsibilities and
delegation of tasks” ranked
first with a mean of 4.17;
followed by “Getting employees
to understand and follow
instructions” with a mean of
3.81; the statement got the
lowest mean of 3.34 is “Giving
negative feedback to
employees regarding their
performance. All these
statements obtained the
descriptive rating of frequently
true.
The study reveals that
ambiguity of duties and
responsibilities and teachers
difficulty in understanding
instructions were the sources of
conflicts in school.
Mansor et al., (2012)
also identified that conflict may
originate from understanding
the nature of tasks in the
organization. It has been found
that appropriate classification
of conflict is beneficial to
understand its nature and
implication.
Conflict of interest
ranked last as causes of conflict
with the mean of 3.66
described as frequently true
as perceived by the school
heads. The highest mean is
noted in the statement
“Unawareness on the existing
policies” with a mean of 4.24;
followed by “Limited resources
time, money, space, materials,
“Groups have formed within
the team and are taking
“sides”.
Similarly, conflict of
interest ranked last as cause
of conflict with the mean of
3.60 described as frequently
true as perceived by teachers.
The highest statement is noted
in the statement “Unawareness
on the existing policies” with a
mean of 4.04; followed by
“Limited resources time,
money, space, materials,
supplies, and equipment are all
valuable resources” with a
mean of 3.67. The statement
got the lowest mean of 3.31 is
“Primary responsibilities of
teacher are compromised by
other co-curricular activities”.
This implies that
conflicts originate when
teachers are unawareness on
the existing policies resulting to
conflict of interest.
Tonder and Lessing
(2003) has similar findings,
they asserted that increasing
uncertainty and complexity in
the operating environment of
organizations provide fertile
ground for the onset of conflict
in the workplace.
Table 3 Mean causes of conflict
as perceived by the elementary
school heads and elementary
school teachers
School Heads Teachers
Mean Descripti Mean Descriptive
Statement ve Interpretatio
Interpret n

supplies, and equipment are all ation

valuable resources” with a Frequent Frequently

mean of 3.76. The statement Situational factors 3.74 ly True 3.63 True
 14

1.Failure to one another and do not

communicate clearly have the confidence to
resulting other teachers Frequent Frequently express differing
to resist the changes in ly True True viewpoints.
the Department of 4. Giving negative
Education 3.30 3.40 feedback to employees Frequent Frequently
2. Managing people of Frequent Frequently regarding their ly True True
a different generation. 4.16 ly True 3.88 True performance. 3.86 3.34
3. Dealing with 5. Ambiguity of duties
Frequent Frequently Frequent Frequently
employees lack of and responsibilities
ly True True ly True True
basic skills 3.92 3.72 and delegation of tasks 4.11 4.17
4. Managing people Frequent Frequently Conflict of interest Frequent Frequently
with a language gap. 3.68 ly True 3.52 True 3.66 ly True 3.60 True
5. Dealing with parents Frequent Frequently 1.Groups have formed
and the community 3.62 ly True 3.66 True within the team and are Frequent Frequently
Personality factors Frequent Frequently taking “sides” ly True True
3.97 ly True 3.99 True On various issues. 3.19 3.59
1.Different 2. Limited resources
Frequent Frequently
personalities of time, money, space,
ly True True Frequent Frequently
various employees 4.38 4.37 materials, supplies,
ly True True
2. Interpersonal and equipment are all
conflict on the team valuable resources 3.76 3.67
between and among 3. Financial interests
Frequent Frequently
individual employees of an individual and Frequent Frequently
ly True True
and cliques who don’t proper utilization of ly True True
get along with each fund 3.51 3.41
other. 3.81 3.92 4. Primary
3. Balancing being the Frequent Frequently responsibilities of
Frequent Frequently
boss and being a friend 4.19 ly True 4.03 True teacher are
ly True True
4. Teachers with compromised by other
behavioral issues such co-curricular activities 3.59 3.31
as attendance, Frequent Frequently 5.Unawareness on the Frequent Frequently
tardiness, personal ly True True existing policies 4.24 ly True 4.04 True
issues, and conflict Frequent Frequently
Overall Mean 3.79 3.73
with coworkers. 3.81 3.93 ly True True
5. Dealing with
pressure and shifting
Frequent Frequently Proposed Solution to
priorities from my own
ly True True Conflict
boss and other higher
ups. 3.68 3.72
Table 4 presents the mean of
Power factors Frequent Frequently
proposed solution to conflict as
3.79 ly True 3.68 True perceived by the elementary
1. Insufficient school heads.
authority and Frequent Frequently
discretion to reward ly True True School heads gave
high performers. 3.32 3.44 highest rating to respect and
2. Getting employees
Frequent Frequently
obedience as solution to
to understand and
ly True True
conflict with the mean of 4.43
follow instructions 4.22 3.81
described as frequently true.
3. Teachers are too Frequent Frequently
The statement “treats teacher
willing to agree with 3.46 ly True 3.63 True

with respect in whatever
circumstances” ranked first
with the mean of 4.76
described as almost always
true; followed by “appreciate
their individual contribution in
the context of overall success”
with the mean of 4.54 also
described as frequently true.
The statements got the lowest
mean of 4.14 described as
frequently true is “objectively
understand what is behind the
difficult person's actions rather
than reacting right away”.
Teachers’ perception is
similar with the school heads,
they gave highest rating to
respect and obedience as
solution to conflict with the
mean of 4.19 described as
frequently true. The statement
“treats teacher with respect in
whatever circumstances”
ranked first with the mean of
4.35; followed by” appreciate
their individual contribution in
the context of overall success”
with the mean of 4.28 and the
statement that got the lowest
mean of 4.00 described as
frequently true is “try to adjust
my priorities to accommodate
teachers’ needs”. These
statements obtained mean
rating described as frequently
true.
This implies that respect
and obedience is the key
solution in handling conflict in
schools.
The finding of this study
is similar to what Ellis and
Zabalak (2001) found wherein
after investigation on the
aspects of information and
management, the component of
15
openness as well as respect is
vital in the organization. It was
found that both the quantity
and quality of information were
significant and that both
affected employees’ perceptions
of organizational effectiveness.
The second variable that
the elementary school heads
perceived as frequently true
with the mean of 4.34 is
sharing of goals and interest.
The statement got the highest
rating under this variable is
“promote a school culture with
the spirit of unity” with mean
of 4.65; followed by “involve
my teachers when making
significant changes in our
school” with mean of 4.59.
While the statement got the
lowest mean of 3.54 is “give my
teachers an equal opportunity
to be heard regardless of their
age and tenure”.
For teachers, sharing of
goals and interests ranked
second with the mean of 4.15
described as frequently true.
The statement got the highest
rating under sharing of goals
and interests is “involve my
teachers when making
significant changes in our
school” with mean of 4.33;
followed by “establish
supportive climate where
teachers can openly discuss
and understand each other’s
ideas and concerns.” with
mean of 4.23. While the
statement got the lowest mean
of 3.87 is “promote a school
culture with the spirit of
unity”.
The results assert that
promoting the spirit of unity by
 16

