CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Conflict within the organization is certainly not a new phenomenon and

it is widely acknowledge that disputes within the organization can give

negative results in different ways (Schieberl, 2010). And law firms are not

exempted from it. In fact, much of what a lawyer does the staff does.

Resolution of disputes, using a standardized set of rules is a skill in the legal

practice (Raasch, 2008). Hence, knowing legal staffs’ conflict resolution styles

will help law firm Human Resource (HR) managers handle disputes among

them (Hayes, 2009).

According to Sandra Boyer, a lawyer from the United States, conflict

can be very disruptive and unproductive, conflict can be healthy, but

unmanaged conflict can be chaotic. Members of the law firms who have

different opinions need to understand the differences, for them to produce a

new idea and achieve new outcomes and if members work together for this

goal, collaboration progresses and creates new opportunity for growth and

success (Boyer, 2008)

Martines (2008) stated that legal staff manifests aggressive behaviours

and shows defensive mechanism, which are influence by the law practice

environment. Additionally, she held that different conflict resolution styles that
 2

are developed and used here in the Philippines can be reflective to certain

factors surrounds the staff themselves and the professional culture itself.

According to Nancy Kim (2008), one of the programs that Asian

Foundation where being implemented to the southern part of the Philippines

are Legal Reform and Conflict Management, where they constantly uphold

legal education, mediation, and awareness of styles of dispute resolution to

address conflicts in an organization for both inside and outside the legal

system. Hence, they formalize the Alternative Dispute Resolution by

partnering with the Conflict Resolution Group (CoRe) and obtain an Executive

Order from the president and trained legal practitioners around Mindanao

region.

Conflict Resolution Style (CRS) is one of individual’s leadership

characteristic that will help organizations’ effectiveness in achieving its goal

(Boucher, 2013). Bartlertt (2009) cited that it is necessary for organization to

give workers training in conflict resolution so that organization can also

benefit, in fact, study shows that some of the employees are not still prepare

in handling conflict in the workplace. Moreover, this study will discover the

importance of knowing there conflict resolution style as to the significant

difference with the demographic profile of staff in legal offices in Davao City,

Philippines.
 3

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study aimed to determine the significant relationship among the

conflict resolution styles of staff in legal offices in Davao City.

Specifically, this study is intended to answers the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of staff in legal offices in Davao

City in terms of:

1.1. Sex

1.2. Age

1.3. Educational Background

1.4. Civil Status; and

1.5. Length of service?

2. What is the level of conflict resolution styles of respondents in terms

of:

2.1. Avoidance

2.2. Collaboration

2.3. Competitiveness

2.4. Compromise; and

2.5. Accommodation?
 4

3. Is there a significant difference of conflict resolution styles among

the staff of legal offices in Davao City when grouped according to

their demographic profile?

HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY

Ho. There is no significant difference in conflict resolution styles of the

respondents when grouped according to sex, age, educational background

and status.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This section presents the prominent points from various literatures and

studies that are important to this study. This further explain points,

observations and fact cited by experts on the study specifically conflict

resolution style of legal staff, results and factors affecting resolution styles. In

order to gather information on related studies and literature, the researcher

examined journals, periodicals, unpublished theses, book, articles from the

internet and others.

Conflict

Conflict occurs when two or more individual disagree with a belief or

opinion, and a resolution is needed to move forward (Bright, 2008). Conflict is

managed when it no longer interferes with the ongoing activities of parties

involved; it is the process of removing cognitive barriers to agreement

(Patana, 2008).
 5

Conflict is part of individual’s daily life. Conflict can be any states in

which individual have mismatched principles, feelings, experience, and

interest towards another person (Baumgardner, 2012).

As cited by Schieberl (2010), a study where conducted about sources

of interpersonal conflicts in the workplace. Study shows 62 percent of the

main issues came from conflicts between subordinates and supervisors such

as refusal of employee’s proposal unclear job descriptions, performance

evaluations, schedules and workloads. And 61 percent of the primary issues

regarding conflict between co-workers are personalities, allocation of

assignments and work ethics.

Conflict Resolution

According to a study conducted by Bartlett (2009), gender, age and

educational level had no significant relationships with any of the five conflict

resolution style among college leaders. Additionally, data shows that as the

work experience increased, collaborating, competing and avoiding conflict

resolution styles also used frequently.

Motivation of employees produces productivity, effectiveness and

efficiency. Barbuto and Xu (2008) studied the relationship of source of

motivation and conflict resolution styles. Data was collected from leaders that

worked in different organizations in the United States. Study shows that

competing, compromising, avoiding and accommodating conflict resolution

styles were related to more than one of the motivation sources. Only

collaborating style has no significant relationship with the conflict resolution

style of leaders.
 6

Mike Myatt (2012) point-out five keys of dealing with workforce conflict.

According to Myatt, while having a conflict resolution style is important,

effective utilization of conflict resolution processes is ultimately dependent

upon the ability of all parties to understand the benefit of conflict resolution

and perhaps more importantly, their desire to resolve the matter. He pointed

this tips that can help to more effective handle conflicts in the workplace:

Define Acceptable Behaviour, Hit Conflict Head-on, Understanding the WIIFM

(What’s In It for Me) Factor, The Importance Factor, and View Conflict as

Opportunity

In an article in the Harvard Business Review by Carver and Vondra,

they studied the application of conflict resolution style to internal conflicts to

organization (Schieberl, 2010). They (Carver and Vondra) said that “Back in

the 1980’s experts and executives alike heralded conflict resolution style as a

efficient cost-effective way to reduce corporation court litigations and that

demolish winners as much as losers.” (Schieberl, 2010).

