Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and ...

20 downloads 1708 Views 266KB Size Report
Anna Saiti. Abstract. Conflict may occur in any organization (and hence school) and, for schools, conflict management style is a joint activity and the degree of its ...
Article

Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader: A study of Greek primary school educators

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015, Vol. 43(4) 582–609 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1741143214523007 emal.sagepub.com

Anna Saiti

Abstract Conflict may occur in any organization (and hence school) and, for schools, conflict management style is a joint activity and the degree of its effectiveness determines the type of impact of conflict on school performance. This empirical study investigates the potential sources of conflict in Greek primary schools, determine appropriate approaches for the handling of conflicts and offers recommendations, based on the findings, for a more creative conflict management style in order to enhance school performance. Anonymous questionnaires were distributed to primary school educators in two Greek regions, one of which was the metropolitan area of Athens, resulting in a sample of 414 completed questionnaires. The results showed that school conflicts often arise in the school and that when school conflicts did occur they were mainly attributed to both interpersonal and organizational reasons. Moreover, the results showed that there is a greater likelihood for these conflicts to arise in urban schools than in other regions. This study supports the view that integration, collaboration and coherence are the key factors for cultivating a constructive conflict management strategy and enhancing better school performance. Keywords Conflict management, primary schools, Greece, school leaders

Introduction and aims of the study A social organization such as a school consists of a number of human beings that seek to achieve specific tasks through collaboration. Each human being is a unit of relations and actions that develops in the school unit. However, given that each person has their own unique personality that differs from the rest in terms of capabilities, motivation, values, knowledge, needs and experiences,

Corresponding author: Anna Saiti, Department of Home Economics and Ecology, Harokopio University, 70 El. Venizelou St, Kallithea, Athens, Greece. Email: [email protected]

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

583

and has to cooperate and co-exist with the other members of the organization, then conflicts between members of an organization are almost inevitable. The phenomenon of conflict (an interactive process and an outcome of human reaction and behavior) among humans is natural where two or more people may be together for sometime (Rahim, 2001). However, conflicts do not occur in the same way in the working environment. Conflicts are attributed either to differences or disagreements in attitudes and perceptions, needs and values, tasks and policies, limited or conflicting interests in a project, or to differences deriving from competition, mistakes or ignorance, or the negative behavior and reactions of organizational members, such as regular absenteeism, many complaints, etc. (Kantek and Gezer, 2009; Rahim, 2000, 2001; Rahim et al., 1992; Shih and Susanto, 2010; Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Wall and Callister, 1995). The potential for conflict is greater when there is a differentiation in goals, an interdependency of individuals’ work or a high level of misunderstanding (Mullins, 1996, 2007; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004). Hence, conflict could occur anywhere, in any organization, and its implications for organizational performance are unavoidable. Schools are no an exception because conflict in a ‘living’ organization is seemingly inevitable and may occur among students, school leaders and/or educators, as well as between the school itself and other social parties of the school such as local authorities or parents (Henkin and Holliman, 2009). Moreover, given that schools belong to the service sector and the educators are pressed to achieve and maintain standards of performance so as to satisfy the desires and needs of the community and society in the best possible way (Shih and Susanto, 2010), and that ‘‘the teaching profession is being characterized by an individualist approach because training, development and promotion focuses on specialization . . . while the development of teamwork in the educational setting is really sparse’’ (Somech, 2008: 360), then it is reasonable to assume that there is an increased likelihood for conflicts to occur within schools. Based on the above, it would be almost impossible to find a school unit that is free of any conflict. In reality, conflict is a general phenomenon of school life and, as a result, school principals often spend valuable time trying to solve problems that arise as a result of a conflict or disagreement among school members (Achinstein, 2002; Bagshaw et al., 2007; Balay, 2006; Beck and Betz, 1975; Fassoulis, 2006; Greenfield, 1995; Henkin et al., 2000; Saitis et al., 1996; Somech, 2008; Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011; Valsamidis, 1996). This reduces the time available for constructive planning and the promotion of creative initiatives and solutions. Because school conflict is closely linked to the stability and the smooth functioning of a school unit and thus may be considered to carry an economic cost, both for the school leadership and the school unit itself, the regular occurrence of conflicts in the school units disrupts a large part of school activities and certainly does not promote educators’ constructive contribution to the improvement of the school process (Balay, 2006; Briggs and Wohlstetter, 2003; Brouzos, 2009; Corwin, 1966; Paraskevopoulos, 2008; Somech, 2008; Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011; Williams and Garza, 2006). According to the classical view, theorists such as Fayol (1949), Taylor (1911), Weber (1947), and others, considered conflict in an organization to be an avoidance phenomenon due to its negative effect on the functioning of an organization. Therefore the classical writers were in favor of the avoidance of conflict, to be achieved through rational organization, the determination of appropriate procedures or the imposition of penalties on those individuals obstructing teamwork and collective effort. In contrast, modern management views agree that the emergence of conflict is a positive indicator of organizational performance that leads to better decision-making, evolution and effectiveness. In addition, as Rahim (2001: 12) advocates, ‘‘it is impossible to eliminate conflict from organizations while any attempt of eliminating conflict might, in the long-term, affect

584

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

team-working, individuals and productivity’’. While true, this is likely to happen only when conflicts in schools are viewed as ‘‘a mutual problem that needs common consideration and solution’’ (Tjosvold et al., 2000: 6). Only then can the positive impact of conflict – such as the production of more creative ideas, the release of tension, or the clarification of goals as problems come to the surface – allow them to be more easily addressed. In this way, the team’s effectiveness may actually be improved (Boardman and Horowitz, 1994; De Lima, 2001; Fassoulis, 2006; Nir and Eyal, 2003; Rahim, 2000, 2001, 2002; Somech, 2008; Tjosvold, 1998, 2008; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004; Tjosvold et al., 2000; Trudel and Reio Jr, 2011). The negative impact of conflicts between educators may otherwise become critical, leading to counterproductive behavior, such as a lack of communication, stress, regular absences, and so on, that harms human relations and jeopardizes the educational process because it may decrease the levels of motivation and performance of staff and, subsequently, of pupils (Androulakis and Stamatis, 2009; Balay, 2006; Corwin, 1966; De Lima, 2001; Everard et al., 2004; Rahim, 2001; Tobin, 2001). Equally, there may be a resistance to new initiatives, inflexibility or a lack of cooperation among school members, any of which would reduce the team’s effectiveness (Henkin et al., 2000; Kuhn and Poole, 2000; Rahim, 2001, 2002; Somech, 2008; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004). Regardless of the positive or negative effects of conflicts, the reality is that educational institutions are becoming more complex. As such, it would be reasonable to expect an increase in the number of school problems created by internal disagreements. The subject of how conflicts arise in a working environment such as a school unit is complex because individuals react to and cope with conflict in a variety of ways. However, while there are many forms of conflict management strategy, constructive and creative conflict management would only serve to help the school unit achieve its aims and goals. The growing importance of conflicts within schools has arisen as more freedom of action has been given to the educational process in recent decades. As a result, conflict can be considered to be a major problem in the fields of management and organizational behavior. The applicability of conflict management strategies in the educational sector has attracted many researchers – for instance, Balay (2006), Everard et al. (2004), Henkin and Holliman (2009), Henkin et al. (2000), Kantek and Gezer (2009), Kapusuzoglu (2010), Saitis et al. (1996), Shih and Susanto (2010), Somech (2008), Weinstein et al. (2007) – and much emphasis is placed on the fact that the effective management of conflicts in organizations, and hence in schools, increases organizational creativity and productivity. Through the effective management of conflicts, innovation and collegiality can be cultivated to promote organizational efficiency. Worldwide, while many research studies have been undertaken in Asia and the USA, only a few empirical studies have been undertaken in Greece. However, in recent years the phenomenon of conflict in schools has received attention from Greek educational researchers such as Paraskevopoulos (2008), Saitis et al. (1996) and Tekos and Iordanidis (2011). This has prompted a number of other Greek researchers – Androulakis and Stamatis (2009), Fassoulis (2006), Koula (2011), Paraskevopoulos (2008), Saitis et al. (1996), Tekos and Iordanidis (2011) and Toziou (2012) – to identify the following as sources of conflict in Greek schools. v Lack of cohesion among educators due to the regular transfer of school educators. v Lack of effective school leadership – and hence the development of a harmonious climate – by the school principal. v Organizational deficiencies and ineffective patterns of communication and informationsharing.

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

585

v Limited material resources and financial resources. Despite the attempt of Greek governments to press for financial management efficiency with the introducing of new law in May 2010, there is still a lack of coordination between the school and the local school committee. There is no proper clarification of the role and mission of the members involved in the school’s financial management, or the degree of intervention by the local government in educational issues – the greater the possibility of limited financial resources, the greater the intensity of the potential conflicts (Mullins, 2007; Saiti, 2012). v Individual differences and differences in perceptions, attitudes, beliefs. There is only a very limited amount of empirical research concerning school conflict in Greece and the existing literature on the subject does not discuss the matter in substantial detail. However, in recent years the topic has drawn the attention of some Greek early-stage researchers (that is, those with little research experience), as indicated by their postgraduate (Master’s) dissertations. The present research differs from these Greek postgraduate research studies in that it employs econometric analysis and it moves the analysis of Greek school conflicts forward because it considers the impact of organizational characteristics (for example, the extreme centralization of the school system) on conflict management strategy. The present study was undertaken primarily for the following reasons: (a) despite the fact that there are many research papers on conflict management for organizations, only a limited amount of research has been conducted in an educational context worldwide; (b) even in those studies devoted to educational institutions, most refer to classroom management and how to handle conflicts within the classroom; and (c) managing conflict in schools is considered of great importance and certainly requires a deeper understanding and analysis because it is a basic pre-requisite for the effective management of well-performing educational institutions. The findings of this study provide an extension of other relevant research in the field of conflict management strategies because it provides the framework within which the Greek school system operates and consequently sheds more light on this important aspect of the Greek reality. At the same time, this study complements other previous studies because it develops our understanding of situations of, and responses to, conflict that are commonly observed in school units. This greater understanding could enlighten Greek school leaders and facilitate both the development of more effective management techniques and the adoption of an appropriate conflict management strategy. Indeed, previous research (Kabanoff, 1985: 132) suggests that the correct managerial intervention can entirely eliminate latent conflict and thus constitutes a key factor in the efficient resolution of conflict. In view of the above, the purposes of this paper are, through the empirical analysis of personal views of Greek primary school educators, to examine the potential sources of conflict in schools; determine appropriate approaches for the handling of conflicts so as to reduce the harmful effects of conflicts in educational institutions; and offer recommendations, based on the findings, for a more creative conflict management style in order to enhance the smooth functioning of school units.