involving teachers in decision ethical sensibilities such as

making has a great impact in honesty, reliability and
addressing conflicts in fairness” mean of 3.48
organization. This conforms to described as also described as
Messmer (2001) he proves that frequently true.
employees will work harder to The findings imply that
reach goals if they’re involved the least solution to resolve
in setting them. Employees conflict was values integration.
resent being left out of the loop, Similarly, Tjosvold et al.,
especially when changes are (2014) supported the claim that
going on, which can cause them values integration can also be
to be cynical about future used in facilitating open-
endeavors, their supervisors, minded discussions and
and the company. If kept constructive controversy.
uninformed, they may also
assume the worst with their Table 4 Proposed solution to
jobs at risk. Values conflict as perceived by the
integration ranked last as elementary school heads and
proposed solution to conflict as elementary school teachers
perceived by the school heads School Heads Teachers
with an overall mean of 3.72 Mean Descriptiv Mea Descriptive
described as frequently true. Statement e n Interpretatio
The statement that ranked first Interpretati n

was “accept criticism from my Improved

on
4.0
teachers” with a mean of 4.05 ; communications 4.31 Frequently
True
9 Frequently
True
followed by “consider religious 1.express anger 3.6
practices of my teachers” with constructively. 3.81 Frequently
True
9 Frequently
True
the mean of 4.03. While the 2. listen to each
statement that got the lowest party's side of the
story in an open Frequently Frequently
overall mean of 3.38 was and
judgmental
non- 4.49 True 4.21 True

“relate my actions to ethical manner.

3. avoid harmful 4.35 Frequently 4.17 Frequently
sensibilities such as honesty, and
statements.
negative
True True

reliability and fairness” all the 4. address issues of

concern at an early
Frequently 4.2 Frequently
mean ratings were described as stage and seek
constructive
4.46 True 2 True

frequently true. Likewise, solutions.

5. ensure that
teachers also perceived values there are regular
opportunities for 4.43
Frequently
True 4.16
Frequently
True
integration as the last feedback
performance.
on

proposed solution to conflict as Values integration 3.72

Frequently
True
3.68
Frequently
True

shown by with the mean of 3.68 1.decide based on

moral standards
3.68 Frequently 3.62 Frequently
True True
described as frequently true. 2. relate my
The statement that ranked first actions to ethical
sensibilities such as 3.38
Frequently
True
3.4
8
Frequently
True
was “consider religious honesty, reliability
and fairness
practices of my teachers” with 3.set goal that is
compatible to 3.49 Frequently 3.56 Frequently
the mean of 3.92; followed by values and beliefs
of all teachers
True True

“accept criticism from my 4. accept criticism

from my teacher
4.05 Frequently
True
3.81 Frequently
True
teacher” with the mean of 3.81. 5.consider religious 4.03 Frequently 3.92 Frequently
practices of my
and “relate my actions to teachers
True True
 17

Respect and 4.1

obedience 4.43 Frequently 9 Frequently atmosphere in the school” 4.41
True True
also described as frequently
1. try to adjust my 4.0
priorities to 4.22 Frequently 0 Frequently true and the lowest mean of
accommodate True True
teachers’ needs. 2.92 was obtained by the
2. encourage my
teachers to adjust statement “boost teacher’s
to changing Frequently 4.2 Frequently
situations through 4.49 True 6 True morale” described as
innovation and
creativity. occasionally true.
3. treats teacher
with respect in 4.76
Almost
Always 4.35 Frequently Among the variables
whatever True
circumstances
True
being considered, the
4. objectively
understand what is statement “motivates them to
behind the difficult
person's actions
Frequently
True 4.0
Frequently
True work harder and be more
rather than
reacting right
4.14 8
productive” ranked first among
away.
5. appreciate their the teachers with a mean of
individual Almost 4.2
contribution in the 4.54 Always 8
Frequently
True 4.16 described as frequently
context of overall True
success. true; followed by “creates
Sharing of 4.1
interests/goals 4.34 Frequently
True
5 Frequently
True
positive atmosphere in the
1. involve my
school” with a mean of 4.13
teachers when
making significant
Almost
Always
Frequently also described as frequently
4.59 4.33
changes in our
school.
True
True
true. The least among the
2. promote a school
culture with the
4.65 Almost
Always
3.87 Frequently teachers was the statement
spirit of unity
3. establish
True
True
“lowers teacher’s morale” with
supportive climate
where teachers can
a mean of 2.90 which was
openly discuss and
understand each
Frequently
True
Frequently
True described as occasionally
4.49 4.23
other’s ideas and
concerns.
true.
4. provide them
support, training Frequently
4.0
Frequently
This result implies that
4.41 9
and other needed
resources
True True conflict management must give
5. give my teachers
an equal
great consideration to the
opportunity to be
heard regardless of
Frequently
True
Frequently
True
values and spirituality of the
3.54 4.21
their
tenure
age and leader as well as the follower to
Over all Mean
4.20 Frequently
4.0
3 Frequently
lessen the conflicts. Gibson
True True (2011) study shows that
teachers affirmed that
spirituality and values in
principal leadership could be
Level of Morale of
positively influential when
Teachers
expressed appropriately and
Table 5 presents the accompanied with integrity,
level of morale of teachers quality care for others and
as perceived by the school professional competence.
heads and the teachers
themselves. Among the School Heads Teachers

variables being considered, the Statement

Mean Descriptive
Interpretatio
Mea
n
Descriptive
Interpretatio
statement “allows them to n n

express freely” ranked first 1. Affects

relationship of
the
my 4.00 Frequently 3.75 Frequently
with a mean of 4.49, described teachers
colleagues.
with their True True

as frequently true; followed 2. increases their

productivity in terms of 4.00 Frequently
4.0
7 Frequently

by “creates positive performance.

True True
 18

3.5
3.may lead them role 4.22 Frequently 0
Frequently
True
This means that the null
ambiguity True
hypothesis that states there is
1. Affects the
relationship of my 4.00 Frequently 3.75 Frequently no significant relationship
teachers with their True True
colleagues. between the demographic
4.0
2. increases their
productivity in terms of 4.00 Frequently
True
7 Frequently
True
profile of the elementary school
performance.
3.5
heads and their conflict
Frequently
3.may lead them role
ambiguity
4.22 Frequently
True
0 True management styles in terms of
4. May lead them to 3.2
collaborating is accepted as
aggression, withdrawal
and fixation.
3.54 Frequently
True
0 Frequently
True revealed by their computed t-
2.9 values which are within the
5.lowers teacher’s Frequently Occasional
morale
3.05
True
0
ly True critical value between -1.96 and
3.9 1.96 at 0.05 level of
2.92 Occasional 6 Frequently
6.boost teacher’s morale
ly True True significance.
7.increases cooperation Frequently
4.0
Frequently
This implies that the
4.24 9
among my teachers True True demographic profile of the
8.creates
atmosphere
positive
in the
4.41 Frequently 4.13 Frequently elementary school heads do not
True True
school
4.0
affect their conflict
9. Allows them
express freely.
to 4.49 Frequently
True
8 Frequently
True management styles in terms of
10. satisfies their 4.0 collaborating.
Frequently Frequently
present
position
teaching 4.35
True
7
True This conforms with
11.motivates them to 4.30 Frequently 4.16 Frequently
Vestal (2011), he explained
work harder and be
more productive
True True that the profile such as gender
3.8
Overall Mean 3.96 Frequently 1 Frequently has no significant relationship
True True
on collaborating.