Peter Philips in his article in an HR Focus considers reasons to

arbitrate internal organizational disputes (Schieberl, 2010). As cited by Jeffrey

Schieberl (2010) a panel of 71 of staff in law firms and lawyers who were at

an Institute for Dispute Resolution meeting released a report that the need of

using conflict resolution style to business organizations is essential in

resolving intra-organizational disputes.

According to the study of CPP Global, Inc., that, 85 percent of the

employees of Netherlands needed to handle conflicts to selected degree, 29

percent are always or frequently. However in Germany, figures were

surprisingly jump-up to 56 percent while in Ireland 37 percent and in the

 7

United States of America where 36 percent in giving time for resolving

conflicts.

About the question if they deal with conflict in the workplace, 29

percent said that they face conflict “always or frequently” and only around 14

percent said that they don’t deal with disputes. When they were asked what

triggers the conflict in workplace research founds that almost half of all the

employees around 49 percent is personality issues and second where about

34 percent said that conflict is caused by stress while 33% pointed pressure

as a factor for dispute (Hayes, 2009).

Preschel (2013) shared some tips on managing conflicts such as

protecting relationship should be the most important rather than winning an

argument, Do not dwell on the old issues the ability to resolve conflict may be

weaken, Think about if arguing is worth winning, and Know when to let an

argument pass.

According to Hitt, et.al (2014) for a conflict resolution style to be

effective, this must be handle correctly. Additionally, they mentioned that there

is a lot of ways in handling conflicts, it can be by the individual themselves, or

a third party such as an adjudicator. In conflict resolution, they should follow

the steps to be effective: First, Make a Diagnosis, if it is functional then there

is no resolution needed otherwise, resolution methods should be applied.

Second, select a suitable conflict resolution style, different conflicts needs

different treatment. Third, implement the conflict resolution styles efficiently, it

should be treated carefully since conflict are highly sensitive and needs a

proficiency in resolving. Lastly, Follow-up, this is to ensure that conflict has

been resolved.
 8

Conflict Resolution Style

According to Baumgardner (2012), when conflict can be properly

handled, it will bring positive opportunity such as. He stated that conflict is

necessary in relationship because conflict resolution can build relationships

since it encourages listening to both sides for a greater affinity. Additionally,

he held that conflict can release endorphins since it can express emotions

that will condense stress.

People respond to conflict in different ways (Hitt, et.al, 2014). Conflict

resolution can lead to desired organizational outcomes such as fairness,

satisfaction and effectiveness (Abas, 2010). As cited by Abas 2010, Gross

and Guerro rated the accommodating style as the most effective on the other

hand the avoiding style was the least effective. The competitive style inflames

conflicts in organization, while accommodating, and collaborating lessen

conflict and prove to be effective (Abas, 2010; Janssen, & van de Vliet, 1996).

Abas (2010) tested the significant relationship of supervisors’ and

employees’ conflict resolution style of the XYZ University employees. Results

shows that collaborating and compromising resolution style was the most

used style of subordinates in facing conflicts with their supervisors while the

competitive style is the least used by the subordinates.

Patana (2008) also conducted a study exploring the demographical

profile of deans of two universities from different countries if it is significantly

related. The result shows that the Assumption University in Thailand dean’s

nationality significantly influences their conflict resolution styles. And the

demographic profiles of both universities do not significantly influence the

styles of deans from both universities. Both The Thai and Filipino
 9

administrators and managers do advocate a harmonious relationship in the

workplace.

According to Berman (2008), conflict can be avoided if a series of steps

in handling discussion to lessen anger and build communication. He

presented some essential ways to renounce disputes in early stages, before

getting worst. Stay calm. To remain calm, it helps to look at the big picture. If

you think about it, most every dispute gets resolved eventually. So when

conflict inevitably happens, it is going to be resolved eventually (Berman,

2008).

The awareness of level of conflict in different organizations plays a vital

role in understanding conflict resolution style (Abas, 2010; Rahim, 1986). By

knowing or assessing the conflict resolution style can help in improving law

firm’s productivity. And by assessing the conflict resolution styles of

employees in the workplace, it can help HR managers in the legal offices to

resolve disputes.

According to a study conducted by Gupta, et.al, (2011) managers use

more than one style even if those styles are not appropriate for the issues,

and that they react to a certain dispute based on how their emotions feel and

not what they think they should.

Thomas and Killman’s conflict resolution model was selected as the

major theoretical framework of this research study. The five conflict

resolutions styles are competing, collaborating, competing, avoiding, and

accommodating. Definitions of the following styles are discussed below.

 10

Competitive Style

Competitive is a power-oriented style. This resolution style is pursuing

his or her side regardless if it’s on the other person’s expense in whatever

forms for him or her to win his or her stand (Trainer, 2010). This style will

surely create a winner and a loser, and it will bring advantages and

disadvantage to the firm. The loser may become an unproductive employee

and will gain hatred that will result to bad work ethics (Boyer, 2008). Thus, the

HR manager of a legal office should commit in giving a positive community for

lawyers and staff inside the organization.

Competitive people are most likely had high regard for himself and low

regard for the other (Bartlett, 2009). Most of the times, vigorous attitude are

used just to win the argument (Bartlett, 2009). Moreover, competitive

individual ignores the feelings of the other side, seems want to succeed at any

cost, and is willing to use power and authority to satisfy his or her dominance

(Rahim, Magner & Shapiro, 2000).

Stanley (2009) stated that when competing to an individual pursues his

or her own concerns at the other person’s expense, using whatever authority

seems applicable to win his or her position – the ability to argue. Dubrin

(2009) agrees that competitive style is preferred to one’s own concern at the

expense of the other party.

Robbins (2015) refers competitive as an aspiration to satisfy

individual’s significance regardless of the negative impact to other party.

This style which also means dominating attempts to overwhelm an

opponent with authority, threats, or use of power. Its underlying features are

assertive and uncooperativeness (Patana, 2008).

