Organize Commun Article Rvw 3 (Please DO NOT SEND ANOTHER STUDENT'S COMPLETED WORK)

Conflict resolution styles and personality Canaan Messarra, Leila; Karkoulian, Silva; El-Kassar, Abdul-Nasser . International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management ; Bradford 65.6 (2016yf .

ProQuest document link ABSTRACT (ENGLISHyf Purpose - Conflict in the workplace creates a challenge for many of present day managers. The purpose of this paper is to explore the moderating effect of generations X and Y on the relationship between personality and conflict handling styles.

Design/methodology/approach - The study is conducted using a sample of 199 employees working in the electronic retail sector in a non-Western culture. The five-factor model of personality traits is used to measure personality, while conflict styles are measured using Rahim's Organizational Conflict Inventory II.

Findings - Results indicate that generations X and Y moderate the relationship between specific personality traits and conflict handling styles.

Research limitations/implications - This study investigated the moderating effect of generations X and Y on a sample of employees within the electronic retail service sector in Lebanon. It is recommended that future research examine such a relationship in other sectors and cultures for generalizability. Since generation Z (born in the late 1990syf Z L O O V R R Q E H H Q W H U L Q J W K e job market, further studies should include this cohort when investigating the relationships. Finally, for a deeper understanding of the relationship, it is advisable to use both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods.

Practical implications - The understanding of what influences an individual's choice regarding his/her choice of conflict resolution styles is of great use to supervisors in general and human resource managers in particular. This will assist in developing training programs that help employees acquire the appropriate skills necessary to control their impulses in a conflict situation. Training should comprise conflict resolution and communication skills that could help bridge the gap between generations. Effectively managing generational conflict in the workplace can positively contribute to the level and frequency of future conflicts, which in turn, can lead to favorable organizational outcomes.

Originality/value - Earlier research that examined the relationship between personality and conflict management styles have found varying results ranging from weak to strong relationships. The understanding of what influences an individual's choice of which management style he/she chooses is of great use for managers in general and human resource PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 20 managers in particular. This study showed that the inconsistency could be the result of some factors that moderate this relationship. The age of individuals contributes to the strength or the weakness of the various relationships between personality and conflict handling styles. Findings suggest that generations X and Y do not moderate the relationships among the personality traits and the dominating and obliging conflict styles. They do, however, have varying moderating effects on the relationships between specific personality traits and the integrating, avoiding, and compromising styles.

FULL TEXT Introduction Conflict creates a challenge for many managers, an issue very common in today's workplace. These conflicts are likely to arise between individuals or groups because of differences in values, expectations, needs, workplace practices, and personalities, which, in turn, could produce conflicting actions and preferences. However, poorly managing such conflicts in the workplace can have adverse effects on the level and frequency of future conflicts and can negatively affect productivity, job performance (Meyer, 2004; Trudel and Reio, 2011yf D Q G R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D l commitment (Thomas et al. , 2005yf : R U N S O D F H F R Q I O L F W K D V D O V R E H H Q V K R Z Q W R K D Y H D S R V L W L Y H U H O D W L R Q V K L S Z L W h absenteeism and employee sickness (Giebels and Janssen, 2005yf 2 Q W K H R W K H U K D Q G S U R S H U O \ P D Q D J L Q J V X F h conflicts has been shown to decrease stress, improve long-term relationships, and reduce emotional defensiveness (DeChurch et al. , 2007yf 1 H Y H U W K H O H V V W K H F R Q I O L F W P D Q D J H P H Q W V W \ O H W K D W W K H L Q G L Y L G X D O F K R R V H V W o adopt may largely influence the outcome of the conflict.