Table 6a. Pearson Moment

Correlation Coefficient r
Correlation Between
showing significant
Profile and Conflict
relationship between
Management Styles of
demographic profile of the
Elementary School Heads
elementary school heads and
in Terms of Collaborating
their conflict management
styles in terms of collaborating
The next table shows Pearson Tabu
Compu lar t-
Moment Correlation Profile
Pears
on r
D
f
ted t- value
Decisi
on
value (α=
Coefficient r showing 0.05
significant relationship Age
0.06
3
5
0.33 1.96
H0:
accept
between demographic profile of Gender
-0.04
3
-0.22 -1.96
H0:
5 accept
the elementary school heads Highest
3 H0:
and their conflict management degree
earned
-0.09
5
-1.26 -1.96
accept
styles in terms of collaborating. Attendan
ce to
Age, gender, highest degree seminar
and
earned and attendance to training -0.21
3
-1.26 1.96
H0:
5 accept
seminar and training related to related to
conflict
conflict does not affect the manage
ment
conflict management of school
-1.96 < c.v. < 19.6
heads in terms of collaborating.
 19

(including competing style) do

Correlation Between not have any correlation.
Profile and Conflict
Management Styles of Table 6b. Pearson Moment
Elementary School Heads Correlation Coefficient r
in Terms of Competing showing significant
relationship between
The next table shows demographic profile of the
Pearson Moment Correlation elementary school heads and
Coefficient r showing their conflict management
significant relationship styles in terms of competing
between demographic profile of Compu
Tabu
lar t-
Pears D Decisi
the elementary school heads Profile
on r f
ted t- value
on
value (α=
and their conflict management 0.05
Age 3 H0:
styles in terms of competing. -0.13
5
-0.75 -1.96
accept
Age, gender, highest degree Gender
-0.06
3
5
-0.37 -1.96
H0:
accept
earned and attendance to Highest
3 H0:
degree 0.16 0.97 1.96
seminar and training related to earned
5 accept

conflict does not affect the Attendan

ce to
conflict management of school seminar
and
heads in terms of competing. training -0.22
3
5
-1.35 -1.96
H0:
accept
related to
This means that the null conflict
hypothesis that states there is manage
ment
no significant relationship -1.96 < c.v. < 19.6
between the demographic
profile of the elementary school Correlation Between
heads and their conflict Profile and Conflict
management styles in terms of Management Styles of
competing is accepted as Elementary School Heads
manifested by their computed in Terms of Avoiding
t-values which are within the
critical value between -1.96 and The next table shows Pearson
1.96 at 0.05 level of Moment Correlation
significance. Coefficient r showing
This implies that the significant relationship
demographic profile of the between demographic profile of
elementary school heads do not the elementary school heads
affect their conflict and their conflict management
management styles in terms of styles in terms of avoiding.
competing. Age, gender, highest degree
The specific findings derived earned and attendance to
from the table affirmed the seminar and training related to
findings published by Southern conflict has no relationship
Nazarene University (2001), with the conflict management
wherein demographics and of school heads in terms of
conflict management styles avoiding.
 20

This means that the null (α=

0.05
hypothesis that states there is Age H 0:
3
no significant relationship 0.07
5
0.40 1.96 acce
pt
between the demographic Gender H 0:
3
profile of the elementary school 0.08
5
0.49 1.96 acce
pt
heads and their conflict Highest H 0:
3
management styles in terms of degree 0.05
5
0.32 1.96 acce
earned pt
avoiding is accepted as shown Attenda
by their computed t-values nce to
seminar
which are within the critical and
H 0:
value between -1.96 and 1.96 at training - 3
-0.10 -1.96 acce
related 0.02 5
0.05 level of significance. to
pt

This implies that the conflict

manage
demographic profile of the ment
elementary school heads do not -1.96 < c.v. < 19.6
affect their conflict
management styles in terms of Correlation Between
avoiding. Profile and Conflict
Henkin et al., (2000) Management Styles of
proved that there was no Elementary School Heads
significant relationship in Terms of Accomodating
between the conflict
management strategies used by The next table shows
head teachers and demographic significant relationship
characteristics in terms of between demographic profile of
avoiding. the elementary school heads
Vestal (2011) also and their conflict management
explains that the profile such as styles in terms of
gender has no significant accommodating.
relationship on conflict- Age, gender, highest
management behaviors and degree earned and attendance
have no significant effect on the to seminar and training related
prediction of avoiding. to conflict has no significant
relationship with the conflict
management of school heads in
Table 6c. Pearson Moment terms of accommodating.
Correlation Coefficient r This means that the null
showing significant hypothesis that states there is
relationship between no significant relationship
demographic profile of the between the demographic
elementary school heads and profile of the elementary school
their conflict management heads and their conflict
styles in terms of avoiding management styles in terms of
accommodating is accepted as
Tab
Comp ular
shown by their computed t-
Pear d Decis
Profile
son r f
uted t- t-
ion
values which are within the
value valu
e
critical value between -1.96 and
 21

1.96 at 0.05 level of Correlation Between

significance. Profile and Conflict
This implies that the Management Styles of
demographic profile of the Elementary School Heads
elementary school heads do not in Terms of
affect their conflict Compromising
management styles in terms of
accommodating. The next table shows
This findings is related with the significant relationship
result of Vestal (2011). He between demographic profile of
explains that the profile such as the elementary school heads
gender has no significant and their conflict management
relationship on the prediction styles in terms of
of accommodating compromising.
Age, gender, highest
degree earned and attendance
Table 6d. Pearson Moment to seminar and training related
Correlation Coefficient r to conflict has no significant
showing significant relationship with the conflict
relationship between management of school heads in
demographic profile of the terms of compromising.
elementary school heads and This means that the null
their conflict management hypothesis that states there is
styles in terms of no significant relationship
accommodating between the demographic
profile of the elementary school
Tab heads and their conflict
ular
Comp t- management styles in terms of
Pear D Decis
Profile
son r f
uted t- valu
ion compromising is accepted as
value e
(α= shown by their computed t-
0.05 values which are within the
Age H 0:
0.06
3
0.33 1.96 acce
critical value between -1.96 and
5
pt 1.96 at 0.05 level of
Gender H 0:
- 3
-0.12 -1.96 acce
significance.
0.02 5
pt This implies that the
Highest H 0:
degree 0.08
3
0.46 1.96 acce
demographic profile of the
5
earned pt elementary school heads do not
Attenda
nce to
affect their conflict
seminar management styles in terms of
and
training 3
H 0: compromising.
0.19 1.14 1.96 acce
related 5
pt
This in contrast with
to
conflict
Mokhtarpour et al, (2013) they
manage explain that there was a
ment
significant relationship
-1.96 < c.v. < 19.6 between the principals’ field of
study and the choice of conflict
 22