 11

According to Bright (2008) this kind of conflict resolution works if an

authority will be established between parties to fulfil the sort- or long-term

goals of the company. However, there is a high potential that the losing party

may hold feelings of resentment that can lead to another conflict because the

personal side in the competitive environment can effect relationships (Bright,

2008).

Hayes (2009) held that using this style will initially give you satisfaction

but will surely affect the long-term relationship and if overly used may create a

very competitive environment to all co-workers that will cause a damage to

the business.

Collaborating Style

The Collaboration style is contrary from avoiding style. It means two

parties are being considered, a collective style of problem-solving can reach

acceptable solutions. This style of conflict resolution allows parties to

downplay difference (Boyer, 2008). With collaboration, assurance is

guaranteed through a harmonious result and unpleasant feelings are avoided

(Patana, 2008).

According to Moorhead and Griffin (2008) that parties to conflict

resolution may partially have difficult working out the ways in which all can

achieve their goals. However, because the relationship is vital to goal

attainment since parties are willing to meet halfway.

A situation in which the parties to a conflict each desire to satisfy fully

the concern of all parties (Robbins, 2015).

 12

The collaborating style represents a combination of assertiveness and

cooperativeness. It involves an attempt to satisfy the concerns of both sides

through honest discussion. For this style to be successful, trust and openness

are required of all participants (Patana, 2008)

Collaboration works best with long-term solutions (Bright, 2008). Bright

(2008) believed that one of the disadvantage of this style is that it can be time

consuming because everyone must depart happy. Also, both parties are

interested in moving forward in achieving same goal with collaboration to

work.

Like all team leaders, collaboration believes in trust and communication

for a team to work and without rooting to this fact, collaboration will be very

difficult (Hayes, 2009).

Accommodating Style

According to Jane Trainer, in accommodating, an individual disregard

his or her concern to give the other person satisfaction. Basically, it’s an

opposite of competing. This might give an impression that an accommodating

person has a selfless generosity in giving way to other party even if you prefer

not to yield to other’s point of view (Trainer, 2010).

In this style is one of the most of effective resolution style. Participants

are willing to accept the fact that others have meritorious positions, and then

attempt to understand their thinking and respect the differences (Boyer,

2008).

The advantage to this conflict resolution style is that conflict can be

immediately be resolved, which helps the short-term goals (Bright, 2008).

 13

However, Bright (2008) notes that accommodation can make the

accommodating party less of self-esteem.

According to Hayes (2009) the person that is using this approach is

simply investing relationship with his or her co-worker; this approach is best

used in customer-related or team-based business where you are building

networks for the future.

Avoiding Style

The conflict resolution through conflict Avoidance can be very

unfavourable to a legal office. This style makes person concerned to avoid the

person and circumstance that creates conflict (Boyer, 2008). Under this style,

may be postponed or ignored (Patana, 2008). On some circumstances, to

avoid conflict is diplomatic, specially, when issues and concerns is so much

imperative.

When avoiding, an individual does not immediately pursue his case or

the other party. They do not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form

of diplomacy in resolving issue, sometime suspended to find a better time

discuss such issue (Stanley, 2009).

This style has identified as withdrawal, buck-passing or side-stepping

solutions (Abas, 2010). This also implies, that an individual will either improve

a difficult situation or attempt to appear neutral (Patana, 2008).

The disadvantage of this style is that conflict that is not deal with can

delay long-term goals and avoiding conflicts may cause boiling of emotions

and that will result to not achieving the organization’s goal (Bright, 2008).
 14

For this style to work, Hayes (2009) said that do not be a peacemaker

as an excuse to address conflict that will eventually make something worse if

not resolved.

Compromising Style

In Compromising, an individual’s objective is to look for a beneficial and

equally satisfactory for the both parties (Trainer, 2010). This is conceivably

one of the weakest styles because individual tend to compromise their

position beforehand thinking that they needed it during the process of

resolving issues within the organization (Boyer, 2008). Compromising is a

temporary solution if other resolution styles don’t work. However,

compromising should not be an option if goals are at stake and being forceful

is necessary.

In this style, there is no clear winner and loser but rather, it gives a ratio

of acceptance of solution that provides incomplete satisfaction (Robbins,

2015).

Abas (2010) findings show that compromising means weakness to the

competitive persons. Additionally, this conflict resolution style is one of the

least used in the five resolution style (Abas, 2010, Graham, 1998).

Contrary, according to Hayes (2010), this conflict resolution style

shows maturity other than the other, because this style needs individual to

give-up something, and it takes a lot of maturity (Patana, 2008).

The advantage of this style is it gives a fair outcome to the persons

involve while on the other side, it will not give satisfaction to both parties in the

negotiation table (Bright, 2008).

 15

Research showed that this kind of conflict resolution style was

preferred by senior-level administrators, followed by competing,

compromising, avoiding, and accommodating style (Bartlett, 2009).

THEORETICAL/ CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework of this study was based on the conflict

resolution styles model of Thomas and Killmann (1974). Thomas cited two

factors of conflict management behavior which is cooperativeness and

assertiveness. By the application of the two basic behavior results with

different conflict-handling behavior that can be classified to five such as:

Avoidance, Collaboration, Competitiveness, Compromise, and

Accommodation (Patana, 2008).

 16

MAIN VARIABLE

Conflict Resolution Styles

1. Avoidance

2. Collaboration

3. Competitiveness

4. Compromise

5. Accommodation

Profile of the Respondents

1. Sex

2. Age

3. Education

4. Status

5. Length of Service

MODERATING VARIABLE

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

 17

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The results of this research study would help the following persons and

clientele:

Legal Staff. This study will enable them to access, and utilize their

conflict resolution style for them to have a harmonious relationships towards

handling conflict disputes with their co-workers.