Literature review Source of conflict Given that conflict is an incompatible activity for organizations (Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004; Tjosvold et al., 2000) with certain implications that can be positive or negative and

586

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

that avoiding conflict does not necessarily guarantee stronger relationships within and between organizations (Corwin, 1966; De Lima, 2001; Hendel et al., 2005; Henkin et al., 2000; Rahim, 2001; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004; Tjosvold et al. 2000), then conflict becomes a very real issue in which active conflict management can provide the key to deriving all the beneficial and positive outcomes of conflicts. While it is very important to be aware of the circumstances of a conflict and to adopt an appropriate conflict management style, what is equally important is how individuals perceive conflict, the accurate diagnosis and understanding of the causes and sources of conflicts and the style they adopt in order to respond to that conflict (Friedman et al., 2000; Kabanoff, 1985; Paraskevopoulos, 2008; Tolar (and Associates) and Katz Jameson, 2006; Van de Vliert, 1998). The prompt identification and diagnosis of the root of the conflict that causes tension in the working environment of a school is of great significance for the school principal because this helps to confront conflict effectively. The sources of conflicts often have common characteristics and are likely to be interrelated although they may be too numerous and too varied to be manageable (Rahim, 2001). Conflict could occur, for instance, as a result of opposing interests, close supervision, role ambiguity, problem-solving methods, and so on. However, many researchers – for example, Kabanoff (1985), Rahim (2001), (2010), Tjosvold (1998) and Van de Vliert (1998) – consider that a conflict tends to have its roots in tasks, values, goals and/or norms. More particularly, the sources of conflicts, based on a review of the relevant literature (Fassoulis, 2006; Kabanoff, 1985; Nir and Eyal, 2003; Paraskevopoulos, 2008; Rahim, 2001; Tjosvold, 1998; Van de Vliert, 1998) can be summarized as follows. Problem in communication. The poor encoding of messages, poor human relations among organizational members, the lack of an appropriate information process and bad timing may be some of the factors that eliminate mutual understanding between organizational members and consequently may lead to opposition and conflicts in the working environment. Indeed, a lack of openness and a non-responsive policy to the needs of others cannot sustain effective dialogue and, as a result, may have disruptive effects on the communication process (Tourish and Hargie, 2004; Tourish and Robson, 2003, 2006). Role ambiguity. In every formal organization (and hence educational institutions), individuals occupy job positions that have been defined on the basis of an organizational chart and job analysis being used to derive job descriptions and person specifications. Hence a certain role is expected (based on the job requirements) to be performed by an employee (Mullins, 2007; Singh, 2008; Van Wart, 2000). When there is a lack of clarity in the role and the job requirements then the employee faces an unfamiliar working environment and this may lead to an unexpected pattern of behavior. Incompatible goals or goal conflict. When the attainment of goals by one social entity, or entities, prevents the possible attainment of goals by others then there is a greater potential for conflict. It may be a matter of perception: conflict may arise if the organization’s members understand that only one goal may be achieved and that there is less likelihood for the others’ goals to be reached (Deutsch, 1969; Tjosvold, 1998). Conflict of interest. The allocation of limited resources (including finance) may be a cause for conflict because each entity might need to fight for its own share (Mullins, 1996: 725).

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

587

Differences in values. Every organization consists of different people with different values, opinions, interests, and so on. These differences can occasionally produce clashes in, for instance, attitudes, perceptions and values that not only inhibit the development of positive interactions among organization members but also lead to conflicts and subsequently become a major obstacle that prevents an organization from achieving its goals. With particular reference to the Greek school environment, Androulakis and Stamatis (2009), Brouzos (2009), Fassoulis (2006), Koula (2011), Paraskevopoulos (2008), Saitis et al. (1996) and Tekos and Iordanidis (2011) have indicated that the school principal is the main agent of the school culture and dynamic and should therefore adopt a balanced role in order to achieve a positive system of communication. In particular, Androulakis and Stamatis (2009) found that one of the main problems in communication relations among Greek educators was the lack of cohesion in the school team (that is, the Teachers’ Council), which can be attributed to differences in values and to problems in communication. The functioning of the Teachers’ Council is closely related to the school’s decision-making process, which is based on group decisions. However, the development of work commitment and motivation among school staff depends heavily on the maturity, ability and flexibility of the school leader because that person is the main networking agent and carried the ultimate responsibility for developing fruitful open communication with all school members, understanding their roles and contributing willingly and effectively to the achievement of educational aims (Androulakis and Stamatis, 2009; Bush, 2008; Glatter, 2003; Kontakos and Stamatis, 2002; Pashiardis et al., 2011; Simkins, 2000). Indeed, Bagshaw et al. (2007), Hallinger and Leithwood (1998) and Hoy and Sweetland (2001) agree that greater flexibility in the school leader is crucial, not only because of the unpredictable nature of the work but also, most of all, because they facilitate the school’s adaptability to change, balancing relations within the school units and managing different social cultures so as to ‘‘enable participants to do their jobs more creatively and professionally’’ (Hoy and Sweetland, 2001: 319).

Conflict management strategies and the role of school leader According to Rahim (2001) the two most important prerequisites for organizational performance are: goal attainment and system resources. These two aspects alone can diminish the negative impacts of conflict and, to a certain extent, moderate the amount of conflict that occurs in an organization. Furthermore, although the effective resolution of conflict in schools depends on several factors (such as the type of conflict), these two aspects help the participants learn the various strategies for handling conflicts, and decide which one to adopt. However, the main aim of each school unit is, among other things, to create and develop a climate within which collegiality can be promoted and all the different groups are able to cooperate effectively in order to achieve the school’s aims. The development of such a climate is not an easy task because the school environment is a vulnerable one where the nature of the work in schools is based mainly upon interpersonal relations and human behavior. An understanding of the potential approaches and their consequences would certainly make it easier to develop a favorable working climate (Friedman et al., 2000; Tolar (and Associates) and Katz Jameson, 2006). The harmonious cooperation of the educators within school units may be achieved if three conditions are satisfied, namely: v A high degree of maturity on the part of the school members; v Stable and well-structured duties; and

588

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

v A stable, energetic, collegial and positive working environment (Kanellopoulos, 1995: 453). However, given that school situations in practical terms can be unpredictable, school members – particularly school principals – must be able to understand the roots of any opposition and to confront such opposition effectively and in a timely manner. The efficient resolution of conflict is necessary in order to overcome the disruptive effects of conflicts and obtain a positive outcome to facilitate the school’s smooth performance. Based on the relevant literature (Blake and Mouton, 1964, cited by Rahim, 2001: 27; Dean, 1995: 142; Frisby and Westerman, 2010; Gross and Guerrero, 2000; Hunt, 1981: 94–95; Rahim, 1983, cited by Rahim, 2001: 27; Rahim, 2001, 2002; Rahim and Bonoma, 1979, cited by Rahim, 2001: 27–28; Rahim et al., 1992; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Walton, 1969), five main approaches of conflict management strategies have been identified. Avoidance approach. This approach involves little concern for self and others (Rahim and Bonoma, 1979 cited by Rahim, 2001: 27–28) and is a technique of conflict management strategy that promotes the postponement of a situation and avoids any discussion of the problem with the parties involved. Compromise approach. In this approach the opposing parties maintain their differences while they are obliged to find a solution that is equally acceptable to both parties. Collaboration/integration approach. According to this approach the opposing parties with a favorable attitude develop the communication necessary to overcome any misunderstanding and to find the best possible solution. In addition the approach must involve confrontation and open discussion of the problem if it is to succeed in generating innovative solutions and promoting justice and fairness – two essential elements for effective teamwork (Chen and Tjosvold, 2002; Rahim, 2001; Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold et al., 2000). Forcing/competing approach. In this approach, one entity uses force to solve the conflict among the parties involved. This approach has a binary, ‘win–lose’ outcome and involves high concern for self and low concern for others (Rahim and Bonoma, 1979, cited by Rahim, 2001: 27–28). Smoothing/accommodating approach. This approach primarily determines the situation of the conflict and analyses the nature of and the conditions in which the conflict occurred. Moreover, it involves little concern for self and more concern for others (Rahim and Bonoma, 1979, cited by Rahim, 2001: 27–28). As to which of the above conflict management approaches is most suitable for a given school unit, clearly each approach has both advantages and disadvantages. The choice of any approach depends not only on the type of conflict and the circumstances but also on the knowledge and the perception of the conflict managing style and the maturity of the parties involved. However, many research studies on conflict management (Chen and Tjosvold, 2002; Shih and Susanto, 2010; Somech, 2008; Tjosvold, 1998, 2008; Tjosvold and Ding, 2001; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Trudel and Reio Jr, 2011) are in general agreement regarding the conclusion that integrating and compromising approaches are the two styles most preferred by individuals when conflict occurs. In particular, Shih and Susanto (2010) found that a compromise strategy generally does not enhance job performance because the needs of a party are sacrificed and lead to greater dissatisfaction levels and a reduced motivation to achieve better