solving styles in terms of heads: collaborating,

compromising. competing, avoiding,
accommodating and
Table 6e. Pearson Moment compromising have significant
Correlation Coefficient r relationship with teachers’
showing significant morale.
relationship between This means that the null
demographic profile of the hypothesis that states “there is
elementary school heads and no significant relationship
their conflict management between the conflict
styles in terms of management styles of
compromising elementary school heads and
the teachers’ morale” was
Tab
ular
rejected as shown by their
Pear D
Comp t-
Decis
computed t-values which were
Profile
son r f
uted t-
value
valu
e
ion not within the critical value
(α= between -1.96 and 1.96 at 0.05
0.05 level of significance.
Age H 0:
0.16
3
0.97 1.96 acce The findings imply that
5
pt the conflict management styles
Gender H 0:
0.03
3
0.19 1.96 acce of elementary school heads in
5
pt terms of collaborating,
Highest H 0:
degree
- 3
-0.34 -1.96 acce competing, avoiding,
0.06 5
earned pt accommodating and
Attenda
nce to compromising affect teachers’
seminar morale.
and
training - 3
H 0: The findings of this
-0.15 -1.96 acce
related 0.03 5
pt study did not conform to Vokic
to
conflict and Sontor (2010), that proved
manage that “there is no significant
ment
relationship between the
-1.96 < c.v. < 19.6
conflict management styles of
elementary school heads and
the teachers’ morale”.
Correlation between However, the findings
Conflict Management support Henkin et al, (2000).
Styles of Elementary Their study revealed that three
School Heads and conflict strategies had
Teachers’ Morale significant relationship with
The next table reveals teachers’ job satisfaction.
significant relationship Compromising and
between the conflict accommodating were positively
management styles of related with teachers’ job
elementary school heads and satisfaction. Thus
teachers’ morale. compromising and
The five conflict accommodating seemed to
management styles of school increase job satisfaction among
 23

the public primary school This means that the null

teachers. hypothesis that states “there is
no significant relationship
Table 7. Korin’s Correlation between the personality factors
showing significant relationship and proposed solution” was
between the conflict management
styles of elementary school heads
rejected in terms of improved
and the teachers’ morale communication.
Tabu
Korin’
Com
puted
lar t-
Deci
The same null
Variable
s
Df
t-
value
(α=
sion hypothesis is accepted in terms
value
0.05) of situational, power factors
H0:
Collaboratin rejec and conflict of interest as
g 0.98* 299 82.78 1.96 t
H0: manifested by their computed
Competing 0.98* 299 83.86 1.96
rejec
t
t-values which were within the
H0: critical value between -1.96 and
Avoiding 0.98* 299 77.42 1.96
rejec
t 1.96 at 0.05 level of
Accommod
H0:
rejec
significance.
ating 0.98* 299 80.94 1.96 t The study revealed that
among causes of conflicts
H0:
Compromisi rejec
ng 0.98* 299 81.84 1.96 t
variables under personality
factors affect the proposed
solution to conflict in terms of
Correlation between the communication.
Causes of Conflict and Adejimola (2009) says
Proposed Solutions in that improved communication
terms of Improved is an important non-violent
Communication means of resolving conflict and
The next table shows the is important in promoting,
Pearson Moment Correlation preventing and resolving
Coefficient r showing conflict situations.
significant relationship Table 8a Pearson Moment
between the causes of conflict Correlation Coefficient r
and proposed solution as showing significant
perceived by the school heads relationship on the causes of
in terms of improved conflict and proposed solution
communication. as perceived by the school
Of the four variables as heads in terms of improved
causes of conflict, only communication
Tabu
personality factors affect the lar t-
proposed solution in terms of Variabl Pear D
Comp valu
Decis
uted t- e
improved communication as e son r f
value (α=
ion
shown by the computed t-value 0.05
)
of 3.09 which was greater than Situati H 0:
3
the tabular t-value of 1.96 at onal 0.10
5
0.60 1.96 accep
factors t
0.05 level of significance. Person
0.46 3 H 0:
ality 3.09 1.96
* 5 reject
factors
 24

Power H 0: level of significance.

3
factors 0.26 1.58 1.96 accep
5 The result of this study
t
Conflic implies that among causes of
H 0:
t of 3
-0.01 -0.08 -1.96 accep conflicts, conflict of interests
interes 5
t
t affect the proposed solution to
-1.96 < c.v. < 19.6 conflict in terms of values
integration.

Correlation between the Table 8b Person Moment

Causes of Conflict and Correlation Coefficient r
Proposed Solutions in showing significant
terms of Values relationship on the causes of
Integration conflict and proposed solution
as perceived by the school
heads in terms of values
The next table shows the integration
Pearson Moment Correlation Tabu
Coefficient r showing lar t-
Comp valu
significant relationship Variabl Pear d
uted t- e
Decis
e son r f ion
between the causes of conflict value (α=
0.05
and proposed solution as )
perceived by the school heads Situati
3
H 0:
onal 0.16 0.97 1.96 accep
in terms of values integration. factors
5
t
Of the four variables as Person
3
H 0:
ality -0.11 -0.63 -1.96 accep
causes of conflict, only conflict factors
5
t
of interests affected the Power
3
H 0:
factors 0.25 1.56 1.96 accep
proposed solution in terms of 5
t
values integration as shown by Conflic
t of 0.54 3 H 0:
the computed t-value of 3.79 interes * 5
3.75 1.96
reject
which was greater than the t
tabular t-value of 1.96 at 0.05 -1.96 < c.v. < 19.6
level of significance.
This means that the null Correlation between the
hypothesis that states “there is Causes of Conflict and
no significant relationship Proposed Solutions in
between the conflict of interest terms of Respect and
and proposed solution” was Obedience
rejected in terms of improved
communication. The next table shows the
The same null Pearson Moment Correlation
hypothesis was accepted in Coefficient r showing
terms of situational, significant relationship
personality and power factors between the causes of conflict
as manifested by their and proposed solution as
computed t-values which were perceived by the school heads
within the critical value in terms of respect and
between -1.96 and 1.96 at 0.05 obedience.
 25