The conflict handling styles favored by individuals in a certain situation depend on factors such as personality (Ejaz et al. , 2012; Anwar et al. , 2012yf H P R W L R Q D O L Q Y R O Y H P H Q W D Q G W K H S U H Y D L O L Q J F L U F X P V W D Q F H V : L O P R W D Q d Hocker, 2000yf : K H Q F K R R V L Q J Z K L F K F R Q I O L F W P D Q D J H P H Q W V W \ O H W R D G R S W U H V H D U F K H U V V R P H W L P H V V X J J H V W a contingency approach. This approach recognizes that many conflicts happen without warning, and, as such, a reactive approach is inescapable (Zia and Syed, 2013yf & U L W L F V R I W K L V S H U V S H F W L Y H D U J X H W K D W V R P H L Q G L Y L G X D O V D U e not adaptable enough to alternate conflict management styles. Their personalities factor in and largely dictate one style over another (Antonioni, 1998; Thomas, 1976yf $ F F R U G L Q J W R & D U O V R Q \f, genetics and environmental factors are both equally important in personality formation. Personality has been shown to be instrumental in conflict management styles to different extents (Ejaz et al. , 2012; Wang, 2010; Whitworth, 2008yf K D Y L Q J D Q L P S D F t on "how employees interpret their organizational environment, and hence shaping the behaviors in light of those interpretations" (Hong and Kaur, 2008, p. 4yf + R Z H Y H U Q R U H V H D U F K K D V E H H Q F R Q G X F W H G Z L W K U H J D U G V W o generational differences moderating the relationship between personality and conflict management styles.

Generations X and Y are characteristically different as they were brought up at different times. Previous research proposes that intergenerational differences happen as a result of people developing their social identities around technological developments and other important social events (Lyons and Kuron, 2014; McMullin et al. , 2007yf .

Generation X includes those born between the years 1965-1980, while those born between 1981 and 2000 comprise the Millennials or Generation Y.

Conflict Organizational conflict may befall parties because of contradictory emotions about a certain issue, limited resources, incompatible ideologies, different values, lack of communication, and workplace practices, etc. Such conflicts are likely to occur between individuals or groups since each have their own beliefs, attitudes, and values.

Jones et al. (2013, p. 880yf G H I L Q H L W D V W K H G L V F R U G W K D W D U L V H V Z K H Q W K H J R D O V L Q W H U H V W V R U Y D O X H V R I G L I I H U H Q t individuals or groups are incompatible, and those individuals or groups block or thwart one another's attempts to achieve their objectives." Nevertheless, if a conflict is properly managed, it can lead to both personal and organizational benefits (Silverthorne, 2005yf 2 W K H U Z L V H L W F D Q Q H J D W L Y H O \ D I I H F W R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O R X W F R P H V V X F K D s PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 20 productivity, absenteeism, commitment, and job performance (Meyer, 2004; Thomas et al. , 2005; Giebels and Janssen, 2005; Trudel and Reio, 2011yf 6 W L O O P D Q D J L Q J W K H V H F R Q I O L F W V L V Q R H D V \ S U R F H V V D Z L G H U D Q J H R f organizational actions must be taken, including understanding positions, communicating, and problem solving as well as dealing with emotions (Brett, 2001; Behfar et al. , 2008yf .

Many scholars have proposed conceptual models for classifying interpersonal conflict management styles (see, e.g. Blake and Mouton, 1964; Thomas, 1976yf + R Z H Y H U 5 D K L P \f developed a conceptualized classification into two basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for others (this classification will be the basis for our researchyf 7 K H I L U V W G L P H Q V L R Q F R Q F H U Q I R U V H O I G H V F U L E H V W K H G H J U H H K L J K R U O R Z \f to which a person aims to satisfy his/her own motives. The second, concern for others, describes the degree (high or lowyf W R Z K L F K D S H U V R n aims to satisfy others' concerns (Rahim, 1992; Rahim and Bonoma, 1979yf & R P E L Q L Q J W K H V H W Z R G L P H Q V L R Q s renders five interpersonal conflict management styles:

1. Integrating style, also known as collaborating style, is characterized by great concern for both one's own and the other party's goals. Both parties carry out a win-win interaction; they solve the problem by clarifying differences, maximizing joint gains, ultimately reaching a mutually acceptable solution. While some consider it to be the most constructive conflict management style (Rahim, 1983; Blake and Mouton, 1984yf R W K H U V I H H O L W L V P L V O H D G L Q g because it is time and energy consuming, and therefore unsuitable when solving low-priority conflicts (Shetach, 2009yf 5 D K L P \f considers this style potentially inappropriate in situations when immediate decisions need to be made or when the concerned parties lack problem solving skills. 2. Obliging style, also known as accommodating style, is characterized by low concern for one's own goals and high concern for others' where individuals may neglect their own needs to satisfy the other party's - a sacrifice to maintain the relationship. This style holds a self-sacrifice element, and can therefore be dubbed a lose-win situation (Rahim, 1983, 1992yf 3. Dominating style, also known as competing style, is characterized by high concern for one's own goals and low concern for others' where individuals use power to complete their objective and ignore others' interests and needs.