HR Manager. They can gather data for more viewpoints on conflict

resolution style and be able to intervene properly in internal office dispute

resolution.

Lawyers. This study would improve their way of understanding of

conflict resolution styles of their legal staff in the firm.

Future Researcher. The result would serve as additional information

in conflict resolution style related studies.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

For clearness of key terms used in this research study, the functioning

definition is provided below:

Conflict Resolution Style. It means ways of facing issues, concerns

and different point views particularly problems encountered at life situations

and worksites such as law firms.

 18

Staff. It refers to the legal assistant, legal researcher, and paralegal

officers working in a law firm.

Legal Offices. This refers to the selected law firms in Davao City

where this study was conducted.

 19

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research method and procedures used by

the researcher in this study. It includes the research design, research

respondents, instruments used, collection of data, and statistical treatment

employed in analyzing the data. Moreover, this study conducted a survey in

order to remain goals and to not either to inspire or disappoint the

participants’ point of view.

Research Design

The research method that was used in this study was descriptive

method. This method can easily determine the latest demographic profile of

staff in legal offices in Davao City. Descriptive research is primarily utilized

when researcher wants to know a deeper comprehension to a certain topic; its

best used when research is a fact-finding study and when collection of data

through questionnaires, interviews and observations is implicated in achieving

the goal (Manguiob & Bonite, 2014).

Moreover, this research method design acquired data of the current

level of demographic profile of staff in legal offices and the conflict resolution

styles of the respondents. Thus, this will give a representation of possible

changes in their conflict resolution style.

 20

Research Subject

The staffs of legal offices in Davao City were the respondents for this

study, defined as any employees under the supervision of the legal office. The

conductor of this research used convenient purposive sampling and where the

status and responses were considered confidential at utmost care. The

sample was divided to different legal offices to determine the sample size of

30 respondents.

Research Instruments

The research instrument used in this study was adapted from Johnson

(2010). This questionnaire was showed to the adviser for validation and other

recommendation. Implications for revisions were carefully noted and

integrated. The adviser identified the demographic profile of the research

respondents.

The questionnaire is divided into two parts. Part one (1) is the

demographic profile of the respondents and part two (2) was based on the

indicators from the Thomas and Killman Conflict Resolution Style Model

comprised of 25 adapted questions to measure the five variables, using a five

(5) Liker scale which means:

 21

SCALE RANGE DESCRIPTION INTERPRETATION

VALUE

5 4.50 – 5.00 Very High This means that the

specific indicator is high

preferable.

4 3.50 – 4.49 High This means that the

specific indicator is very

highly preferable.

3 2.50 – 3.49 Moderate This means that the

specific indicator is

moderately preferable.

2 1.50 – 2.49 Low This means the specific

indicator is low

preferred.

1 1.00 – 1.49 Very This means the specific

indicator is low

preferred.

Data gathering Procedures

The following are the procedures in conducting the gathering of the

research data.

Seeking Permission to conduct the study. Letter of permission to

conduct the study were given to the Head of Office of the selected Legal

Offices in Davao City.

 22

Administration of questionnaire. After the permission granted, the

questionnaire were explained and administered to the respondents.

Retrieval of the questionnaires. The researcher gathers the

questionnaires and tabulated for statistical analysis.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The statistical tools employed in interpreting the data gathered were

the following:

Frequency and Percentage. This was used to determine the

demographic profile of the staff in legal offices in Davao City.

Mean. This was used to know the conflict resolution styles among staff

of legal offices.

T – test and F – Test. These were used to know the significant

difference on the conflict resolution style among staff of legal offices when

grouped according to their demographic profile.

 23

CHAPTER 3

PRESENTATION ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The results and findings of this study where presented in this chapter. The data was

culled from the thirty (30) respondent staff and secretaries of the selected legal offices in

Davao City. The researcher used the validated survey questionnaire as tool in gathering data.

The researcher conducted the survey in selected legal offices last March 2016

particularly at Lopez-Evangelio Law Office, Jao Law Offices, Villanueva Zeta Bata & Evangelio

Law Offices, Delgra Law Office, Batiller & Sarmiento Law Offices, Camino Law Office, and

Dumlao Consultancy & Notary, to know the conflict resolution styles among its staff and

secretaries.

Thus, this study believes that it will be a great help to law offices’ human resource

manager, in order for them to know the right arbitration towards employees’ conflict that

will lead the organization to a harmonious and unified environment.

Profile of the Respondent

There were 30 respondents in the study. The research was conducted from January

3, 2016 to March 3, 2016. There were 30 floated making the retrieval rate of 100%. The

research ties to determine if there is a significant relationship between levels of conflict

resolution style of respondents.

 24

Table 1 presents the frequency percentage distribution of the respondent’s sex.

Data shows that twelve (12) or 40 percent are male and eighteen (18) or 60 percent are

female. Data says four (4) or 13 percent are under 20 years old, sixteen (16) or 53 percent

are 21-30 years old, six (6) or 20 percent are 31-40 years old, three (3) or 10 percent are 41-

50 years old and one (1) or 3 percent are 51-60 years.

This table also presents the frequency and percentage distribution of the law offices

respondent’s educational attainment. The table further reveals that the biggest number

consisted of eighteen (18) or 60 percent who are bachelor’s degree holder, while high school

graduate, graduate studies and law school students are equal with four (4) or 13 percent.

