CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TEAMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main research objective is to analyze behavioral styles of members of the enterprise development project team in conflict situations using the Thomas-Kilmann method and graphic techniques to show the importance and value of such analysis for preventive conflict management in business entities. The work has been performed in the following logical sequence: characteristics of behavior styles; survey of members of the project management team using the Thomas-Kilmann method; description of data using graphic techniques; context diagram of the process of analyzing the behavior styles of project team members in a conflict situation. According to the results of the survey of the project team members on the manifestations of a particular behavioral style in a conflict situation based on the Thomas-Kilmann method, diagrams and analysis (“petal” and “bubble”) have been presented. The diagrams allowed: to compare scores of the project team members demonstrating different behavioral styles in a conflict situation; to evaluate the ratio of project team members behavioral styles, identify the dominant style; with the help of visual aids to find out which group includes a particular behavioral style in terms of the level of its manifestation (weak, medium and strong. The obtained results indicate the feasibility of testing employees to determine the prevailing behavioral styles in a conflict situation for further consideration of data in the personnel management process. A matrix of project team members behavioral styles in a conflict situation and their characteristics in terms of cooperation and assertiveness have been presented. Radar charts, scatter plots and comparative histograms of the behavioral styles of the project team members in a conflict situation have been designed. The contextual diagram with the analysis of the behavioral styles of the project team members in a conflict situation has been given. This study has been conducted in the specific Ukrainian cultural and organizational context. The results of the research can be useful for Ukrainian industrial enterprises in order to achieve projects results for enterprise development.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".