Individuals in management positions are likely to use the power their position affords them. If they hold no such power, they are likely to "yield" power by bluffing or involving a superior (Rahim, 1992yf 7 K H R X W F R P H R I W K L V V W \ O H L s win-lose; only one person comes out of it as a winner. 4. Avoiding style is characterized by low concern for both self and others. In this style, an individual acknowledges the existence of a conflict, but suppresses or withdraws from it - failing to satisfy both his\her own needs and the other's needs and giving the impression of an "unconcerned attitude" (Rahim, 1992yf , W L V F R Q V L G H U H G D O R V H O R V e situation. 5. Compromising style is characterized by intermediate concern for both one's own and others' goals. It involves using give-and-take strategies to reach a happy medium (middle ground positionyf 8 Q O L N H L Q W H J U D W L Q J V W \ O H L Q W K L s style, the problem is not explored fully and neither party's needs are fully satisfied; both have given something up in exchange for something from the other. The object of the conflict is rationed to reach a solution that provides incomplete satisfaction for both parties' concerns. A compromising person is more willing to forgo his\her needs than a dominating person, but less than an obliging person. This style culminates in a no-win/no-lose situation (no clear winner or loseryf Personality Personal features primarily define and forecast human conduct. These personal characteristics also designate different individualities, which can contribute to implications about behavioral consequences (Liao and Lee, 2009yf .

There are several scholars who believe that personality is fundamentally unchangeable (Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Frijters, 2004yf 1 H Y H U W K H O H V V D F F R U G L Q J W R % R \ F H et al. (2013yf W K H D V V X P S W L R Q W K D W S H U V R Q D O L W \ L V I L [ H G L s problematic for several reasons. The chief reason is that this belief condenses the interest in personality to PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 20 practical economists and policy makers. It would not be a valuable target or specific aim for micro- or macro-level intercession. Ferrer-i-Carbonell (2005yf D V V H U W V W K D W H Y H Q W K R X J K S H U V R Q D O L W \ L V D Q L P S H U D W L Y H L Q W H U S U H W H U R I D S H U V R Q , it might only be attention-grabbing if it is a phenomenon that actually changes. Economists, ever more, look at personality as a form of non-cognitive skill, which may have essential penalties for the economic decisions that people make and the upshots that they achieve. On the other hand, Almlund et al. (2011yf D Y R Z W K D W W K H W U D L W V R f personality react to parental actions, level of education, and policy intrusions. This makes personality change a possibility even throughout adulthood.

Additionally, in the psychology field, the stance of personality change has been mixed throughout the years. The traditional view in psychology is that an individual's personality is fairly permanent and enduring. At the outset, personality was thought to be stable especially after the age of 30 in which it has been described to be "set like plaster" (Costa and McCrae, 1988yf ) X U W K H U V W X G L H V F O D L P W K D W S H U V R Q D O L W \ L V D F W X D O O \ V H W O L N H V R I W S O D V W H U V L Q F H L t does change, although in a slow pace after the age of 30 (Srivastava et al. , 2003yf .

According to Robbins et al. (2008yf S H U V R Q D O L W \ W U D L W V D U H D Q D F F H S W H G P H D Q V I R U H O X F L G D W L Q J S H R S O H V E H K D Y L R U .