Data also reveals that as to civil status, it shows an equal frequency and percentage

distribution of fifteen (15) or 50 percent. In terms of length of service thirteen (13) or 43

percent are 1-5 years in service, nine (9) or 30 percent are 5-10 years in service, six (6) or 20

percent are 10-15 years in service and two (2) or 7 percent of them are 15 years and above

in service.
 25

Table 1

Profile of Respondents

Profile Frequency Percentage Total

Gender Male 12 40% 100%

Female 18 60%

Age Under 20 4 13% 100%

21-30 16 53%

31-40 6 20%

41-50 3 10%

51-60 1 3%

Education High School 4 13% 100%

Bachelor 18 60%

Master 4 13%

Law school 4 13%

Civil Status Single 15 50% 100%

Married 15 50%

Length of Service 1-5 13 43% 100%

5-10 9 30%

10-15 6 20%

15 2 7%
 26

Level of Conflict Resolution Styles of the respondents in terms of competitiveness,

collaboration, avoidance, compromise and accommodation

Competitiveness

In table 2 the respondents were asked on their perception in the area of

competitiveness their responses were that they often use it with a mean of 3.75. The

respondents said that in the area of arguing their case with peers, colleagues and co-workers

to give value to the position they take the respondents said that they often apply it with a

mean of 3.80.

In terms if they are firm in resolving issues when it comes to defending their side of

the issue the respondents said that they often apply with a mean of 3.70. In the area of
 27

upholding their solutions to the problem respondents said that they often apply with a mean

of 3.63.

In terms of convincing the other person of the logic and benefit of the position

respondents said that they often apply with a mean of 3.80.

Finally, in terms of ignoring the suggestions of her/his peer, colleagues and co-

workers, respondents replied that they often apply it with a mean of 3.83.

Stanley (2009) stated that when competing an individual pursues his or her own

concerns at the other person's expense, using whatever authority seems applicable to win

his or her position - the ability to argue, rank, economic sanctions and etc. Dubrin (2009)

agrees that competitive style is preferred to one’s own concerns at the expense of the other

or to dominate.

Collaboration

The study tries to determine the level of collaboration among the respondents.

Generally the respondents said that often applicable with a mean of 3.61. Particularly in the

area of seeking to investigate issues with others in order find solutions that are mutually

acceptable, the respondents said that they often apply it with a mean of 3.73.

In terms of trading important information with others so that problem can solved

together, the respondents said that they often apply with a mean of 3.73. On the other

hand, in the area of bringing everyone’s concerns out into the open in order to resolve

disputes in the best possible way, the respondents said that they often apply it with a mean

of 3.73.
 28

In addition, in the area of trying to overcome with any disgust that might exist

between them, they said that they sometimes apply with a mean of 3.47.

Finally, in the area of trying to dig into an issue to find a solution good for all of us, the

respondents said that they sometimes apply with a mean of 3.37.

Moorhead and Griffin (2008) stated that parties to conflict may initially have difficult

working out the ways in which all can achieve their goals. However, because the relationship

are vital to goal achievement, the parties are willing to work together to achieve a

harmonious result.

Dubrin (2009) added that this style reflects a desire to fully satisfy the desires of

both parties and that when this approach is used; the relationship between the parties

improves. It involves analyzing an issue to identify the underlying concerns of two or more

individuals and findings an alternative that addresses all concerns (Colon, 2010).

Avoidance

In addition this study tries to measure the level of avoidance among the legal staff.

Generally, the respondents said that they sometimes apply it with an overall mean of 3.34.

The respondents said that in terms of trying to avoid being singled out, keeping conflict with

others to themselves they often apply it with a mean of 3.67. In the area of don’t taking

position that will create controversy they said that they sometimes apply it with a mean of

3.37.

Further in the area of avoiding hard feelings by keeping their disagreement with

others to themselves, the respondents express that they sometimes apply it with a mean of

3.27. In addition the respondents were asked in terms of avoiding from topics that are
 29

sources of disputes with co-workers; they said that they sometimes apply it with a mean of

3.17.

Lastly, in the area of physically or mentally withdraw from the conflict; the

respondents said that they sometimes apply it with a mean of 3.23.

When avoiding, an individual does not immediately pursue his or her own concerns

or those of the other person. He or she does not address the conflict. Avoiding might take

the form of tactfully side-stepping an issue, delaying an issue until a better time, or simply

diminishing from a hostile situation (Stanley, 2009). The avoider is both uncooperative and

unassertive. The person may actually withdraw from the conflict. A staff every now and then

uses this style to stay out of conflict between two members, who are left to resolve their

own differences (Dubrin, 2009).

Accommodation

The study tries to determine the level of accommodation among the legal office

staff. Particularly in the area of attempting to meet the expectation of others the

respondents said that they often do it with a mean of 3.97. In terms of making

disagreements appear less important the respondents said that they sometimes do it with a

mean of 3.40.

On the other hand, in the area of accepting recommendations from colleagues,

peers and co-workers the respondents said that they often do it with a mean of 3.57. In

addition, in the area of easing the conflict by suggesting that our differences are trivial and

then show goodwill by blending their ideas into those of other people they said that they

sometimes do it 3.37.
 30

Finally in the area of allowing a better position and to show my reasonableness the

respondents said that they often do it with a mean of 3.73. Generally the respondents said

that they often do it with an overall mean of 3.61.

Accommodating which works best when people realize that they are wrong, when

an issue is more imperative to others that to oneself, when building social credits for use in

later debates, and when maintaining harmony is especially important, Daft and Marcic

(2009). This style involves giving in completely to other side’s wishes, or at least

collaborating with little or no attention to your own interest. In other words, in order for the

affiliation to be preserved, one party is willing to be self-forgoing. It also involves making

unilateral concessions and unconditional promises, as well as offering help with no

anticipation of shared help (McShare and Glinow, 2007).

Compromising

In addition this study tries to measure the level of compromising among the legal

office staff. The respondents said that in terms of compromising through negotiations they

often do it with a mean of 3.70. In the area of approaching the person about the conflict at

the right time they said that they often do it with a mean of 3.57.