Of the four variables as Table 8c Pearson Moment

causes of conflict, only Correlation Coefficient r
personality factors affect the showing significant
proposed solution in terms of relationship on the causes of
respect and obedience as conflict and proposed solution
shown by the computed t-value as perceived by the school
of 2.57 which was greater than heads in terms of respect and
the tabular t-value of 1.96 at obedience
0.05 level of significance. Tabu
This means that the null lar t-
Comp valu
hypothesis that states “there is Variabl Pear d Decis
uted t- e
e son r f ion
no significant relationship value (α=
0.05
between the personality )
factors and proposed solution” Situati
onal -0.01
3
-0.07 -1.96
H 0:
accep
was rejected in terms of respect factors
5
t
and obedience. Person
ality
0.40 3
2.57 1.96
H 0:
The same null factors
* 5 reject

hypothesis is accepted in terms Power

factors 0.20
3
1.18 1.96
H 0:
accep
of situational factors, power 5
t
factors and conflict of interest Conflic
t of 3
H 0:
as manifested by their interes
0.00
5
-0.01 -1.96 accep
t
computed t-values which are t

within the critical value -1.96 < c.v. < 19.6

between -1.96 and 1.96 at 0.05 Correlation Between the
level of significance. Causes of Conflict and
The study revealed that Proposed Solutions in
among causes of conflicts terms of Sharing of
variables under personality Interest and Goals
factors affect the proposed Table 8d shows the
solution to conflict in terms of Pearson Moment Correlation
respect and obedience. Coefficient r showing
This was supported by significant relationship
Bodtker and Jameson (2001) between the causes of conflict
who stated that one of the and proposed solution as
fundamental tenets of conflict perceived by the school heads
resolution is that the parties in in terms of sharing of
the conflict need to respect and interests/goals.
understand each other’s needs Of the four variables as
and perspectives. This is not causes of conflict, only
only understanding and personality factors affected the
respecting people that you proposed solution in terms of
agree with, but also attempting sharing of interests/goals as
to understand and respect shown by the computed t-value
people that you disagree with, of 2.80 which was greater than
and respecting their right to the tabular t-value of 1.96 at
disagree. 0.05 level of significance.
 26

This means that the null conflict and proposed solution

hypothesis that states “there is as by the school heads in terms
no significant relationship of sharing of interests/goals
between the conflict of interest Pe
Compu Tabular t- De
and proposed solution” was Variabl ars d
ted t- value (α= cisi
e on f
rejected in terms of sharing of value 0.05) on
r
interests/goals. Situati
onal
-
3
H0
:
The same null factors
0.
03
5
-0.18 -1.96
acc
hypothesis was accepted in Person
ept
H0
terms of situational factors, ality
0.
43
3
2.80 1.96
:
power factors and conflict of factors
*
5 rej
ect
interest as manifested by their Power H0
computed t-values which were factors 0.1
9
3
5
1.14 1.96
:
acc
within the critical value ept
between -1.96 and 1.96 at 0.05 Conflic
t of
-
3
H0
:
level of significance. interest
0.
09
5
-0.55 -1.96
acc
The study revealed that ept

among causes of conflicts -1.96 < c.v. < 19.6

variables under personality
factors affected the proposed
solution to conflict in terms of
sharing of interests/goals.
The result was related
with (Hughes, 2001) he
explains that conflict resolution
is based on the view that people
have a right and an obligation
to participate in decisions that
affect their lives. As such
conflict resolution stresses that
people are most likely to
achieve their own goals and
have rewarding relationships
when they cooperate. In the
same vein, society will be more
productive. This means that
when in conflict, people should
consider each other as allies in
helping to create a solution to a
common problem rather than
enemies who are to be
defeated.
Table 8d Person Moment
Correlation Coefficient r
showing significant perceived
relationship on the causes of
Respondents’ Perception
on the Significant
Difference of Conflict
Management of
Elementary School Heads
Table 9 presents t-test
showing significant difference
on the perception of the
elementary school heads and
elementary school teachers in
terms of conflict management
styles of the elementary school
heads.
The table shows that
elementary school heads and
elementary teachers has
similar perception in terms of
conflict management of school
heads as shown by their
computed t-value of 1.21 which
is less than the tabular t-value
of 2.02 at 0.05 level of
significance.
This means that the null
hypothesis “there is no
significant difference between
 27

the perception of elementary various conflict management

school heads and elementary styles in educative institutions.
teachers in terms of avoiding”
was accepted.
The same null Table 9. T-test showing
hypothesis was rejected in significant difference on the
terms of collaborating, perception of the elementary
competing, accommodating school heads and elementary
and compromising as school teachers in terms of
manifested by their computed conflict management styles of
t-values which were all greater the elementary school heads
than the tabular t-value at 0.05 Com
Ta
level of significance. bul
M pute Dec
D ar
In other words, the Variable ea d t- isio
f t-
n valu n
elementary school heads and val
e
ue
elementary teachers differ in Collabo Sch
their perception on conflict rating* ool
hea
4.
53
management styles of ds
5 2.0
H 0:
elementary school heads in Sch
ool
4.
17
5
3.93
0
reje
ct
terms of collaborating, tea
competing, accommodating che
rs
and compromising. Compet Sch
The result implies that ing* ool
hea
4.
41
elementary school heads and ds
H 0:
teacher have different Sch 4.
5
7
3.78
2.0
0
reje
perceptions in conflict ool 13
ct

managements in terms of tea

che
collaborating, competing, rs
accommodating and Avoidin
g
Sch
ool
4.
compromising while they have hea
0
8
similar perspective in terms of ds
Sch 3.
4
1.21
2.0
H 0:
acc
avoiding. ool 93
4 2
ept
This finding was fairly tea
che
similar to the study by Patana rs
(2003), where the deans Accom
modati
Sch
ool 4.
conflict management styles, as ng* hea 33
rated by the deans themselves, ds
Sch 4.
4
2.22
2.0
H 0:
reje
were avoiding, collaborating, ool 11
8 1
ct
compromising. As rated by the tea
che
teachers, the dean’s conflict rs
management styles were Compro
mising*
Sch
ool 4.
accommodating, collaborating, hea 40
and compromising. Both school ds
5 2.0
H 0:
Sch 4. 3.31 reje
administrators and teachers ool 0
3 0
ct
depending on the purpose and tea 8
che
situation utilize different or r

c.v. < 2.00


Respondents’ Perception
on the Significant
Difference on the Causes to
Conflict
Table 10a presents the
significant difference on the
causes of conflict as perceived
by the school heads and school
teachers.
The table shows that the
perception of school heads and
teachers had no significant
difference on the causes of
conflict in terms of situational
factors as shown by their
computed t-value of 0.5987
which was lower than the
tabular t-value of 2.45 at 0.05
level of significance. This
means that the null hypothesis
tha “there is no significant
difference between the
perception of school heads and
teachers on causes and
solution to conflict in terms of
situational factors” was
accepted. In other words, the
elementary school heads had
similar perception on the
causes and solution to conflict
in terms of situational factors.
The perception of school
heads and teachers had no
significant difference on the
causes of conflict in terms of
personality factors as
shown by their computed t-
value of -0.1187, which was
within the tabular t-value of -
2.31 at 0.05 level of
significance. This means that
the null hypothesis that “there
is no significant difference
between the perception of
school heads and teachers on
28
causes and solution to conflict
in terms of personality factors”
was accepted. In other words,
the elementary school heads
has similar perception on the
causes and solution to conflict
in terms of personality
factors.
There is no significant
difference on the causes of
conflict in terms of power
factors as shown by their
computed t-value of 0.5080
which is within the tabular t-
value of 2.31 at 0.05 level of
significance. This means that
the null hypothesis that “there
is no significant difference
between the perception of
school heads and teachers on
causes and solution to conflict
in terms of power factors” was
accepted. In other words, the
elementary school heads had
similar perception on the
causes and solution to conflict
in terms of power factors.
The data reveals that
there was no significant
difference on the causes of
conflict in terms of conflict of
interest as shown by their
computed t-value of 0.2676
which was within the tabular t-
value of 2.36 at 0.05 level of
significance. This means that
the null hypothesis that “there
is no significant difference
between the perception of
school heads and teachers on
causes and solution to conflict
in terms of conflict of interest”
was accepted. This also means
that the elementary school
heads had the same perception
on the causes and solution to
 29