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

589

performance. A ‘‘win–win’’ solution is the best strategy for transforming the resolution of conflict into a productive process that satisfies all needs and interests. It is crucially important for educators to realize that because conflict is an unavoidable situation it will have to be confronted sooner or later within their organizational environment and thus the perception of conflict as a constructive process and a team phenomenon will minimize the disruptive effects and maximize the prospects for the development and evolution of the school (Chen et al., 2005; Jordan and Troth, 2004; Rahim, 2000; Somech, 2008; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004; Trudel and Reio Jr, 2011). Given that human behavior depends on unknown factors and cannot be predicted with the consistency of any expected pattern (Mullins, 1996: 726), the cultivation of a cooperative and collegial school environment with clear and independent goals, integrated roles and efficient communication channels is actually the basis for promoting teamwork, enlivening colleagues’ relations and enhancing the creation of collaborative and innovative solutions. However, according to a number of Greek educational researchers (Paraskevopoulos, 2008; Saitis et al., 1996; Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011; Toziou, 2012) Greek school leaders share the view that they are more likely to use the strategy of compromise to resolve conflicts while, as a second option, they consider the avoidance of conflict to be an appropriate conflict strategy. This result is in accordance with Balay (2006) who also indicates that resolving school conflicts by using a compromise strategy does not lead to a ‘winners–losers’ situation, because each entity has to give up something. Moreover, according to Andrews and Tjosvold (1983) the intensity of the conflict in schools is a prior determinant of the choice of conflict management strategy. Also, in high-intensity school conflicts an avoidance strategy correlated positively with effectiveness, whereas in low and moderate intensity conflicts a negative correlation was found with trustworthiness and effectiveness. However, according to Greek educational researchers (Fassoulis, 2006; Paraskevopoulos, 2008; Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011), Greek school leaders may choose to implement such strategies because a ‘‘successful school leader’’ is considered to be someone who is pleasant, keeps everyone (every colleague) happy and satisfied, without any kind of negative impact on their relations with the teaching staff. In addition, Paraskevopoulos (2008: 215) advocates that ‘‘ . . . baring the problem and finding a quick solution does not mean that the problem disappears but resurfaces every time someone is annoyed with something’’. Moreover, relevant Greek educational studies (Brouzos and Kouzouni, 2003; Fassoulis, 2006; Printzas, 2003, 2005; Saitis et al., 1996; Xirotiri-Koufidou, 2003) agree that the high level of centralization and the bureaucratic nature of the Greek school system restricts innovation and inhibits the initiatives of school leaders – something that constitutes a substantive obstacle to the development of a creative school climate and inevitably leads to an inappropriate choice of management strategy whenever a conflict arises. Similarly, Balay (2006) also found that school administrators operate under a system with high levels of bureaucracy and, as such, are more likely to adopt the strategy of avoidance in order to resolve conflicts.

The effect of centralization Many educational researchers (Achinstein, 2002; Alexopoulos, 2012; Beck, 1974; Beck and Betz, 1975; Briggs and Wohlstetter, 2003; Cheng, 1994; Corwin, 1966; Firestone and Pennell, 1993; Harris, 2005; Hoy and Sweetland, 2001; Katsaros, 2008; Middlewood, 2010; Nir and Eyal, 2003; Saiti, 2003; Simkins, 2005) have indicated that centralization and bureaucratic processes create a number of problems in the school process, such as the adoption of an inappropriate conflict management strategy and greater organizational complexity, and all of these result in a fragmented decision-making process. Taking into consideration that a highly centralized system (such as that in Greece) (Alexopoulos,

590

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

2012; Iordanidis, 2002; Katsaros, 2008; Saiti, 2003, 2009) fragments effective school management, because it does not promote strong incentives to exert effort, and that a creative and positive environment with efficient communication channels are fundamental elements needed for resolving conflicts effectively, one can imagine the effects of such a system on staff morale and school quality. Indeed, the centralized character of the Greek educational system may create doubts and friction when attempting to manage administrative problems efficiently, delays and mistakes in the communication process – factors that may increase the risk of destructive conflicts occurring. In particular, attempting to confront any problems arising, under these circumstances, would reduce the possibility of a fair, objective and non-biased solution (Alexopoulos, 2012; Saiti, 2003). Hoy and Sweetland, (2001) have recognized two options for centralization: a coercive centralized system: one that fragments innovation, formulates strict supervision and control over standardized job processes and hinders efficient organizational performance; and the other an enabling system that recognizes boundaries of authority, integrates roles and promotes a problem-solving-oriented strategy, thus encouraging trusting relations and truthful interactions. In this regard, centralization/hierarchy cannot be considered as an enemy of organizational performance because rules and structures are inevitable for any type of organization. At the micro-level of a school, this hierarchy is provided by the school principal, the deputy/ies, heads of department, and so on. Therefore, the issue is not to be ‘against hierarchy but rather against a specific kind of hierarchy . . . ’ (Hoy and Sweetland, 2001: 301). This detrimental form of hierarchy does not enable structuring but rather hinders school operations whereas an enabling structure reinforces the efficient confrontation of any problem/conflict arising at school. An emphasis on strict control and authoritative decision-making on a permanent basis is not desirable and creates negative feelings among educators. Hence, the concentration of decision-making at the top of the hierarchy obstructs the flow of information and fosters resistance among employees, because the decision-making process is restricted to only a few people (Adler and Borys, 1996; Cheng, 1994; Hoy and Sweetland, 2001; Iordanidis, 2002; Isherwood and Hoy, 1973; Katsaros, 2008; Saiti, 2013; Simkins, 2000, 2005). On the other hand, enabling structures enhance effective communication channels and cultivate trust among school members while minimizing the effects of role conflict. Indeed, role conflict confuses employees (and educators) and greatly increases the possibility of tension in the workplace, while poor communication channels have a negative impact on work commitment and engagement. According to Hoy and Sweetland (2001: 315) enabling structures ‘‘are relatively free of role conflict’’ and strengthen cooperation. Indeed, Sweetland and Hoy (2001) found negative correlations between role conflict and the level of trust among educators, while they indicated that an enabling hierarchy minimizes the negative effect of role conflict on trust. Within the same framework, this was also advocated by Adler and Borys (1996). In this regard, enabling structures actually provide an antidote to school conflict and, to a significant extent, diminish the roots/causes of a conflict and prepare the ground for a good school environment. An enabling school leader is open and ready to talk with the educators, is always there for them, concerned for them, supports them, and helps them to succeed. In addition, if educators perceive and believe that the practices of these school principals are fair and objective, then trust is evident. Certainly trust is not easily obtained; it needs time to be cultivated and cannot be achieved overnight. Also, not all educators interpret it in the same way. However, the feeling of organizational trust within the school environment contributes significantly to educators’ commitment and engagement, rendering them more motivated and willing to participate in non-routine school aims (Adler and Borys, 1996; Alexopoulos, 2012). Thus, trust is a key value for enabling a school leader to innovate without the fear of destructive conflict (Adler and Borys, 1996; Hoy and Sweetland, 2001: 314).

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

591

However, the manner in which Greek school communication channels (and the school environment in general) have developed does not encourage a sense of trust in the schools, because the insistence on concentrating decision-making at the top of the hierarchy impedes school performance in terms of creativity, cooperation and innovation (Iordanidis, 2002; Katsaros, 2008; Saiti, 2009, 2013). The hierarchy of the Greek education system, which calls for the top-down flow of information, with strict supervision and control, together with the complexity and the excessive number of regulations, norms, laws, procedures, and so on, leads to a large amount of quantitative data residing at or near the centre of the system, resulting in delays, missing information, greater complexity and certainly a non-systematic treatment of all problems arising in education (Katsaros, 2008; Saiti, 2013). While an adherence to centralization may ensure (to a certain degree) consistency in policy implementation, the direct control of jobs and processes and better utilization of human resources expertise, this tendency towards a coercive formalization and centralization appears only to increase the negative impact of centralization; namely, to prevent people in education from doing their jobs in a creative, cooperative and innovative manner (Hoy and Miskel, 2001; Katsaros, 2008; Saiti, 2009, 2013). Hence, what matters is the type of hierarchy that the system follows and certainly not whether the system is centralized or decentralized (Adler and Borys, 1996; Hoy and Sweetland, 2001). Therefore, if the Greek school system desires to be more effective, it must empower a school structure that facilitates cooperation and trusting relationships as well as the sharing of knowledge and problem-solving – all key factors for the achievement of a constructive result (Alexopoulos, 2012; Cheng, 1994; Henkin et al., 2000; Hoy and Sweetland, 2001). Given that conflict is associated with commitment and cognitive conflict contributes significantly to an effective innovative and change-oriented group (De Lima, 2001) and that the choice of conflict management strategy depends on commitment (Henkin et al., 2000), the sense of security and trust and the stimulation of constructive and intellectual relationships among school members are key elements with regard to the effective resolution of conflicts and well-performing educational institutions. Regardless of the level of centralization in a school system, educational researchers (Alexopoulos, 2012; Briggs and Wohlstetter, 2003; Bush, 2003, 2008; Dimmock and Walker, 2000; Fink and Brayman, 2006; Firestone and Pennell, 1993; Hoy and Sweetland, 2001; Irving and Longbotham, 2007; Katsaros, 2008; Saiti, 2009, 2013; Shen et al., 2012; Somech, 2008; Wohlstetter et al., 1994) share the view that enabling schools to make constructive changes, in order to reinforce the collaboration, initiatives and participation of the members through the engagement of teamwork would prepare the ground and bring the school closer to meaningful improvement and higher levels of performance. Clearly, collaborative problem-solving is not a linear progression because it has greater potential for disagreements and disputes among school members in an open process of cooperative dialogue, where there is greater role diversity and different viewpoints, perspectives and interests (Achinstein, 2002; Bagshaw et al., 2007; Balay, 2006; Maxwell and Thomas, 1991). However, although collaboration may lead to a greater frequency of disagreement, such conflicts tend to be less intense (Achinstein, 2002; Bagshaw et al., 2007; Balay, 2006). In the case of a typical public school, disagreements may be less likely to arise – although, of course, that does not mean to say that conflicts do not occur. It is the type of conflict and the adoption of the appropriate management style that determines the impact it has on school performance. As Somech (2008: 362) stated, ‘‘;it is not simply the presence of conflict but how people approach and manage their conflicts that greatly affects whether conflict is constructive or disruptive’’.

592

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

Therefore a key strategic point for cooperative approaches to conflict is the role of the school leader and the degree to which they can develop the ability and the appropriate social skills to manage relationships effectively and to implement the organization of communication (Alexopoulos, 2012; Engle and Nehrt, 2011; Katsaros, 2008; Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold and Ding, 2001; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004; Trudel and Reio Jr, 2011). In other words, the school leader should develop trust, a better understanding and a deep knowledge of human relationships. Nevertheless, in order to be successful in building such an environment of good human relations, school leaders should first learn to recognize their emotions and needs through self-monitoring; that is, emotional intelligence (Engle and Nehrt, 2011; Jordan and Troth, 2004; Shih and Susanto, 2010). Indeed, Engle and Nehrt (2011) found that increased emotional intelligence in a school leader leads to a higher level of relationship management skills. Shih and Susanto (2010) came largely to the same conclusion by extending this finding to the fact that a better understanding of people’s interests and needs leads to a more productive resolution of conflicts and to an increased likelihood of adopting the integrating approach, although in contrast Kaushal and Kwantes (2006) found no relationship between the choice of conflict resolution and either selfmonitoring or emotional intelligence. Irrepsective of the debate on emotional intelligence, the key issue for improving school performance is to choose a conflict strategy that would enable schools to act as open and dynamic learning institutions and to be more receptive to constructive organizational change.

Methodology A survey was conducted in November 2010 in order to collect primary source data for the present investigation. Anonymous questionnaires were distributed to 570 primary school educators in two Greek regions (including the metropolitan area of Athens): a sample of 414 completed the questionnaires, a response rate of 72.6%. The two Greek regions chosen for analysis were Attikis (Athens) and West Sterea. They were chosen for two main reasons: (i) the region of Attiki (Athens) hosts a large number of public primary schools and it also dominates every branch of social and economic activity in Greece, recording the largest increase in the degree of urbanization; and (ii) the region of West Sterea is the largest rural region and contains all the geographical characteristics of rural Greece. The resulting sample in the region of Attiki covered approximately 1.53% of the total number of primary school educators while the region of West Sterea covered approximately 4.8% of the total number of primary school educators. With particular reference to the questionnaire, it was compiled after reviewing the relevant literature, including previous empirical studies and was based on 19 questions designed to elicit the perceptions of school educators with regard to conflicts amongst themselves in school units and strategies for conflict management. The questionnaire was divided into three parts. v Personal and professional characteristics of the primary school educators in question. v School educators’ perceptions of and attitudes towards conflicts amongst themselves in a school unit. In particular, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of occurrence and roots of conflicts in their schools; to specify whether or not conflicts attributed to interpersonal relations among school educators, to the role of the school leader or to organizational deficiencies; to define the degree of efficiency of communication channels in their schools and their contribution to the diminishing of any potential conflict; and, finally, how they perceived conflicts – whether constructive or disruptive; and, if they believed that the conflicts were disruptive, to specify their roots.

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

593

v School educators’ recommendations for conflict management strategies. In particular, the main research questions this study sought to address are the following. v v v v

Q1: What are the main factors that cause frequent conflicts in schools? Q2: Do communication channels contribute to the appearance of school conflicts? Q3: What are the appropriate approaches for handling school conflicts? Q4: What is the management style that should be applied in order to reduce the possibility of disruptive effects? v Q5: What is the role of the school leader in tackling effectively and resolving efficiently conflicts in order to derive the maximum benefits from them? The statistical analyses used for the questionnaire include the following. v Descriptive statistics (percentages). v Factor Analysis. The Method of Principal Components was used in which the statements from two questions (those related to the factors that may be attributed to conflicts between educators) were reduced to a number of factors which were rated by school educators. v OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) was used as the estimation method, because the essential task was to apply a model to a particular available set of data in order to establish the required initial values of the coefficients.

Results With reference to the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents the frequencies of variables are shown in Table 1. When the educators were questioned about the frequency of conflicts amongst themselves in the school units, the answer from the majority (68.8%) was ‘often’, 12.3% stated ‘rarely’, 6.3% stated ‘never’ and only 5.1% indicated ‘very often’. From those who had answered ‘often’ or ‘very often’, the majority of them (68.1%) answered that these conflicts were mainly attributed to ‘interpersonal and organizational’ reasons, while only 5.6% attributed the conflicts solely to organizational reasons and only 0.7% solely to interpersonal reasons. Regarding the conflicts between educators that were attributed solely to organizational reasons, the respondents were asked to specify the factors that might cause such conflicts. The eight most popular responses were ‘class allocation’ (35.3%), ‘the allocation of pupils when an educator is absent’ (19.6%), ‘the allocation of non-didactical work’ (20.8%), ‘completion of the daily programme’ (22.5%), ‘use of the computer science laboratory’ (14.5%), ‘allocation of playground duties’ (20.8%), ‘full-day school’ (24.9%) and ‘a lack of school regulation’ (30.7%). Factor analysis resulted in the extraction of four (4) factors (statements) that had an Eigenvalue above 1 and accounted for 72.28% of the total sample. These were: ‘the allocation of students when an educator is absent’ (–0.685), ‘full-day school’ (–0.755), ‘class allocation’ (0.647), and ‘the allocation of non-didactical work’ (–0.692). With regard to resolving these conflicts, the most popular responses among first preferences given by primary school educators were ‘the intervention of the school principal without the use of power’(28.0%), ‘decision of the school council’ (20.3%), ‘use of power by the school principal’ (20.8%) and finally ‘initiative taken by a colleague’ (25.8%). Regarding the conflicts between educators that were attributed solely to interpersonal reasons, the respondents were asked to specify the factors that might cause conflicts between educators: the most

594

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

Table 1. Frequencies of the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents. Variables Region Attiki West Sterea Total Gender Women Men Total Age of the respondents 55 and over 46–55 36–45 25–35 Total Total years of teaching experience in public education Over 30 years’ 20–30 years 10–20 years Up to 10 years Total Years of teaching experience in their particular school Over 20 years’ 10–20 years Up to 10 years’ Total Educational level of the respondents PhD Master’s degree in a field other than teaching or education administration University degree in a different field Degree from technological education Maraslio Teacher Training College Total Follow a Training Program Yes No Total Field of attending training program Pedagogical Science Computer Science Environmental Education Managerial Training Program Total

Frequency (%) 63.0 37.0 100 65.9 34.1 100 2.9 31.2 50.0 15.7 100 5.6 38.6 35.0 20.8 100 1.0 14.5 84.5 100 5.3 10.4 46.9 20.8 24.9 100 50.5 100 42.5 26.8 13.8 8.0 100

popular responses among first preferences given by primary school educators were ‘bad communication among the members of the school unit’ (20.5%), ‘differences in attitudes between the members of the school unit’ (16.7%), ‘lack of coordination of the school unit’ (20.3%), ‘lack of capable school leadership’ (23.4%) and ‘educators’ mobility’ (50.5%). Factor analysis resulted in the extraction of

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

595

three factors (statements) that had an Eigenvalue above 1 and accounted for 82.83% of the total sample. These were: ‘lack of capable school leadership’, ‘mobility of school educators’ and ‘lack of coordination of the school community’. With regard to the resolution of these conflicts, the most popular replies among first preferences given by primary school educators were ‘initiative taken by a colleague’ (24.9%), ‘intervention of the school principal without the exercise of power’ (26.3%), ‘decision of the school council’ (21.0%) and ‘use of power by the school principal’ (34.3%). When the educators were asked if they had ever been dissatisfied with a decision of their school principal but did not react in any way, the majority, 30.4%, responded ‘rarely’, 26.3% stated ‘sometimes’, 24.9% said ‘often’, 16.4% responded ‘never’ and only 1.9% stated ‘very often’. From those who had answered ‘often’ or ‘very often’, when asked to identify the reasons why they had not reacted in any way the most popular responses were ‘respect the role of the school principal’ (23.9%), ‘have difficulty in protecting my rights’ (18.4%) and ‘I am not interested’ (20.5%). When questioned about the extent to which good communication among school educators might reduce the possibilities of conflicts in the school, over half of the respondents (58.2%) answered ‘very much’, 40.1% responded ‘much’, 1.2% stated ‘moderately’ and only 0.5% answered ‘little’. Regarding the question of identifying the main factors encountered for good communication among school members, the most popular answer among first preferences was ‘maturity of the school educators’ (41.3%). The second most popular preference was ‘a stable and well structured series of duties’ (41.1%), and the third was ‘a stable and regular working environment’ (41.1%). When questioned about the degree to which the conflicts among educators negatively influenced the school unit’s capacity to function efficiently, the majority (44.9%) answered ‘much’ while 34.3% responded ‘very much’. The remaining responses were: 15.2% ‘moderately’, 4.6% ‘little’ and only 1.0% responded ‘never’. For those who responded ‘much’ or ‘very much’, the five most common negative impacts of school conflict were: ‘school climate’ (37.4%), ‘communication among the school educators’ (31.6%), ‘school image and profile in the local community’ (21.0%), ‘pupil behaviour’ (26.1%), and the ‘educational process’ (19.8%). Regarding the degree of certain factors that would help to overcome the conflicts among school educators, respondents were asked to consider five statements, each relating to a solution that could possibly help overcome the conflict. Primary school educators were asked to rate the extent of their agreement with these statements by using the following, Likert-style scale: 1 ¼ not at all, 2 ¼ little, 3 ¼ moderately, 4 ¼ much, 5 ¼ very much. Frequencies are presented in Table 2.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions One OLS model was run in order to investigate school educators’ perceptions regarding conflicts between school members and, in particular, to identify factors that cause frequent conflicts in schools. For this reason, the dependent variable was the frequency of conflicts among educators in primary schools, where respondents were asked to rate the frequency of school conflicts as follows: 1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ rarely, 3 ¼ sometimes, 4 ¼ often and 5 ¼ very often. The regression model used the following independent (control) variables: - ‘the age of the respondents’, which was a quantitative variable; - ‘the region of the school’, which took the value 0 when the school was located in the region of Attiki (Athens) and the value 1 in all other cases; - ‘the school size’;