Further in the area of positioning in the middle to break deadlocks the respondents

said that they sometimes do it with a mean of 3.43. In addition, the respondents were asked

in terms of meeting halfway with others they said that they sometimes do it with a mean of

3.23.

Lastly, in the area of giving up something with exchanging for something else the

respondents said that they sometimes do it with a mean of 3.43. Generally, the respondents

said that they sometimes do it with an overall mean of 3.47.

 31

Moorhead and Griffin (2009) argued that parties may neither avoid one another nor

be obliging because the interactions are somewhat important. They choose to share so often

each party gives up something, but because the interactions are only temperately important,

they do not regret what they have given up. Mcshane and Glinow (2008) further added that

there is willingness to notion the object the conflict and accept a solution that provides

complete satisfaction of both parties concern.

The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially

satisfies both parties. Likewise, compromising addresses an issue more directly than

circumventing the issue, but it does not explore the issue in as much depth as work together

does (Colon, 2010).

Table 2

Conflict Resolution Style

Competitiveness Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff argued their case with peers, 3.80 High

colleagues and co-workers to demonstrate the
merits of the position I take.
2. The staff is firm in resolving issues when it 3.70 High
comes to defending my side of the issue.
3. The staff upholds their solutions to the 3.63 High
problems.
4. The staff convinces the others of the logic 3.80 High
and benefit of my position.
5. The staff like it or not, and will never rest 3.83 High
their case losing.
 32

Overall Mean 3.75 High

Collaboration Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff seeks to investigate issues with 3.73 High

others in order to find solutions that are
mutually acceptable.
2. The staff trades important information with 3.73 High
others so that problem can be solved together.
3. The staff seeks to bring everyone’s concerns 3.73 High
out into the open in order to resolve disputes
in the best way possible.
4. The staff firsts try to overcome any disgust 3.47 Moderate
that might exist between us.
5. The staff tries to dig into an issue to find a 3.37 Moderate
solution good for all of us.
Overall Mean 3.61 High

Avoidance Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff tries to avoid being singled out, 3.67 High

keeping conflict with others to themselves.
2. The staff usually don’t take position that will 3.37 Moderate
create controversy.

3. The staff avoids hard feelings by keeping my 3.27 Moderate

disagreement with others to them.
4. The staff avoids from topics that are sources 3.17 Moderate
of disputes with their co-workers.
5. The staff physically or mentally withdraw 3.23 Moderate
from the conflict
Overall Mean 3.34 Moderate

Accommodation Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff attempts to meet the expectation 3.97 High

of others.
2. The staff like to smooth over disagreement 3.40 Moderate
by making the appear less important
3. The staff accepts the recommendation of 3.57 High
colleagues, peers, co-workers.
4. The staff eases conflict by suggesting that 3.37 Moderate
our differences are trivial and then show
goodwill by blending my ideas into those of
the other people.
5. The staff when finds wrong, they allow a 3.73 High
better position to be heard, to learn, and show
 33

my reasonableness.
Overall Mean 3.61 High

Compromise Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff tries to reach compromises 3.70 High

through negotiation.
2. The staff when the timing is right explains 3.57 High
how they feel and try to show them where
they are wrong.
3. The staff put forward middles position in 3.43 Moderate
efforts to break deadlocks.
4. The staff gives in to others if they are willing 3.23 Moderate
to meet me halfway.
5. The staff searches for middle ground or 3.43 Moderate
being willing to give up something in exchange
for gaining something else.
Overall Mean 3.47 High

Significant Difference in the Level of Conflict Resolution Style

When It Analyzed According to Respondents Sex

In table 3, the t-test was use to present the significant differences in level of conflict

resolution style when grouped according to their sex. In terms of competitiveness the p-

valued 0.95 and a f-ratio of 0.45 which has no significant value. For collaboration, results

shows that it has a 0.896 p-value and f-ratio of 0.38 meaning it has no significant

relationship. In avoidance, have a p-value of -0.38 and a f-ratio of 0.71 means that there is

no significant difference. In addition, in terms of accommodation statistics shows a p-value

of -0.63 and f-ratio of 0.532 which still have no significant relationship. Lastly, in
 34

compromising, have a -0.98 and 0.34 p-value and f-ratio, respectively which mean there

were no significant difference exists.

Although significant relationship was not found for a lot of the research variable,

there were intriguing differences found between data. On the research questions one asked

the significant difference between preferred conflict resolution styles analyzed according to

sex.

The significant relationship between conflict resolution styles to sex was not

unexpected. According to Brusko (2010), men can manifest both male and female

physiognomies on the same thing women can also do both. Thus, with this inaccuracy in

personalizing each respondents as to sex character they possess, the lack of relationship

between conflict relationship and sex can be surprising.

Moreover, most of the previous study came to the same result with regard to the

relationship between gender and conflict resolution style. As mentioned by Gayle (2009) sex

was not a feature in conflict resolution styles and shows no significant relationship between.

Shadare, Chidi & Oweyemi (2011) conducted study wherein they found no significant

difference in relation to sex and conflict resolution styles. Thus, data shows consistency with

previous studies that there is no relationship between sex and conflict resolution styles.
 35

Table 3

Significant Differences in the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When Analyzed According

to Respondents Sex.

Indicator Gender Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive Male 3.82 0.25 1.19 Accept

Female 3.56
 36

Collaborative Male 3.77 0.38 0.90 Accept

Female 3.53

Avoidance Male 3.27 0.71 -0.38 Accept

Female 3.39

Accommodative Male 3.52 0.53 -0.63 Accept

Female 3.67

Compromise Male 3.30 0.34 -0.98 Accept

Female 3.59
 37

Significant Differences in the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When Analyzed

According to Respondents Age.

In table 4, presents the significant difference on the following indicators of conflict

resolution style among the staff of legal offices when respondents grouped according to age.