conflict in terms of conflict of

interest. Table 10b presents the
This findings contradict significant difference on the
with (Bader 2009),who stated proposed solution to conflict as
that conflict differs when perceived by the school heads
individuals struggle with and school teachers.
differences in goals, abilities The table shows that the
and aptitudes. perception of school heads and
teachers has no significant
Table 10a t-test showing difference on the proposed
significant difference on the solution in terms of improved
causes of conflict as perceived communication as shown by
by the school heads and school their computed t-value of 1.34
teachers which is lower than the tabular
Com
Tab t-value of 2.31 at 0.05 level of
M ular significance. This means that
Causes of D pute Deci
ea t-
conflict f d t- sion the null hypothesis that "there
n valu
value
e is no significant difference
Situat Sch 3.7
ional ool 4 between the perception of
Facto
rs
hea
ds 0.59 2.4
H 0: school heads and teachers on
Sch 3.
6
87 5
acce
pt
proposed solution to conflict in
ool
teac
63 terms of improved
hers communication” was accepted.
Perso
nality
Sch
ool
3.
97
H 0: The result implies that
acce
Facto hea
- pt
elementary school heads had
rs ds
Sch 3.
8 0.118
-
2.31
similar perception on the
ool 99
7 proposed solution to conflict in
teac
hers
terms of improved
Powe Sch 3.7 H 0: communication.
r
Facto
ool
hea
9 acce The computed t- value of
pt
rs ds
8
0.50
2.31
0.27 was within the tabular t-
Sch
ool
3.
68
80 value of 2.45 at 0.05 level of
teac significance. This indicated that
Confli
hers
Sch 3. H 0:
perception of school heads and
ct of ool 66 acce teachers had no significant
intere
st
hea
ds
pt difference on the proposed
0.26 2.3
Sch 3.
7
76 6 solution in terms of values
ool 60 integration. The null
teac
hers
hypothesis that “there is no
significant difference between
the perception of school heads
and teachers on proposed
Respondents’ Perception solution to conflict in terms of
on the Significant values integration” was
Difference on the accepted. This states that
Proposed Solution to elementary school heads and
Conflict teachers have similar
 30

perception on the proposed Crossfield and Bourne (2018),

solution to conflict in terms of who indicated that the
values integration. perception of school principal
Moreover, there is no and teacher respondents had
significant difference on the significant difference in terms
proposed solution in terms of of integrating as a solution in
respect and obedience as managing conflict in schools.
shown by their computed t-
value of 1.78 which was lower Table 10b t-test showing
than the tabular t-value of 2.45 significant difference on the
at 0.05 level of significance. proposed solution to conflict as
This means that the null perceived by the school heads
hypothesis that “there is no and school teachers
significant difference between M
Com Tab
the perception of school heads pute ular De
e D
Causes of conflict d t- t- cisi
and teachers on the proposed a f
valu valu on
n
solution to conflict in terms of e e
Improved Sch 4
respect and obedience” was Commun ool .
accepted. This proves that the ication hea
d
3
1
H 0:
elementary school heads and Sch 4
8 1.34 2.31 acc
ept
teachers have the same ool
teac
.
0
perception on the proposed her 9
solution to conflict in terms of Values
Integrati
Sch
ool
3
.
H 0:
acc
respect and obedience. on hea 7 ept
The data reveals that d
Sch
2
3
6 0.27 2.45
there was no significant ool .
difference on the proposed teac
her
6
8
solution in terms of sharing of Respect Sch 4 H 0:
interest and goal as shown by and
Obedienc
ool
hea
.
4
acc
ept
their computed t-value of 0.87 e d 3
6 1.78 2.45
which is lower than the tabular Sch
ool
4
.
t-value of 2.58 at 0.05 level of teac 1
significance. This means that Sharing
her
Sch
9
4 H 0:
the null hypothesis that “there of ool . acc
is no significant difference interests
and goals
hea
d
5
4
ept
between the perception of Sch 4
5 0.87 2.58

school heads and teachers on ool .

proposed solution to conflict in
terms of sharing of interest
and goal” was accepted. This
also means that the elementary
school heads had the same
perception on the proposed
solution to conflict in terms of
sharing of interest and goal.
The result of this study
is in contrast with that of
teac 1
her 5
Conclusions
Based on the findings of
the study, the following
conclusions were drawn.
1. The respondents vary in their
demographic profile. Three or
8.11 percent of the school heads
 31

were bachelor’s degree holder 9. The respondents had similar

while 117 or 44.32 percent of perception in terms of
teachers has the same collaborating, competing,
educational qualification. accommodating and
Majority of them attended compromising as conflict
limited conflict management management styles of
seminars. elementary school heads.
10. The perception of
2. Collaborating is evident elementary school heads and
and the dominating conflict teachers were similar in terms
management style among of causes of conflicts and
elementary school heads while proposed solution.
they also claimed that
avoiding is an effective Recommendations
conflict management style.
For the Department of
3. The common causes of Education
conflict in school are related to
1. The Department of
personality factors due to
Education should design
different personality of various
seminars and trainings related
teachers.
to conflict management to
4. Respect and obedience is the equip the school heads in
dominant solution in managing handling conflict.
conflict. 2. Monitor the process of
school heads in handling
5. Conflict management styles conflict. Monitoring will serve
influence teachers’ morale. as the basis in designing
seminars and training.
6. The demographic profile of
the school heads has no For the School Heads
significant relationship with the
conflict management style
stated in this study. 1.School heads should pursue
their graduate studies to
7. Conflict management styles enhance their conflict
of elementary school heads management style in handling
allow the teachers to express teachers with different
themselves freely. personalities.
8. The causes of conflict 2. Use collaborating conflict
related to personality factors management styles in handling
affect the proposed solution in conflict rather than avoiding.
terms of improved
communication, respect and 3. Include interpersonal skills
obedience and sharing of and values related training in
interests/ goals. School Learning Action Cell
session to educate the teachers
 32

in handling conflict within their ABDULLAH, S.H.,(2011).