596

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

Table 2. Frequencies of the degree of certain factors that would help to overcome the conflicts among school educators. Variables/certain factors Constitution of school regulation Very much contribution Much contribution Moderate contribution Little contribution No contribution at all Total Personnel stability Very much contribution Much contribution Moderate contribution Little contribution No contribution at all Total Better school infrastructure Very much contribution Much contribution Moderate contribution Little contribution No contribution at all Total School leaders’ training on human resource issues Very much contribution Much contribution Moderate contribution Little contribution No contribution at all Total School educators’ training regarding conflict management strategy Very much contribution Much contribution Moderate contribution Little contribution No contribution at all Total

Frequency (%) 26.3 47.6 17.9 6.5 1.7 100 14.0 42.3 32.6 10.1 1.0 100 21.7 43.5 25.1 8.5 1.2 100 56.8 36.2 4.6 2.2 0.2 100 49.0 40.6 8.7 1.0 0.7 100

- ‘interpersonal and organizational reasons’ – the most popular reason for conflicts between school educators; - ‘the degree of the negative impact that school conflicts have on the effective functioning of the school unit’, for which respondents were asked to rate the degree of their agreement according to the following scale: 1 ¼ not at all, 2 ¼ little, 3 ¼ moderately, 4 ¼ much 5 ¼ very much; - ‘whether or not they had attended at least one training programme’, a dummy variable which took the value 1 when the respondents answered positively and the value 0 when the respondents answered negatively;

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

597

Table 3. OLS: dependent variable ‘the frequency of conflicts between educators in primary schools’. Variables

Coefficient

St. Error

Constant Reason for conflict: ‘interpersonal and organizational reasons’ Age of the respondents The degree of negative impact that school conflicts have on the effective functioning of the school unit School size Region of the school Whether or not they had attended at least one training programme The degree to which good communication among school educators may reduce the likelihood of conflicts in the school Whether they had ever been dissatisfied with a decision of their school principal but they did not react in any way

3.868*** 0.029 0.005* 0.024

0.142 0.045 0.002 0.021

0.009* 0.159*** 0.088* 0.023

0.005 0.044 0.046 0.027

0.026

0.017

Note: R-squared is 0.085 whereas the F Statistic is 3.457. *** denotes a significance level of 1%, ** denotes significance level of 5% and * denotes a significance level of 10%.

- ‘the degree to which good communication among school educators may reduce the likelihood of conflicts in the school’, for which respondents were asked to rate the degree of the contribution that good communication made to reducing school conflicts, using the following Likert-style scale: 1 ¼ not at all, 2 ¼ little, 3 ¼ moderately, 4 ¼ much and 5 ¼ very much; and - ‘whether they had ever been dissatisfied with a decision of their school principal but they did not react in any way’, where respondents were asked to rate them according to their perception: 1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ rarely, 3 ¼ sometimes, 4 ¼ often and 5 ¼ very often. The results in Table 3 indicate that the control variables, namely, the age of the respondents, the school size and the region of the school location, were statistically significant. In particular, the age of the respondents and the school size had a positive sign, indicating that because the age of the respondents and the school size increases, then conflicts among educators in school are more likely. With reference to the region of the school, the sign was negative. This indicated that in urban areas (and particularly in the metropolitan area of Athens) there is a greater probability of conflicts occurring between educators in schools. Interestingly, the variable ‘whether or not they had attended at least one training programme’ turned out to be significant and had a positive sign. This indicated that when the educators had followed at least one training programme on any subject there was a greater likelihood of conflict in the school unit. This result may be attributed to the fact that according to educators’ responses, for those educators who had followed a training programme, the latter tended to be on pedagogical science and not management science.

Conclusions The results of this study suggest that school conflict is a significant problem that often arises in Greek schools and has mostly both interpersonal and organizational attributes. Factor analysis of the potential causes of these conflicts showed that when they were solely attributed to organizational issues ‘the allocation of students when an educator is absent’ was the primary cause.

598

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

Accordingly, when the conflicts were attributed to interpersonal relations, factor analysis indicated ‘a lack of capable school leadership’ as the most common cause of conflict. These results indicate that two of the major causes of conflicts within Greek schools are the lack of cohesion among teaching staff and the ineffectiveness of the school leadership. Also, this study revealed that the cohesion of the teaching staff increased the likelihood of closer, more positive and collegial relations among teachers, so that when a problem arose at school, such as the absence of a teacher, then the teaching staff would be willing to solve the problem effectively in order to prevent pupils from missing out on valuable hours of tuition. These results are consistent with those of other research on conflicts in Greek schools – for example, that of Darra et al. (2010), Koula, (2011), Limberis (2011), Paraskevopoulos (2008), Prokopiadou (2009), Saitis et al. (1996), Tekos and Iordanidis (2011) and Toziou (2012). Educational researchers having investigated teacher mobility – for instance Androulakis and Stamatis (2009), Boyd et al. (2011), Brown and Schainker (2008), Corwin (1966), Darra et al. (2010), De Lima (2001), Fassoulis (2001), Ingersoll and Smith (2003), Johnson et al. (2012), Somech (2008) and Weinstein et al. (2007) – have identified the disadvantages of the transfer of educators as including the creation of an inappropriate school climate as well as the loss of trust, security and cooperation among school members, thereby creating an environment in which conflict is more likely to occur. In any case, the cultivation and the maintenance of an appropriate school climate can be considered as a top priority prerequisite for strong cohesion of staff teams. Cohesion among the teaching staff is the most important factor for ensuring greater efficiency in school teacher performance, greater levels of job satisfaction and, more importantly, for the morale of the teaching staff. It is the unity of the group and the mutual approach to a problem that determines the closeness of relations and the level of coherence in any organization. Only in this way can school members develop the dynamics necessary for staying together and for mutual consideration in resolving any conflict – a positive aspect of team development which should receive due attention (Somech, 2008: 382). For a group such as school teachers, therefore, high levels of cohesion are required to diminish disruptive conflicts and secure better communication channels whereby all the rules can be applied more easily and in a constructive manner. In the case of Greece, where the school system is highly centralized and the school leaders have limited authority (Aggelopoulos and Fragoulis, 2003; Fassoulis, 2006; Ifanti, 2011; Paraskevopoulos, 2008; Saiti, 2012; Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011), problems such as excessive delays and communication issues in the network may arise in the decision-making process (Saiti, 2009). A collaborative school culture is important for Greek schools because it instills trust and encouragement and reinforces teachers’ initiatives that aim to facilitate and satisfy school needs. Without harmonious cooperation and genuine relationships among educators, the promotion of efficient school performance will not be achieved. As such, the rational distribution of human resources among the Greek educational regions, with special emphasis on stabilization of the teaching staff, is an important step towards achieving a collaborative school culture. The empirical results from the regression analysis also show that there is a greater likelihood for these conflicts to arise in urban schools than in other regions. This result is in accordance with previous Greek research on school conflicts (Paraskevopoulos, 2008; Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011; Toziou, 2012) and, according to Henkin and Holliman (2009), it is not surprising given that urban schools are more vulnerable to external social pressures and are more prone to unstable conditions such as ongoing efforts to redefine duties, secure loyal teachers and increase the school’s capacity for innovation and integration. Given that innovation and commitment are closely associated with efficient communication channels (Androulakis and Stamatis, 2009; Henkin and Holliman, 2009) – a

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

599

prerequisite for a collegial and supportive school climate – then it is reasonable to expect that urban schools, which cater for larger populations, are more likely to encounter difficulties in developing a confident and collegial school climate and, thus, for school conflicts to occur. The results from the regression analysis do indeed show that as the school size increases, conflicts between educators are more likely to arise. While small schools may tend to have greater flexibility in the decision-making process and greater cohesion, they may suffer from a shortage of knowledge, capabilities and information. In contrast, while large schools may enjoy greater knowledge, capabilities and information that enables them to take more effective and rational decisions, they may also lack a harmonious atmosphere and job satisfaction among their members. With regard to the situation in Greece, school principals in large schools tend not to use these strategies for resolving conflicts but prefer rather to confront the conflict immediately and resolve it before it escalates into a bigger issue (Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011). In addition, long-established teams and cohesion in large schools are elements that contribute to the sort of school climate where friendly, social, cooperative and collegial relations among the teaching staff have been observed (Androulakis and Stamatis, 2009). Although Beck and Betz (1975) suggested that the size of a school may influence the occurrence and the type of conflicts, it is evident that conflicts are inevitable regardless of whether the school is large or small. Equally, the development of a group decision certainly secures plurality in opinions and perceptions, facilitates the creativity and the productivity of its decisions and increases the feeling of commitment and motivation among those who execute the decision (Androulakis and Stamatis, 2009; Beck and Betz, 1975; Chen et al., 2005; De Lima, 2001; Henkin and Holliman, 2009; Somech, 2008). Given the findings of this study – namely, that school conflicts are mainly a negative influence on the school climate (and hence may have an impact on the learning process) and that the majority of school conflicts are attributed to both interpersonal and organizational factors – then the effectiveness of any conflict management strategy would very much depend on the performance management of school principals, given that their role is strongly associated with the creation and implementation of policies designed to achieve sustained success. Taking into consideration that interpersonal conflicts have proved to be disruptive in a working environment (Henkin and Holliman, 2009) and that in the context of Greek schools conflicts can be attributed to interpersonal issues, then the results of this study are not unexpected. Moreover, in relevant Greek studies on conflict management style (Paraskevopoulos, 2008; Saitis et al., 1996; Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011) it was found that conflicts among educators within schools do have a negative affect on school performance. Although Greek school leaders agreed that the strategy of compromise was efficient, they still considered the avoidance of conflict to be a viable second option as a possible conflict strategy. In addition, the strategies involving confrontation of a conflict and problem-solving seemed to be more because they were more likely to result in the constructive handling of a given situation, while conflict avoidance or the use of power as ways of confronting conflict had disruptive effects on the school process. The strategy of compromise tended to produce neutral results (Paraskevopoulos, 2008; Saitis et al., 1996; Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011). This thinking was developed by Limberis (2011) and Valsamidis (1996) who further suggested that the use of power by the school principal does not promote cooperative relations among the teaching staff and certainly does not bring about better results. Shih and Susanto (2010) and Jordan and Troth (2004) found that those leaders who had high levels of self-monitoring and efficacy and who strove to find a mutual resolution of a conflict (emotional intelligence) were more likely to adopt an integrating/collaborative and compromising

600

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

conflict management strategy. However, Kaushal and Kwantes (2006) found no evidence of a link between self-monitoring and any type of conflict management strategy. Within the same framework, Rahim (2000) advocated that there is no clear link between conflict management strategies and organizational effectiveness. Therefore, although there seems to be some controversy regarding the relation between conflict management strategies, organizational performance and emotional intelligence, most of the studies on conflict within an organization (Henkin and Holliman, 2009; Rahim, 2000; Somech, 2008; Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold and Ding, 2001; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004) show agreement on the conclusion that communication and information flow as well as processing within the organization are the key factors with regard to strengthening relationships, enhancing the commitment and morale of the organizational members, and promoting efficient performance through teamwork. All of these crucial values can maximize the benefits to be gained from conflicts, through decision-making based mainly on the cooperation and the interaction among staff members, and their teamwork (Bagshaw et al. 2007; Balay, 2006; Boardman and Horowitz, 1994; Bush, 2008; Hallinger and Leithwood, 1998; Hendel et.al, 2005; Somech, 2008; Weinstein et al., 2007; Williams and Garza, 2006). Equally, bad communication channels among individuals and members of a school unit can lead to disruptive conflicts. Poorly coded messages, bad relationships among school members, a lack of information and badly timed information exchanges are certainly some of the factors that can minimize mutual understanding of the situation and consequently lead to disruptive school conflicts. This study supports the view that conflicts in educational institutions can be resolved not only through the intervention of the school principal without the use of force but also through the initiative of colleagues. Regardless of the root cause of a given conflict, the constructive and prompt handling of a conflict would only serve to reinforce the school process. Indeed, the role of school leadership is critically important in such cases because the school principal (manager) is responsible for internal organization and discipline (Briggs and Wohlstetter, 2003; Bush, 2008; Chen et al., 2005; Fassoulis, 2006; Firestone and Pennell, 1993; Henkin et al., 2000; Morse and Ivey, 1996; Stevenson, 1987; Tjosvold and Ding, 2001; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004). In order for a school leader to confront any type of conflict successfully, therefore, they should not only be aware of the conflict-handling strategies but also be aware of their consequences so that they choose the most appropriate style for handling conflicts. Additionally, through cooperative and continuous discussion with the school members, they may recognize and understand the different social or cultural perspectives that trigger conflicts (Achinstein, 2002; Bagshaw et al., 2007; Boardman and Horowitz, 1994). The school leader should not hesitate to talk on equal terms with each party, to listen and understand their concerns and views and to discuss any problems as openly as possible (Balay, 2006; Chen et al., 2005; Everard et al., 2004; Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Williams and Garza, 2006). As a patient and calm listener, the school leader could identify any similarities – for instance in terms of interests and goals – and then, through open and detailed discussions with all parties involved, emphasize the importance of collegiality among colleagues (Bagshaw et al., 2007; Henkin and Holliman, 2009; Henkin et al., 2000; Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001). The school leader could then ask each party to make suggestions about how their situation could be resolved and, if there was no agreement on remedial action, the school leader could then arrange a new meeting with the involved parties in order to find a solution ‘through a consensual, cooperative process which avoids antagonisms . . . Such a strategy can reinforce belief in the fairness of outcomes and simultaneously allow conflicting parties to feel that they have some control over the process’ (Henkin et al., 2000: 154). This process may constitute an informal means of communication, but if it is embraced with a positive spirit then it establishes a basis for future collegial relations, mutual awareness and

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

601

understanding and respect for each other and enhances cohesion and teamwork. Thus communication skills, awareness and genuine interest in and consideration for others could transcend the boundaries of any differences in a school and result in successful school leadership. Researchers in the educational field (Boardman and Horowitz, 1994; Bush, 2008; Fink and Brayman, 2006; Harris, 2005, 2010; Pashiardis et al., 2011; Ritchie and Woods, 2007; Shen et al., 2012; Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008; Williams and Garza, 2006) share the view that a ‘creative’ leadership style, with an emphasis on the enhancement of teamwork, efficient communication channels with school members, an understanding of the needs of others, the development of trust and a participative decision-making process, will secure the foundations for improved school efficiency. All of these factors can facilitate the constructive management of conflict, despite the fact that there is no single ‘right process’ for choosing the appropriate conflict handling style, the development and stimulation of a collegial and intellectual school’s climate is certainly not an easy process because it takes time to establish trust, security and respect among school members, there is no easy way of understanding and handling school members’ behavior (because the ‘belief’ system of people differs from one to another), and that conflict is inevitable because in any democratic process tensions and disagreements will inevitably emerge at some point. However, a spirit of cooperation and the fair treatment of all educators can produce mutual gains for all those involved, ensure better school conditions and increase the prospects for improved school efficiency (Achinstein, 2002; Andrews and Tjosvold, 1983; Bagshaw et al., 2007; Boardman and Horowitz, 1994; Bush, 2008; Harris, 2005, 2010; Hendel et al., 2005; Henkin et al., 2000). A school leader might be able to activate all their leadership skills in order to build qualitative and intellectual relationships among the school members – thereby reducing tensions and providing inspiration in terms of motivation, respect and trust (Eckman, 2004; De Lima, 2001) – but this is only one side of the story, because the constructive resolution of a conflict may be affected by two key factors: while it does depend mainly on the school leaders’ ability and skills, it also depends on organizational characteristics. This allows for aspects such as hierarchical structure, the clarity of goals and the accuracy of job descriptions, the degree of bureaucracy and the extent to which authority and responsibility are delegated to have an impact on a creative conflict management style. With reference to the Greek reality, educational researchers (Darra et al., 2010; Fassoulis, 2001; Ifanti, 2011; Printzas, 2003; Saiti, 2012; Terzis, 2010) have suggested that the main disadvantages of the Greek school process are the excessive number of education laws, bureaucratic and inefficient processes and the lack of initiatives taken by Greek school leaders to implement the educational process (seemingly because there is no substantive involvement in the decision-making process). All of these give the impression that in Greece the schooling system is biased towards a highly centralized and bureaucratic system which minimizes the cultivation of efficiency in communication and restricts the flexibility, innovation and fluidity of the school leaders. Corwin (1966), Hendel et al. (2005) and Middlewood (2010) have indicated that in reality a highly centralized decision system exhibits little awareness of a school’s circumstances, while obstructing the creativity and the initiatives of the leaders. Moreover, Hoy and Sweetland (2001: 318–319) suggested that a high level of centralization and a heavy dependency on hierarchy make it more likely that school leaders will be reluctant to intervene and will instead choose avoidance as their conflict management style because it would be easier to hide behind the rules, obey authority and satisfy their superiors. In practice, Greek school leaders tend to follow Greek law to the letter, supported by strict, standard procedures with no initiative-taking (Liberis, 2003) and tend not to follow a problem-solving oriented strategy.

602

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

Within this framework, any attempt to promote a creative conflict-handling style within Greek school units should not be limited to a restructuring of its services but, rather, should be a broader, more sustainable attempt that sets out a basis for a more productive system. For this to happen it must have the proper ‘enabling school structure’ (Hoy and Sweetland, 2001: 319). A more rational and substantial delegation of actions and responsibilities to Greek school leaders (Aggelopoulos and Fragoulis, 2003; Brouzos and Kouzouni, 2003; Saitis et al., 1996; Tekos and Iordanidis, 2011) – so that they can act with more freedom and actually function as a school leader and not as an executive instrument (Saiti, 2012) – would certainly strengthen a more people-centred strategy (Giles and Hargreaves, 2006; Greenfield, 1995; Nixon, 2005; Pashiardis et al., 2011; Shen et al., 2012; Woods, 2005; Wong et.al, 2010). In this regard, constructive conflict management requires equal investment in leaders and leadership development (Bush, 2008; Greenfield, 1995; Harris, 2005) because these two are the main elements that drive school systems towards higher levels of quality performance. It should also be recognized that this study has some limitations and as such the area of school conflict management in Greece would benefit from further study. Data gathered from other Greek regions that operate in different socio-economic environments may be needed for a more thorough investigation and to confirm the above results and analysis. The influence of the personal characteristics of leaders of Greek schools, such as gender, age, family status, educational level and total number of years of service in public primary education, on the choice of conflict management strategy and on the development of an appropriate school climate were not investigated in this study. Because the development of a collegial and cooperative spirit in the school unit depends mainly on the school leader’s personality and characteristics, further research is needed. Moreover, the effectiveness of school leaders depends largely on the personality and the characteristics of the school environment and so further research on such variables and their impact on handling school conflict would certainly offer a deeper understanding of the determinants of conflict management strategies. Another important research question that could be investigated is whether or not there is, or should be, any variation in the choice of the conflict management strategy for different levels of education. In addition, the comparison of the effects of personal characteristics and environmental (school) characteristics on the choice of conflict-handling style between the different education levels would also be an interesting matter for further research because it would contribute substantially to identifying the most appropriate conflict handling strategy for each level of education. In particular, in an educational context, conflict management strategies are strongly associated with continuous professional development and initiatives (Armstrong and Baron, 1998; Dean, 1995; Jordan and Troth, 2004; Reeves et al., 2002; Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold and Ding, 2001; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004). In other words, improvements in conflict management practices would benefit from a more theoretical approach, one that would contribute to school management with a better understanding of the psychology of change and the potential difficulties associated with any change. Because a collegial school climate appears to be a crucial factor in securing satisfaction, cohesion and devotion regarding the educators’ activities, the school leader plays a key role in bringing together the school staff and in ensuring teamwork effectiveness and collaboration. As Henkin and Holliman (2009) and Somech (2008) concluded, the collaboration among organizational (school) members can be developed and secured only through consistency in focus, in practice and through the continuous re-assessment of the working environment. Organizational psychology is critically important for human resource management and can be acquired only through appropriate training and development in collaborative consultation (Chen et al., 2005; Eckman, 2004; Engle and Nehrt, 2011; Fields, 1996; Hendel et al., 2005; Jordan and

