Sex Roles

, Volume 20, Issue 3–4, pp 149–163 | Cite as

Gender differences in conflict resolution styles of managers: At work and at home

  • Leonard H. Chusmir
  • Joan Mills


Because women and men managers occupy different roles at work and at home, role theory suggests that they would use different conflict resolution behaviors in each role. This study tested this theory empirically using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode instrument to measure the five conflict resolution styles of 201 managers (99 males and 102 females) in both situational roles. Sex differences were examined along with hierarchical rank. Both genders tended to handle conflict more competitively at work than at home, and used the accommodating style more frequently at home than at work. At home, low-level women managers were more willing to collaborate and less willing to avoid conflict than at work; men managers overall were less likely to compromise at home than at work.


Gender Difference Social Psychology Conflict Resolution Woman Manager Role Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bardwick, J. M. Psychology of women: A study of biocultural conflict. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.Google Scholar
  2. Basow, S. A. Gender stereotypes: Traditions and alternatives. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. Conflict tactics and the level of emotional commitment among unmarrieds. Human Relations, 1987, 40, 59–74.Google Scholar
  4. Chan, M. Intergroup conflict and conflict management in the R & D divisions of four aerospace companies. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1981, 42(4), 1767-A.Google Scholar
  5. Cosier, R. A., & Ruble, T. L. Research on conflict-handling behavior: An experimental approach. Academy of Management Journal, 1981, 24, 816–831.Google Scholar
  6. Day, D. R., & Stogdill, R. M. Leader behavior of male and female supervisors: A comparative study. Personal Psychology, 1972, 25, 353–360.Google Scholar
  7. Donnell, S. M., & Hall, J. Men and women as managers: A significant case of no significant difference. Organizational Dynamics, 1980, 8, 60–77.Google Scholar
  8. Falbo, T. PAQ types and power strategies used in intimate relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1982, 6, 399–405.Google Scholar
  9. Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 618–628.Google Scholar
  10. Frost, J. H., & Wilmot, W. W. Interpersonal conflict. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, J. Conflict management survey. Conroe, TX: Telemetrices Int'l, 1969.Google Scholar
  12. Holahan, C. K., & Gilbert, L. A. Conflict between major life roles: The women and men in dual career couples. Human Relations, 1979, 32, 451–467.Google Scholar
  13. Kanter, R. M. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977.Google Scholar
  14. Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. Interpersonal conflict-handling behavior as reflections of Jungian personality dimensions. Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 971–980.Google Scholar
  15. Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. Development a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The “MODE” instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1977, 37, 309–325.Google Scholar
  16. Kipnis, D., Schimdt, S., & Wilkinson, I. Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 440–452.Google Scholar
  17. Lefkowitz, M., Eron, L., Walder, L., & Huesmann, L. Growing up to be violent: A longitudinal study of the development of aggression. New York: Pergamon, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. Lipman-Blumen, J., & Leavitt, H. Vicarious and direct achievement patterns in adulthood. The Counseling Psychologist, 1976, 6, 26–32.Google Scholar
  19. Lipman-Blumen, J., Handley-Isaksen, A., & Leavitt, H. J. Achieving styles in men and women: A model, an instrument, and some findings. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches. San Francisco: V. H. Freeman, 1983.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
  22. Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger, 1981.Google Scholar
  23. Powell, G. N. Women and men in management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. Powell, G. N., Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. Sex effect in managerial value systems. Human Relations, 1984, 37, 909–921.Google Scholar
  25. Rahim, M. A. Organizational behavior courses for graduate students in business administration: Views from the tower and battlefield. Psychological Reports, 1981, 49, 583–592.Google Scholar
  26. Rahim, M. A. Referent role and styles of handling interpersonal conflict. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1986, 126, 79–86.Google Scholar
  27. Renwick, P. A. The effects of sex differences on the perception and management of superior-subordinate conflict: An exploratory study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 19, 403–415.Google Scholar
  28. Revilla, V. A. Conflict management styles of men and women administrators in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1984.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1984, 45(6), 1601-A.Google Scholar
  29. Ruble, T. L., & Thomas, K. W. Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16, 143–155.Google Scholar
  30. Schachar, S. A., & Gilbert, L. A. Working lesbians: Role conflicts and coping strategies. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1983, 7, 244–256.Google Scholar
  31. Sears, J., Maccoby, E., & Levin, H. Patterns of child-rearing. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson, 1957.Google Scholar
  32. Semyonov, M. The social context of women's labor force participation: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 1980, 86, 534–550.Google Scholar
  33. Shockley-Zalabak, P. The effects of sex differences on the preference for utilization of conflict styles of managers in a work setting: An exploratory study. Public Personnel Management Journal, 1981, 10, 289–295.Google Scholar
  34. Sone, P. G. The effects of gender on managers' resolution of superior-subordinate conflict. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1981.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1982, 42(11), 4914-A.Google Scholar
  35. Stechert, K. Sweet success. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986, p. 33.Google Scholar
  36. Strodtbeck, F., & Mann, R. Gender-role differentiation in jury deliberations. Sociometry, 1956, 19, 3–11.Google Scholar
  37. Thomas, K. W. Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1976.Google Scholar
  38. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument, Tuxedo, NY: Xicom, 1974.Google Scholar
  39. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. Comparison of four instruments measuring conflict behavior. Psychological Reports, 1978, 42, 1139–1145.Google Scholar
  40. Ware, J. P., & Barnes, L. B. Managing interpersonal conflict. In L. A. Schlesinger, R. G. Eccles, & J. J. Gabarro (Eds.), Managing behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983.Google Scholar
  41. Yelsma, P., & Brown, C. T. Gender roles, biological sex, and predisposition to conflict management. Sex Roles, 1985, 12, 731–745.Google Scholar
  42. Zammuto, R., London, M., & Rowland, K. M. Effects of sex on commitment and conflict resolution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 227–231.Google Scholar
  43. Zimmermann, D. H., & West, C. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Hanley (Eds.), Language and sex: Differences in dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonard H. Chusmir
    • 1
  • Joan Mills
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida International UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations