Leadership and Conflict

Correlations between the Conflict Dynamics Profile (CDP) and the Leadership Effectiveness Analysis (LEA)

Leadership has been extensively investigated from a variety of viewpoints. Depending on which theoretical perspective one takes, it may be studied in terms of the attributes of a person, the attributes of the situation, or both interacting with each other. What has become clear is that leadership is a broad, multifaceted construct that can only be studied with all of its relevant dimensions carefully considered. One important area that is not completely understood is the role that conflict behaviors play in leadership effectiveness. Recently, Mark Davis, Linda Kraus and Sal Capobianco completed a study of leadership and conflict using the Conflict Dynamics Profile (CDP), and the Leadership Effectiveness Analysis (LEA). The CDP is a developmental tool designed to help people at all levels of an organization understand how their conflict behaviors are interpreted by their bosses, peers, and direct reports. It achieves this goal by examining 15 separate behaviors that can be considered constructive or destructive in a conflict situation. Leadership behaviors were measured using the Leadership Effectiveness Analysis (published by the Management Research Group), an instrument which defines the leadership role in terms of 22 specific behavioral practices. Once again, bosses, peers and direct reports rate the person on the various behaviors with the goal of developing an awareness of their impact upon others in fulfilling the leadership role.

A total of 123 people served as the primary participants in the study. Each was rated by his/her boss, a minimum of three peers, and at least three direct reports. The total sample consisted of 111 bosses, over 400 peers, and over 350 direct reports. The results were analyzed to determine the strength of the relationships between conflict behaviors and leadership effectiveness. The following results represent a brief summary of the major findings of this complex study.

Constructive Conflict Behavior

The CDP identifies seven different behaviors which are thought to play a constructive role in conflict situations. Four of these are relatively active responses: perspective taking, creating solutions, expressing emotions, and reaching out. (See Table for detailed descriptions of these scales.) Three more constructive behaviors are more passive in tone: delay responding, reflective thinking, and adapting. The results of this study revealed a number of associations between these constructive responses to conflict and particular leadership behaviors. To simplify matters, the only findings reported below are those which emerged for all three kinds of ratings: by boss, by peer, and by direct reports.

Most striking, perhaps, is the fact that all four of the active-constructive CDP behaviors were significantly and positively related to the set of leadership behaviors known as communication: defined as clarifying expectations and providing constant information to others to maximize efficiency. That is, a tendency to respond to conflict by reaching out, creating solutions, honestly expressing emotions, and trying to adopt the other’s perspective contributed to a leadership style which provides others with clear and timely information.

Two of the active-constructive CDP scales–perspective taking and creating solutions–were significantly and positively related to the leadership style known as strategic leadership: defined as taking a long-range, big-picture approach to problem solving that analyzes the likely future consequences of decisions. In addition, these same two active-constructive responses to conflict were associated with the consensual leadership style–characterized by a willingness to accept the ideas and suggestions of co-workers. Thus, a tendency to respond to conflict by creating solutions and imagining the point of view of others contributes to both a thoughtful leadership style and one that is open to ideas and suggestions from others.

In addition to these associations between active-constructive conflict responses and leadership style, there were also some clear connections between passive-constructive CDP scales and leadership behaviors. All three passive-constructive responses (delay responding, reflective thinking, and adapting) were significantly and positively related to the set of leadership behaviors known as restraint: defined as keeping careful controls on one’s emotional expression. In addition, all three passive-constructive scales were similarly related to the consensual leadership style described previously. Thus, a tendency to respond to conflict by carefully reflecting before acting, delaying responding, and adapting to changing circumstances contributes to leadership behaviors that emphasize control over one’s emotional expression and an openness to the ideas and suggestions of others.

Destructive Conflict Behavior

What about destructive responses to conflict? Evidence from this investigation suggests some very clear connections between such responses and particular sets of leadership behaviors. Three of the active-destructive responses measured by the CDP–winning at all costs, displaying anger, and demeaning others–were significantly and positively correlated with three different leadership styles. The first of these is the set of behaviors known as feedback: defined as letting co-workers know exactly where they stand, both good and bad. The second is the set of behaviors known as management focus: defined as taking charge, influencing others, exerting authority, and calling the shots. Finally, the active-destructive responses to conflict were related to the leadership style known as dominance: defined as acting in an aggressive, forceful manner. Thus, an active-destructive conflict style in which one strives to win at all costs, demeans others, and displays anger contributes to leadership behaviors which can be problematic: aggressive, forceful behaviors which may run roughshod over co-workers and subordinates.

Fewer associations were found between passive-destructive responses to conflict and specific leadership behaviors. However, two passive-destructive CDP scales–yielding and hiding emotions–were significantly related to two different leadership styles. The first of these was cooperation: defined as accommodating to the needs of the larger organization. The second was authority: defined as being responsive to people in high positions in the organization. Thus, a tendency to respond to conflict by yielding to it and hiding one’s emotions contributes to a leadership style in which one sacrifices for the good of the organization and defers to those in authority. While a certain degree of such self-sacrifice is desirable, it is also possible to imagine this going so far as to hinder one’s effectiveness as a leader.