level. Managing in the
Malaysian Context. In
4. Conduct team building to Management in
establish camaraderie among Malaysia. 2nd Ed., pp:
teachers and minimize the 51-72. Kuala Lumpur:
occurrence of conflict related to Malaysian Institute of
personality factors. Management.
5. Confront conflict based on
moral standards giving BODIN, R.J & D.K.
consideration to values and CRAWFORD,(2013).
beliefs of all teachers. Developing Emotional
Intelligence: A
6. Utilize the findings of this
Guide to Behaviour
study to strengthen their skills
Management and
in managing conflict because it
Conflict Resolution in
highly affects the teachers’
Schools. North
morale.
Mattis Avenue: Research
For Teachers Press. Carter
McNamara, Basics of
1.Subscribe online inspirational Conflict
and motivational channels to Management, Adapted
improve their interpersonal from the Field Guide to
skills. Leadership and
Supervision.
2. Focus on the effective
delivery of learning and BLAKE, R.R. & J.S. MOUTON,
maintain good relationship (2014). The Managerial
with coworkers. Grid. Key Orientations
for Achieving
3. Attend trainings related to Production Through
interpersonal skills and values People. Houston, Texas:
related trainings. Gulf Publishing
For Future Researchers Company. BENTLEY,
M., (2015). Conflict
Conduct and validate other Resolution in Schools:
variables that were limited in Quicker Peace and
this study. Service.
Cambridge, U.S.A:
Cambridge University
Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY BENTLEY, R., & A. REMPEL,
(1980). Manual for the
Purdue Teacher
BOOKS Opinionnaire West
Lafayette. IN: Purdue
 33

University, Centre for FISHER, R.J., (2014).

Instructional Services. Interactive Conflict
Resolution. Syracuse
CRAGAN, J. G., & D.W. University Press:
WRIGHT, (2014). Syracuse, New York.
Communication in Small
Group discussions. St. HALL, J. (2015). Conflict
Paul, Minnesota: West Management Survey.
Publishing Co. Austin, Texas:
Teleometrics, Inc.
CRESWELL, J.W., & P.
CLARK HOCKER, J. L., &
(2007).Designing and W.W.WILMOT, (2015).
Conducting Interpersonal Conflict.
MixedMethods Dubuque, Iowa:
Research. Thousand Wm. C. Brown
Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Publications.
MESSMER,M.(2001).Interper-
CRYSTAL T., (2007). “Conflict sonal Skills: The New
Management Styles.” Essential in Accounting,
University of Maryland The National Public
Extension. National Ag Accountant 46(1):PP
Risk Library 2819
DEETZ, S.A., & S.L. PACE, R. W. (2013).
STEVENSON, (2014). Orsanizational
Managing Communication.
Interpersonal Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Communication. New Prentice-Hall, Inc.
York: Harper and ROW.
ROBBINS, S. P., (2014).
DONOHUE, W.A.& R. Managing
KOLT,(2012). Managing Organizational Conflict.
Interpersonal Conflict. Englewood Cliffs, N.
Newbury Park, CA: J.: Prentice-Hall,
Sage Publications. Inc.
DEUTSCH, M., (2015). TING-TOOMY, S., (2012).
Cooperation and Intercultural Conflict
Conflict. In West, M.A, Styles. A Face
Tjosvold, D. & Negotiation Theory.
Smith, K.G. The In Y.Y. Kim and
essentials of teamwork: W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.)
International Theories in
perspective. Maryland: Intercultural
Wiley. Communication. (pp.
213-235) Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.
 34

TJOSVOLD D., K.LEUNG & conflict resolution

D.W. JOHNSON education: The Ohio
.(2014). Cooperative and Model of conflict
Competitive Conflict Resolution Education
in China: pp: 654-78 Quarterly, vol: 19, no.
4, Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
JOURNALS/RESEARCH BODTKER, A.M. & JAMESON,
REPORTS/PERIODICALS J. K. (2001) "Emotion in
conflict formation and
ADEJIMOLA, A. S. (2009).
its transformation:
Language and
Application to
communication in
organizational conflict
conflict resolution.
management",
Journal of Law and
International Journal of
Conflict Resolution Vol.
Conflict Management,
1(1), pp. 001-009.
Vol. 12 Issue: 3, pp.259
Retrieved from:
275,
http://www.academicj
https://doi.org/10.1108
urnals.org/JLCR
eb022858
ADEOLA, A. O.
BENNET,R.(2001). Orientation
(2003)Communication
to work and some
Style and Conflict
implications for
management in secondary
management,
schools. Paper Presented
Journal of Management
at the Annual National
Studies, 1, 149-62.
Conference of the
Nigerian Association of
BIJLSMA, K., & P. KOOPMAN
Educational
(2003) Introduction:
Administration and
Trust within
Planning (NAEAP),
organizations.
University of Ibadan, 28th
Personnel Review, 32(5),
-31st October.
543–555.
ALIMBA, C. N. & M. FABUNMI BODTKER, A. M., & J.K.
(2011). An exploratory JAMESON.(2001)
study on the nature, Emotion in conflict
causes and effects of formation and its
conflict in selected transformation:
public secondary schools Application to
in Nigeria. Journal organizational conflict
of Pedagogical Thought, management. The
4, 97-110 International Journal of
Conflict Management, 3,
BATTON, J. (2012). 259-275.
Institutionalizing
 35

BOOHAR, D., (2011). Resolving GHAFFAR, A. 2007. Conflict in

conflict without schools: Its causes &
punching someone out. management strategies.
Fort Worth Business Journal for Managerial
Press, 13: 22. Services. Pp: 212-213 V.
III, N II
CETIN, M.O & O.
HACIFAZLIOGLU HENKIN, A.B, P.J CISTONE, &
(2004). Academics’ J.R. DEE, (2000)
conflict management Conflict strategies of
styles. Dogus Universitesi principals in site- based
Dergisi, 5(2): 155-162 managed schools,
Journal of Educational
DEUTSCH, M. (2014). Administration 38, 2.
Constructive conflict
resolution: Principles, KARIP, E. (2000). Confl ict and
training, and research. its management.
Journal of Social Issues, Ankara: Pegem
50(1), 13-32.
KENNEDY, J.C., (2012).
ELLIS K. & P. ZABALAK Leadership in Malaysia:
(2001). Trust in top Traditional values,
management and international outlook.
immediate Academy of
supervisor: The Management Executive,
relationship to 16: 3.
satisfaction, perceived
KILMANN, R. & K. THOMAS,
organizational
(2015). "Interpersonal
effectiveness, and
conflict handling
information receiving.
behavior as
Communication
reflections of Jungian
Quarterly, 49:4, 382-
personality dimensions."
398,
PsychologicalReports
EVANS, L. (2000). The effects 37: 971-980.
of educational change on
MANSOR, N. & J. KENNEDY,
morale, job satisfaction
(2012). Malaysian
and motivation. Journal
culture and the
of Educational Change,
leadership of
1(2), 173-192.
organizations: A GLOBE
FIORE, T. (2006). Resolving study. Malaysian Manag.
workplace conflict: Four Rev., 35: 44-53.
ways to a win-Win
MOKHTARPOUR S., M.
solution. Executive
KHADEMI & H.
Women International, 4,
MOKHTARPOUR
(2): 1-4
(2013). Survey of
Relationship
 36

betweenpPrincipals’ http://home.snu.edu/~
demographic culbert /conflict .html.
characteristics and
conflict SWEENEY, B. & CARUTHERS,
management style (2015). W. L. Conflict
choices. Journal of resolution: History,
Advances in Medical philosophy, theory and
Education and educational applications.
Professionalism School Counselor, 43.