It can be taken to mean that there is no significant difference on conflict resolution style

among staff in legal offices because under competitiveness as an indicator, it shows an

overall mean of 3.66 with a f-ratio of 0.454. In the area of collaborative, the f-ratio is 0.232

with an overall mean of 3.61. Further in the area of avoidance, the overall mean is 3.34 with

f-ratio of 0.262. When it comes to accommodation, the overall mean is 3.61 with a f-ratio of

0.153. Finally, in the indicator of compromise the result of f-ratio is 0.207 with the overall

mean of 3.47.

The above findings are identical with the study of Havenga (2008) that as the

younger bracket of respondents are more able to concentrate in problem resolution in an

organization. Thus, in general both age and gender have only small relationship or none

either when analyzed to conflict resolution styles.

 38

Table 4

Significant Differences in the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When Analyzed According

to Respondents Age.

Indicator Gender Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive Under 20 3.70 0.95 0.45 Accept

21-30 3.79

31-40 3.60

41-50 3.07

51-60 3.60

TOTAL 3.66

Collaborate Under 20 3.60 1.50 0.23 Accept

21-30 3.61

31-40 3.67

41-50 3.13

51-60 4.60

TOTAL 3.61

Avoidance Under 20 3.65 1.40 0.26 Accept

21-30 3.30

31-40 3.33

41-50 2.67

51-60 4.80

TOTAL 3.34
 39

Accommodative Under 20 3.90 1.84 0.15 Accept

21-30 3.54

31-40 3.73

41-50 3.00

51-60 4.60

TOTAL 3.61

Compromise Under 20 3.85 1.60 0.21 Accept

21-30 3.51

31-40 3.30

41-50 2.73

51-60 4.60

TOTAL 3.47

Significance Difference in the Conflict Resolution Styles among Staff in Legal

Offices When Analyzed According to Respondents Educational Background

In table number 5 shows that when analyzed in Educational Background,

respondents have rejected the hypothesis that competitiveness do not have significant

relation with a p-value of 0.03 meaning there is a significant difference. Moreover,

collaboration as an indicator has an overall mean of 3.61 and a p-value of 0.22 which leads
 40

to accepting the Ho. Additionally, avoidance accepted the Ho with an overall mean of 3.34

and a p-value of 0.89. As to accommodation, they were an overall mean of 3.61 and a p-

value of 0.63 accepting its Ho. Last of all, in compromising, results shows an overall mean of

3.47 and a p-value of 0.19 accepting the Ho.

The respondents educational background was the third indicator observed. Among

the five (5) conflict resolution styles, only competitiveness was found to have significantly

related as to the level of educational background.

Vokić and Sontor (2010) conducted a study regarding conflict resolution and also

found a significantly relationship only with collaborative. Furthermore, the lack of a clear

relation between educational background and conflict resolution styles leads the researcher

to believe that exploring a bigger sample might provide a stronger relationship.

Table 5

Significant Differences in the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When Analyzed According
to Respondents Educational Background.

Indicator Background Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive Highschool 3.50 3.59 0.03 Reject

Bachelor 3.51
 41

Master 3.70

Law School 4.45

TOTAL 3.66

Collaborate Highschool 3.95 1.58 0.22 Accept

Bachelor 3.61

Master 3.67

Law School 3.13

TOTAL 3.61

Avoidance Highschool 3.50 0.203 0.89 Accept

Bachelor 3.34

Master 3.45

Law School 3.05

TOTAL 3.34

Accommodative Highschool 4.00 0.59 0.63 Accept

Bachelor 3.53

Master 3.60

Law School 3.55

TOTAL 3.61

Compromise Highschool 4.00 1.71 0.19 Accept

Bachelor 3.52

Master 2.80

Law School 3.40

TOTAL 3.47
 42

Significance Difference in the Conflict Resolution Styles among Staff in Legal

Offices When Analyzed According to Respondents Civil Status

In table 6, it shows that among the 30 respondents, fifty percent of them are single

and the others are married. The data when analyzed according to respondent’s civil status it

proves lack significant difference. Competiveness has a f-ratio of 0.86, collaboration has

0.65, avoidance with 0.90, accommodation has 0.78, and compromise has 0.30 f-ratios.

Competitiveness has a p-value of 0.03 which leads to a conclusion of rejecting the

hypothesis, collaborative with 0.21 p-value accepting the hypothesis, Avoidance with 0.02 p-

value which means rejection to the hypothesis and accommodation and compromising have

0.08 and 1.13 p-values, respectively accepts the hypothesis.

Data shows relevance with the result of the study of Vokić and Sontor (2010) that

when looking at the differences in conflict resolution styles with relations to the civil status

of the respondents, only competitiveness and avoidance shows significant relationship.

Although other researcher did not show any significance between civil status and conflict

resolution styles, this study gives argument for accepting the hypothesis.
 43

Table 6

Significant Differences in the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When Analyzed According

to Respondents Civil Status

Indicator Civil Status Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive Single 3.68 0.86 0.03 Reject

Married 3.64

TOTAL 3.66

Collaborate Single 3.56 0.65 0.21 Accept

Married 3.65

TOTAL 3.61

Avoidance Single 3.32 0.90 0.02 Reject

Married 3.36

TOTAL 3.34

Accommodative Single 3.64 0.78 0.08 Accept

Married 3.57

TOTAL 3.61
 44

Compromise Single 3.63 0.30 1.13 Accept

Bachelor 3.32

TOTAL 3.47

Significance Difference in the Conflict Resolution Styles among Staff in Legal

Offices When Analyzed According to Respondents Length of Service

Table 7 presents the significant difference on the conflict resolution style among

staff in legal offices when respondents are grouped according to their length of service. This

is manifested on their f-ratio 0.27, 0.83, 0.76, 0.14, and 0.25 based on the indicators,
 45

competitiveness, collaboration, avoidance, accommodation, and compromising,

respectively. It was said to be that p values above 0.05 is not significant. Thus, data shows no

significant difference as to respondent’s length of service.