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

603

Troth, 2004; Mullins, 2007; Robbins and Judge, 2010; Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold and Ding, 2001; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004; Walton, 1987). Only when the development of school leaders is accompanied by competitiveness in terms of knowledge and abilities, collaborative and conceptual skills will the potential benefits of school conflicts be harnessed for a more productive school system. This study is the first empirical research to use econometric analysis for analyzing school conflicts in Greece. Previously, there had been a very limited amount of empirical research on the Greek school environment and even these studies only examine and analyze the role of the school principal (for example, personal characteristics) in the choice of conflict management strategy. This study is distinct from other similar studies in that it extends the theory by considering the impact of organizational characteristics such as the highly centralized school system in Greece on conflict handling style, thereby establishing the background and the basis for in-depth investigation and analysis. In the particular case of Greek schools, as a result of the severe recession and related economic problems over the last two years there has been a cutback in school budgets. In addition, the centralized nature of Greek school funding makes for a relatively inflexible and bureaucratic framework that determines school finances as well as the allocation of school funds. All these factors enhance the potential for conflict within Greek schools. By recognizing that the value of managing conflict strengthens relations and develops confidence in future performance (Henkin et al., 2000; Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold and Hui, 2001; Tjosvold and Su Fang, 2004; Weinstein et al., 2007) and that conflicts can be immediately resolved by bringing all involved entities ‘into a problem-solving situation’ (Everard et al., 2004:105), then one can conclude that integration, collaboration and cohesion are the three conditions needed for efficient resolution of conflicts that could lead to higher levels of team performance and subsequently to increased organizational efficiency. Only when a school leader recognizes and comprehends how these values are inextricably linked with sustaining and improving the effectiveness of a school’s performance can the seeds of constructive conflicts be cultivated and thus help establish a framework in which schools can better achieve their full potential. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References Achinstein B (2002) Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Records 104(3): 421–455. Adler PS and Borys B (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 61–89 Aggelopoulos I and Fragoulis I (2003) The role of school principal–leader in a modern school. Nea Paidia 106(April-May-June): 50–57 (in Greek) Alexopoulos N (2012) Management of administrative information in the regional offices of Ministry of Education. Doctoral (PhD) Thesis, Department of Primary Education, Faculty of Education, University of Athens (in Greek). Andrews IR and Tjosvold D (1983) Conflict management under different levels of conflict intensity. Journal of Occupational Behaviour 40(3): 223–228. Androulakis E and Stamatis P (2009) Communication style of educators during the meeting of teachers council: A case study. Epistimoniko Vima 10(January): 107–118 (in Greek) Armstrong M and Baron A (1998) Performance Management: The New Realities. London: CIPD.

604

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

Bagshaw D, Lepp M and Zorn CR (2007) International research collaboration: Building teams and managing conflicts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24(4): 433–446. Balay R (2006) Conflict management strategies of administrators and teachers. Asian Journal of Management Cases 3(1): 5–24. Beck EM (1974) Conflict change and stability: A reciprocal interaction in schools. Social Forces 52(4): 517–531. Beck EM and Betz M (1975) A comparative analysis of organizational conflict in schools. Sociology of Education 48(Winter): 59–74. Blake RA and Mouton JS (1964) The Managerial Grid. Houston TX: Gulf Publishing. Boardman SK and Horowitz SV (1994) Constructive conflict management and social problems: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues 50(1): 1–12. Boyd D, Grossman P, Ing M, Lankford H, Loeb S and Wyckoff J (2011) The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal 48(2): 303–333. Briggs KL and Wohlstetter P (2003) Key elements of a successful school based management strategy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 14(3): 351–372. Brouzos A and Kouzouni K (2003) Interpersonal conflicts as a part of school reality. Epistimoniki Imerida 16(January): 129–174 (in Greek). Brouzos A (2009) School Educator as a Consultant: A Human Perspective of Education. Athens: Gutenberg Publications (in Greek). Brown KM and Schainker AS (2008) Doing all the right things: Teacher retention issues. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership 11(1): 10–17. Bush T (2003) Educational management: Theory and practice. In: Bush T and Bell L (eds) The Principles and Practices of Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp.15–33. Bush T (2008) From management to leadership: Semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management Administration and Leadership 36(2): 271–288. Chen G and Tjosvold D (2002) Conflict management and team effectiveness in China: The mediating role of justice. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19(4): 557–572. Chen G, Liu C and Tjosvold D (2005) Conflict management for effective top management teams and innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies 42(2): 277–300. Cheng YC (1994) Principal’s leadership as a critical factor for school performance: Evidence from multilevels of primary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 5(3): 299–317. Corwin RG (1966) Staff Conflicts in the Public Schools. USA: Educational Resources Information Center, Ohio State University Darra M, Ifanti A, Prokopiadou G and Saitis C (2010) Basic skills, staffing of school units and training of educators. Nea Paidia 134(April-May-June): 44–68 (in Greek). Dean J (1995) Managing the Primary School. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. De Lima JA (2001) Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict in teacher communities as a catalyst for school change. Journal of Educational Change 2(2): 97–122. Deutsch M (1969) Conflicts: productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues 25(1): 7–41 Dimmock C and Walker A (2000) Developing comparative international educational leadership and management: A cross-cultural model. School Leadership and Management 20(2): 143–160. Eckman EW (2004) Similarities and differences in role conflict, role commitment and job satisfaction for female and male high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(3): 366–387. Engle RL and Nehrt G (2011) Conceptual ability, emotional intelligence and relationship management: A multinational study. Journal of Management Policy and Practice 12(4): 58–72. Everard KB, Morris G and Wilson I (2004) Effective School Management. 4th ed. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

605

Fassoulis K (2001) Quality in the human resource educational management: A critical approach in the system of Total Quality Management. Epitheorisi Epistimonikon kai Ekpaidevtikon Thematon 4(February): 188–189 (in Greek). Fassoulis K (2006) The creative communication as a tool of conflict management in a school environment. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Greek Conference of the EMIEKEK on ‘‘Critical and creative thought in education: Theory and Practice’’, 14-16 May. Athens, Greece, ISSN: 1790-8574: pp.520–525 (in Greek). Fayol H (1949) General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman. Fields BA (1996) A training programme for support teachers: Collaborative consultation and conflict management. British Journal of In-Service Education 22(3): 325–334. Fink D and Brayman C (2006) School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly 42(1): 62–89. Firestone WA and Pennell JR (1993) Teacher commitment, working conditions and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research 63(4): 489–525. Friedman RA, Tidd ST, Currall SC and Tsai JC (2000) What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. The International Conflict Management 11(1): 32–55. Frisby BN and Westerman D (2010) Rational actors: Channel selection and rational choices in romantic conflict episodes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(7): 970–981. Giles C and Hargreaves A (2006) The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organisations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly 42(1): 124–156. Glatter R (2003) Governance, autonomy and accountability in education. In: Bush T and Bell L (eds) The Principles and Practices of Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp.225–240. Greenfield WD (1995) Toward a theory of school administration: The centrality of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 31(1): 61–85. Gross MA and Guerrero LK (2000) Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s organisational conflict styles. The International Journal of Conflict Management 11(3): 200–226. Hallinger P and Leithwood K (1998) Unseen forces: The impact of social culture leadership. Peabody Journal of Education 73(2): 126–151. Harris A (2005) Leading from the chalk-face: An overview of school leadership. Leadership 1(1): 73–87. Harris A (2010) Distributed leadership: Evidence and implications. In:Bush T, Bell L and Middlewood D (eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management. 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp.55–69. Hendel T, Fish M and Galon V (2005) Leadership style and choice of strategy in conflict management among Israeli nurse managers in general hospitals. Journal of Nursing Management 13(2): 137–146. Henkin AB, Cistone PJ and Dee JR (2000) Conflict management strategies of principals in site-based managed schools. Journal of Educational Administration 38(2): 142–158. Henkin AB and Holliman SL (2009) Urban teacher commitment: Exploring associations with organisational conflicts, support for innovation and participation. Urban Education 44(2): 160–180. Hoy WK and Sweetland SR (2001) Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly 37(3): 296–321. Hunt J (1981) Managing People at Work. London: Pan Books. Ifanti A (2011) Educational Policy and Planning for a Modern School. Athens: Livanis Publications (in Greek). Ingersoll R and Smith T (2003) The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership 60(8): 30–33. Iordanidis G (2002) The Role of the Head in an Educational Direction and Office. Athens: Kyriakidi Brothes Publishing (in Greek).

