The three–way interactions of gender, supervisor’s gender, and country on the strategies for managing conflict of millennials: an exploratory study in 10 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This field study aims to investigate the interactive relationships of millennial employee’s gender, supervisor’s gender and country culture on the conflict-management strategies (CMS) in ten countries (USA, China, Turkey, Germany, Bangladesh, Portugal, Pakistan, Italy, Thailand and Hong Kong). Design/methodology/approach This exploratory study extends past research by examining the interactive effects of gender × supervisor’s gender × country on the CMS within a single generation of workers, millennials. The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–II, Form A was used to assess the use of the five CMS (integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising). Data analysis found CMS used in the workplace are associated with the interaction of worker and supervisor genders and the national context of their work. Findings Data analysis (N = 2,801) was performed using the multivariate analysis of covariance with work experience as a covariate. The analysis provided support for the three-way interaction. This interaction suggests how one uses the CMS depends on self-gender, supervisor’s gender and the country where the parties live. Also, the covariate – work experience – was significantly associated with CMS. Research limitations/implications One of the limitations of this study is that the authors collected data from a collegiate sample of employed management students in ten countries. There are significant implications for leading global teams and training programs for mid-level millennials. Practical implications There are various conflict situations where one conflict strategy may be more appropriate than others. Organizations may have to change their policies for recruiting employees who are more effective in conflict management. Social implications Conflict management is not only important for managers but it is also important for all human beings. Individuals handle conflict every day and it would be really good if they could handle it effectively and improve their gains. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study has tested a three-way interaction of variables on CMS. This study has a wealth of information on CMS for global managers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".