In table number 7 shows the significant relationship between the length of service a

respondent had been in the legal office and the level of preferred conflict resolution styles

and it was found out that there was no significant relationship was found. This means that

the hypothesis was accepted and shows no significant relationship with the said variable.

Conferring to Brusko (2010), this relationship can be similar to the significance

between age and conflict resolution styles that shows no relationship since age was not a

factor in the respondents’ preferred conflict resolution styles, there is a relationship to the

respondents’ age and length of service the respondent had been in the organization because

the older the respondents the longer years in service is rendered in the company.

Table 7

Significant Differences in the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When Analyzed According

to Respondents Length of Service

Indicator Length of Service Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive 1-5 3.69 1.40 0.27 Accept

5-10 3.82
 46

10-15 3.60

15-Above 2.90

TOTAL 3.66

Collaborate 1-5 3.51 0.30 0.83 Accept

5-10 3.73

10-15 3.60

15 - Above 3.70

TOTAL 3.61

Avoidance 1-5 3.18 0.40 0.76 Accept

5-10 3.60

10-15 3.30

15-Above 3.30

TOTAL 3.34

Accommodative 1-5 3.78 1.97 0.14 Accept

5-10 3.62

10-15 3.10

15-Above 3.90

TOTAL 3.61

Compromise 1-5 3.66 1.44 0.25 Accept

5-10 3.42

10-15 2.97

15-Above 4.00

TOTAL 3.47
 47

CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter tackles three parts, the summary, conclusion and recommendation. The

study mainly conducted to find out the conflict resolution style used by staff and secretaries

of legal offices through the Thomas-Kingman CRS Model (1974). The researcher also aims to

know if there is a significant difference when grouped according to their sex, age,

educational background, civil status and length of service. Still, the study of relationship

could be significant for promoting workplace relations and improving organization’s

productivity, a better way in examining socio-emotional differences of staff most especially

to the managing human resource that can contribute a lot on recruitment and selection and

training and development.

 48

Summary of findings:

Based on the data presented, the following were the findings of the study:

1. The profiles of the respondents, in terms of gender forty percent (40%) are male and

sixty percent (60%) are female. Among the 30 respondents, fifty-three percent (53%) of

them are in the age bracket of 21-30 years old, twenty percent (20%) of them aged 31-

40 years old, thirteen percent (13%) of them are under 20 years old, ten percent (10%)

goes to the bracket of 41-50 years old and the remaining three percent (3%) are 51-60

years old. Also, the respondents’ status is equally distributed with a fifty percent (50 %)

percentage frequency for both single and married. Eighteen (18) of the respondents are

bachelor degree holder, and has same number of four (4) respondents on high school

graduate, masters and in studying in law school. As to length of service, forty percent

(40%) of the respondents has 1-5 years in serve, thirty percent (30%) has 5-10 years in

service, twenty percent (20%) has 10-15 years in service and a seven percent (7%) of the

respondents has 15 years and above.

2. The level of conflict resolution style among staff and secretaries of legal offices in Davao

City in terms of competitiveness has an overall mean of 3.75 which means very often

used. While, in terms of collaboration which has an overall mean of 3.61 that means

very often used. Further, in avoidance which means an overall mean of 3.34 that

denotes sometimes used. In accommodation which has an overall mean of 3.61 that

connotes very often used. Lastly, in terms of compromising as an indicator has an overall

mean of 3.47 that implies sometimes used.

3. Significant difference show in the level of conflict resolution style of staff and secretaries

when respondents are grouped according to their educational background and civil

status. In terms of educational background, a 0.027 p-value on the indicator

 49

competitiveness. On the other side, civil status have two variable to reject the

hypothesis which was competitiveness with a p-value of 0.03 and avoidance with a p-

value of 0.02. The F-test was also used to examine if there were significant difference in

the level of conflict resolution style when respondents are grouped according to their

gender, age, civil status and length of service. In the results presented there were no

significant differences exist.

Conclusion:

The following conclusions were drawn based on findings:

1. Most of the respondents highly prefer using competitiveness as conflict resolution style

next to it one are accommodation and collaboration. Additionally, they moderately

prefer compromise and avoidance as there conflict resolution styles. Thus, they tend to

use a combination of all five (5) conflict resolution styles.

2. The demographic profile as to age, sex, civil status and length of service do not

significantly influence their conflict resolution style other that the educational

background and the civil status of the staff of legal offices in Davao City has significantly

related to their preferred conflict resolution style.

3. But all of the staff and secretaries in general incline to advocate harmonious relationship

in the workplace.

Recommendation:
 50

1. It is recommended that the human resource manager (if any) conducts an assessment of

the law office’s conflict resolution styles. This will give the organization more internal

promptness in conflict resolution when its staff educational background gets higher.

2. The staff and secretaries of legal offices need to be aware not only of the prospected

benefits of the use of the given conflict resolution styles for negotiations based on the

working environment. Trainings and seminars should be conducted towards improving a

practical resolution style.

3. The findings of the study may be disseminated to the respondent to serve as an aid and

act as a basis for their development of programs created to enhance the conflict

resolution styles of the staff in legal offices.

4. A deeper study is recommended, which can be conducted at any organization using the

Thomas – Kilmann Conflict Resolution Style Instrument as related to emotional

management of the workers such as communicating and evaluating.

5. For the future researchers, enhance the data gathered in this study to have more option

in this kind of study in the future. A larger sample of respondents may disclose new

relationships and improve the relationships found in the research study.