606

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

Irving JA and Longbotham GJ (2007) Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership themes: A regression model based on items in the organizational leadership assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies 2(2): 98–113. Isherwood GB and Hoy WK (1973) Bureaucracy, powerlessness and teacher work values. The Journal of Educational Administration 11(1): 124–138 Johnson SM, Kraft MA and Papay JP (2012) How context matters in high need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, Project of the next generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of Education, (draft). Available at: http://buyersguide.ascendmedia.com/APPAMSessions/PDF/PAPER2559.pdf (accessed June 2013) Jordan PJ and Troth AC (2004) Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance 17(2): 195–218. Kabanoff B (1985) Potential influence structure as sources of interpersonal conflicts in groups and organisations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36(1): 113–141. Kanellopoulos H (1995) Management of Effective Administration in Enterprises, Organisations and Services. Athens: International Publishing (in Greek). Kantek F and Gezer N (2009) Conflict in schools: Student nurses’ conflict management styles. Nurse Education Today 29(1): 100–107. Kapusuzoglu S (2010) An investigation of conflict resolution in educational organisations. African Journal of Business Management 4(1): 96–102. Katsaros I (2008) Organisation and Management in Education. Athens: Paidagogico Institouto (Pedagogical Institute) Publications (in Greek). Kaushal R and Kwantes CT (2006) The role of culture and personality in choice of conflict management strategy. International Journal of InterCultural Relations 30(5): 579–603. Kontakos A and Stamatis PI (2002) Principles of healthy communication in kindergarten. In: Polemikos N, Kaila M and Kalavasis F (eds) Deviations in the Field of Education,.Athens: Atrapos Publications, pp.350–386 (in Greek). Koula V (2011) The inter-personal relations between the school principal and educators: The contribution to the effectiveness of the school unit. Doctoral Thesis (PhD), Aristotelio University of Thessaloniki, Department of Philoshophy and Pedagogical Sciences, Thesaloniki, Greece (in Greek). Kuhn T and Poole M (2000) Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication Research 26(4): 558–590. Limberis L (2011) School principal in Greek primary schools: Dominating practices. Ta Ekpaidevtika 99–100(July-December): 149–160 (in Greek). Maxwell TW and Thomas AR (1991) School climate and school culture. Journal of Educational Administration 29(2): 72–82. Middlewood D (2010) Managing people and performance. In: Bush T, Bell L and Middlewood D (eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management. 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp.132–150. Morse PS and Ivey AE (1996) Face to Face: Communication and Conflict Resolution in the Schools. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Mullins LJ (1996) Management and Organisational Behaviour. 4th ed. London: Pitman. Mullins LJ (2007) Management and Organisational Behaviour. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Nir AE and Eyal O (2003) School based management and the role conflict of the school superintendent. Journal of Educational Administration 41(5): 547–564. Nixon MM (2005) The Servant Leadership: Followership Continuum from a Social Psychology Cognitive Perspective. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University, School of Leadership Studies. Available at: http://

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

607

www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/2005/pdf/ nixon_the_servant.pdf (accessed May 2013) Paraskevopoulos TA (2008) Conflicts among Teachers at School. Athens: Grigoriou Publications (in Greek). Pashiardis P, Savvides V, Lytra E and Angelidou K (2011) Successful school leadership in rural contexts: The case of Cyprus. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 39(5): 536–553. Printzas G (2003) The role of school principal in a modern open school. In: Papanaum Z and Hatzipanagiotou P (eds) School Leadership – Trends and Perspectives. Thessaloniki: Kiriakidi Publications, pp.19–29 (in Greek). Printzas G (2005) Management of human resources in education. In: Kapsalis A (ed.) Organisation and Administration of School Units. Thessaloniki: University of Macedonia, pp.231–242 (in Greek). Prokopiadou G (2009) The improvement of the administrative function of school unit through the use of technology, information and communication. Doctoral Thesis (PhD), Pedagogical Department of Primary Education, University of Athens, Athens (in Greek). Rahim MA and Bonoma TV (1979) Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports 44(3): 1323–1344. Rahim MA, Garrett JE and Buntzman GF (1992) Ethics of managing inier-personal conflicts in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 11(5–6): 423–432. Rahim MA (1983) A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal 26(2): 368–376. Rahim MA (2000) Empirical studies on managing conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management 11(1): 5–8. Rahim MA (2001) Managing Conflicts in Organizations. 3rd ed. London and Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Rahim MA (2002) Toward a theory of managing organisational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management 13(3): 206–235. Rahim MA (2010) Managing Conflicts in Organizations. 4th ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Ritchie R and Woods PA (2007) Degrees of distribution: Towards an understanding of variations in the nature of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management 27(4): 363–381. Reeves J, Forde C, O’Brien J, Smith P and Tomlinson H (2002) Performance Management in Education Improving Practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Robbins SP and Judge T (2010) Essentials of Organisational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Saiti A (2003) The regional director of education and the administrative decentralisation in Education: A relation in crisis. Sighroni Ekpaidevsi, 132–133(September–December): 75–84 (in Greek). Saiti A (2009) The development and reform of school administration in Greece: A primary school perspective. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 37(3): 378–403. Saiti A (2012) Leadership and quality management: An analysis of three key features of the Greek education system. Quality Assurance in Education 20(2): 110–138. Saiti A (2013) Reforms in Greek education 1991–2011: Reforms or something else? eJournal of Education Policy. Spring. Available at: http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/_Forms/spring2013/Saiti. (online 10 pages): 1–10 (accessed May 2013). Saitis C, Darra MD and Psarri K (1996) Dis-functionalities in school organisations: The organisational framework and the degree of organisational support in relations to conflicts. Nea Paidia 79(Summer): 126–142 (in Greek). Shen J, Leslie JM, Spybrook JK and Ma X (2012) Are principal background and school processes related to teacher job satisfaction? A multilevel study using schools and staffing survey 2003–2004. American Educational Research Journal 49(2): 200–230. Shih HA and Susanto E (2010) Conflict management styles, emotional intelligence and job performance in public organisations. The International Journal of Conflict Management 21(2): 147–168.

608

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4)

Simkins T (2000) Education reform and managerialism: comparing the experience of schools and colleges. Journal of Education Policy 15(3): 317–332 Simkins T (2005) Leadership in Education. ‘What works’ or ‘what makes sense’? Educational Management Administration and Leadership 33(1): 9–26. Singh P (2008) Job analysis for a changing workplace. Human Resource Management Review 18(2): 87–99 Somech A (2008) Managing conflict in school teams: The impact of task and goal interdependence on conflict management and team effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(3): 359–390. Stevenson RB (1987) Staff development for effective secondary schools: A synthesis of research. Teaching and Teacher Education 3(3): 233–248. Sweetland SR and Hoy WK (2001) Vanishing the truth in schools: Principals and teachers spinning reality. Journal of Educational Administration 39(3): 282–293 Taylor F (1911) The Principles of scientific Management. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Tekos G and Iordanidis G (2011) School leadership and conflict management style from the school educators’ perspective. Pedagogiki Epitheorisi 51: 199–217 (in Greek). Terzis N (2010) Educational Policy and Educational Reform: Historical and Social Framework and Case Studies. Athens: Kyriakides Publications (in Greek). Tjosvold D (1998) The cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review 47(3): 285–313. Tjosvold D (2008) The conflict positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29(1): 19–28. Tjosvold D and Ding D (2001) Conflict management training in China: The value of cooperative conflict theory. Journal of Teaching in International Business 12(2): 53–75. Tjosvold D and Hui C (2001) Leadership in China: Recent studies on relationship building. Advances in Global Leadership 2(2): 127–151. Tjosvold D, Hui C and Sun H (2000) Social face and open-mindedness: Constructive conflict in Asia. In: Lau CM, Law KS, Tse KD and Wong CS (eds), Asian Management Matters: Regional Relevance and Global Impact. London: Imperial College Press, 3–16. Tjosvold D and Su Fang S (2004) Cooperative conflict management as a basis for training students in China. Theory Into Practice 43(1): 80–86. Tobin T (2001) Organizational determinants of violence in the workplace. Aggression and Violent Behavior 6(1): 91–102. Tolar L (& Associates) and Katz Jameson J (2006) Conflict styles and conflict transformation: Possibilities for new connections. Paper submitted to the 19th Annual Conference of the International Association of Conflict Management, Montreal, Canada, June 25–28, Working Paper Series, Social Science Research Network, Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=915949 Number of Pages in pdf file 17. ( accessed: May 2013). Tourish D and Hargie O (2004) Motivating critical upward communication: a key challenge for management decision making. In: Tourish D and Hargie O (eds) Key Issues in Organizational Communication. London: Routledge, pp.188–204. Tourish D and Robson P (2003) Critical upward feedback in organisations: processes, problems and implications for communication management. Journal of Communication Management 8(2): 150–167 Tourish D and Robson P (2006) Sensemaking and the distortion of critical upward communication in organisations. Journal of Management Studies 43(4): 711–730 Toziou S (2012) The contribution of school principal in managing conflicts among primary school educators: The case of prefectures Imathias and Thessaloniki. Master’s Dissertation, University the Aegean, School of Humanities, Department of Pre-School Education and Educational Design, Rhodes (in Greek).

Saiti: Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader

609

Valsamidis P (1996) Social conflicts in schools. Scholio kai Spiti 1(January–February): 32–41 (in Greek). Trudel J and Reio Jr TG (2011) Managing workplace incivility: The role of conflict management styles – antecedent or antidote? Human Resource Development Quarterly 22(4): 395–423. Van De Vliert E (1998) Conflict and conflict management. In: Drenth PJD, Thierry H and de Wolff CJ (eds) Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology: Personnel Psychology. 2nd ed. Hove: Psychology Press, pp.351–369. Van Wart M (2000) The return to simpler strategies in job analysis: the case of municipal clerks. Review of Public Personnel Administration 20(3): 5–27 Walhstrom KL and Louis KS (2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: The role of professional community, trust, efficacy and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4): 458–495. Wall JA and Callister RR (1995) Conflict and its management. Journal of Management 21(3): 515–558. Walton RE (1969) Interpersonal Peace Making: Confrontation and Third Party Peacemaking. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Walton RE (1987) Managing Conflict. 2nd ed. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Weber M (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weinstein HM, Freedman SW and Hughson H (2007) School voices: Challenges facing education systems after identity-based conflicts. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 2(1): 41–71. Williams JE and Garza L (2006) A case study in change and conflict: The Dallas independent school district. Urban Education 41(5): 459–481. Wohlstetter P, Smyer R and Albers Mohman S (1994) New boundaries for school based management: The high investment model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16(3): 268–286. Wong CS, Wong PM and Peng KZ (2010) Effect of middle-level leader and teacher emotional intelligence on school teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(1): 59–70. Woods A (2005) Democratic Leadership in Education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Xirotiri-Koufidou S (2003) Participative school leadership. In: Papanaum Z and Hatzipanagiotou P (eds) School Leadership – Trends and Perspectives. Thessaloniki: Kiriakidi Publications, pp.55–62 (in Greek).

Author biography Anna Saiti is a Professor in the Department of Home Economics and Ecology, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece. Her research interests focus on management and economics of education. She has participated in several international conferences and she has written several articles regarding management and economics of education that have been published in both Greek and foreign journals.