OETZEL, J.G., S. TING THOMAS, K.W., 2015. Conflict

TOOMY, T. and conflict
MASUMOTO, Y. management. In M.D.
YOKOCHI, X. PAN, J. Dunnette (Ed.),
TAKAI & R.WILCOX, Handbook of Industrial
(2011). Face and and Organizational
facework in conflict: A Psychology, pp: 889 935.
crosscultural Chicago: Rand McNally.
comparison of China,
THOMAS, D., (2011).
Germany, Japan and the
Decentralization as a
United States.
management tool. Paper
Communication
presented to the
Monographs, 68 (3).
American Management
PERRY, D & J. MCDANIEL, Association Annual
(2003) Preparing pre- Conference and
service educators to Exposition, New York
break up fights…before City, New York.
they happen. Conflict
TONDER, V., AND B. C.
Management in Higher
Education Report. 4 (1): LESSING.(2003). From
1-4. identity to organization
RAHIM, M.A. & T.V. identity: The evolution
BONOMA, (2014). of a concept. Journal of
Managing organizational Industrial Psychology 29
conflict: A model for (2): 20–8.
diagnosis and
intervention. Psychol. VELLANI, K. H. (2001). Don't
Reports, 44: 323-1344. let your guard down.
Security Management,
SOUTHERN NAZARENE
45(10): PP 88-92
UNIVERSITY
(2001).Conflict VOKIC & SONTOR (2010).The
Management and relationship between
strategies and styles. individual
Retrieved September, characteristics and
2014 from conflict handling styles
the case of Croatia.
 37

Problems and Secondary School

Perspectives in Administrators in
Management. Vol. 8 Cagayan Province,
(Issue 3). Philippines, Iamure
International Journal of
WALL, J.A. AND R.R. Multidisciplinary
CALLISTER, Research.
(2015).Conflict and its
management. J. ARGON, T. (2014). Conflicts at
Manag., 21: 515-558. Schools and Their
Impact on Teachers.
WHITAKER, T., ET. AL.
Abant İzzet Baysal
(2000). Motivating &
University, Faculty of
inspiring teachers: The
Education. Redfame
educational leader’s
Publishing.
guide for building staff
morale. Larchmont, NY: BADER, D. G. (2009). The
Eye on Education. degree of the existence
Research, 3 (2), 159-177. of organizational conflict
between the teachers in
WORLD BANK (2005). ‘A
the schools of the
Unique Approach to
Secretariat of Christian
Solving Conflicts in
educational institutions
Organizations in
in Jordan and the
Sub Saharan Africa.
methods of dealing with
Netherlands: The World
it from the
Bank.
standpoint of
YE (2017). The Relationship administrators, teachers
Between The Teachers’ (unpublished Master
Demographics and Their Thesis). Yarmouk
Conflict Management University, Irbid:
Styles At Anuban Jordan.
Damrongrachanusorn
BELL, A. (2002). Six Ways to
School, Sisaket,
Resolve Workplace
Thailand
Conflicts. McLaren
School of Business,
YOUNG, D. J. (2000). Teacher
University of San
morale in Western
Francisco.
Australia: A multilevel
model. Learning BENNAGEN & YE, 2015). The
Environment Relationship of Principal
Conflict Management
Style and School
THESIS/DISSERTATIONS Climate. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved
AZURIN, W. (2013) Conflict from
Management Styles of
 38

http://scholarcommons Effectiveness Social

sc.edu/etd/948 Work: Use of the Myers
Briggs Conflict Pairs in
BERNALDEZ & GEMPES Assessing Conflict.
(2016). The Mediating Oxford University
Effect Of Conflict Press.
Management Styles Of
School Heads On The GHAFFAR, A. et al. (2010).
Relationship Between Conflict in Schools: Its
Ethical Climate Causes & Management
and Organizational Strategies. Unpublished
Commitment Among PhD Thesis – Qurtuba
Public Elementary University of Science
Schools In Region and Information
XI.University of Technology, Pakistan
Mindanao, Davao City,
GIBSON, A. R. (2011).
Philippines.
Spirituality in principal
leadership and its
BORA, B. M. & R.C. PHILLIPS,
influence on teachers
(2001). A Study of
and teaching (Thesis,
Mentors and Portages in
Doctor of Philosophy
Business and
(PhD). University of
Academia’ (source
Waikato, Hamilton, New
ERIC).
Zealand. Retrieved from
CADIZ, VILLENA & VELASCO https://hdl.handle.net/
(2016). A Conflict 0289/5176
Management Program
HARDY, B. (2010). Morale:
for Teachers.Philippines
definitions, dimensions
Normal University
and measurement.
CROSSFIELD, D. & P.A. (Doctoral
BOURNE (2018). dissertation). University
Management of of Cambridge.
Interpersonal Conflict
HUAN.,YAZDANIFARD &
between Principals and
RASHARD,(2012). “The
Teachers in Selected
Difference of Conflict
Secondary Schools in
Management Styles and
Bermuda. International
Conflict Resolution in
Journal of Research in
Workplace.” Business
Business Studies and
and Entrepreneurship
Management. Northern
Journal. Scienpress Ltd.
Caribbean University,
London. U.K.
Mandeville, Jamaica
HUGHES, C. (2001). An
EILERMAN D., (2006),
Investigation of Conflict
Building Conflict
Management in
Management
 39

Cambodia Villages, PATANA G. (2003). Conflict

University of Cambodia Management Styles of
Centre for Development the Deans in
Research. Assumption University
of Thailand and the
ICUTAN,S. & C. SAGAONIT University of Santo
(2017) Conflict and Tomas of the
Resolutions of School Philippines: A
Administrators for Comparative Study
Innovative and (Master’s Thesis).
Administrative Program Assumption University
in Urdaneta City of Thailand, Bangkok,
University, Asia Pacific Thailand.
Journal of
Contemporary SISUNGO, Z. (2012). The
Education and Influence of
Communication Headteachers’
Technology. Management Skills on
School Climate.
LEWICKI, R., P. ELGOIBAR, & Unpublished Doctoral
M. EUWEMA (2016). Thesis presented to
The tree of trust: Egerton University
Building and
repairing trust in TING-TOOMY, S. (2012).
organizations. In P. Cross-cultural
Elgoibar, M. Euwema, & facenegotiation: An
L. Munduate (Eds.), analytical overview.
Trust building and Paper presented in
constructive conflict Simon Fraser University
management in at Harbour Centre.
industrial relations. The
VESTAL, (2011). An
Netherlands: Springer
Investigation of
Verlag.
Preferred Conflict
MOMANYI, L.K., (2011). Management Behaviors
Effects of Principals' In Small-School
Conflict Management Principals . Office of
Styles on Graduate Studies of
Performance of Texas A&M University.
Teachers' Duties in
Public Secondary
(http://www.practical
Schools in Masaba
management
South area, Kisii County,
skills.com/Retrieved
Kenya (Doctoral
January 21. 2016)
Dissertation, University
(http://www.mindstool.
of Nairobi, Kenya).
com)
40