Current theoreticians approve of the five central personality dimensions, repeatedly referred to as the "Big Five" or "five-factor model," composed of a few qualities used to describe individuals (Durupinar et al. , 2009yf 7 K H I L Y H - factor model of personality suggests that there are five factors to an individual's personality. The Big Five personality traits, also referred to with the acronym OCEAN, are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Goldberg, 1993; Robbins et al. , 2008yf 2 S H Q Q H V V W R H [ S H U L H Q F H V L s the personality attribute that is stalwartly related to the intelligence facet (Fumham et al. , 2008yf , W G H P R Q V W U D W H s to which extent a person has artistic affinity, and it is merely associated to one's attractions to new things (Chamorro-Premuzic et al. , 2009yf , Q G L Y L G X D O V Z K R D U H K L J K O \ R S H Q W R H [ S H U L H Q F H D U H F U H D W L Y H L P D J L Q D W L Y H L Q V S L U H G , and sensitive. Individuals low on openness to experience are conformists and tend to be more at ease with familiar surroundings (McCrae and Costa, 1987; Sodiya et al. , 2007yf .

Pertaining to the second dimension of the five-factor model, conscientiousness is a propensity to exhibit strength of mind, behave devotedly, and show self-control. Conscientiousness designates that individuals are highly motivated and goal oriented (Judge and Ilies, 2002yf + L J K O \ F R Q V F L H Q W L R X V S H R S O H D U H U H V S R Q V L E O H D Q G R U J D Q L ] H G , and therefore are more likely to attain their objectives (Robbins and Judge, 2007yf , Q G L Y L G X D O V Z K R D U H O R Z L n conscientiousness are plainly disorganized and easily distracted.

In addition to this, extroversion is allied to a person's easiness with external relationships and situations (Laney, 2002yf ( [ W U R Y H U W H G S H R S O H J H Q H U D O O \ H Q M R \ V R F L D O L ] L Q J Z L W K R W K H U V D Q G W H Q G W R E H P R U H S R V L W L Y H H Q H U J H W L F I U L H Q G O \ , and outgoing (Srivastava et al. , 2008yf 1 R Q H W K H O H V V L Q W U R Y H U W V D U H W \ S L F D O O \ V K \ T X L H W D Q G G L V W D Q W D V W K H \ S R V V H V s lower energy levels and social interactions than extroverts.

Regarding the fourth element of the five-factor model, the agreeableness trait displays people's general concern for social concord. It shows how much an individual is apt to behave in harmony with the interests of others.

Highly agreeable people are pleasant, kind, trusting, and warm. They are usually willing to compromise with others and are more reliable (Rothmann and Coetzer, 2003; Clarke and Robertson, 2005yf , Q G L Y L G X D O V O R Z L Q D J U H H D E O H Q H V s are time and again forceful, disagreeable, and cold (Graziano and Tobin, 2009yf .

Lastly, the fifth dimension of the five-factor model, neuroticism is the proclivity to experience adverse feelings, such as anger, nervousness, or despair, especially in threatening situations and loss (Lahey, 2009yf 3 H R S O H K L J K L n neuroticism are more likely to be depressed, worried, and anxious. This personality trait is sometimes reversed and denoted as emotional stability (Jeronimus et al. , 2014yf 3 H R S O H Z K R P D U N O R Z L Q Q H X U R W L F L V P W H Q G W R E H H P R W L R Q D O O y PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 20 stable and calm. They do not show evidence of obstinate negative emotions (Dolan, 2006yf .

Personality and conflict management styles Several researchers have, for decades, intended to expose the nature of the relationship between personality and conflict style (Anwar et al. , 2012yf 3 H S L Q \f affirms that findings of these studies have been inconsistent, where some found a weak relationship between personality and style of conflict, while others found a strong relationship between them.

Wang (2010yf I R X Q G D F R U U H O D W L R Q E H W Z H H Q W K H I L Y H I D F W R U P R G H O D Q G F R Q I O L F W P D Q D J H P H Q W V W \ O H V + L V V W X G \ V K R Z H d a positive relationship between integrating conflict style and openness to experience, but a negative one between integrating style and neuroticism. In addition, the obliging conflict style was positively associated with neuroticism, but negatively with extroversion. Furthermore, the avoiding conflict style was positively correlated to neuroticism, but negatively correlated to extroversion. Wang (2010yf F R U U H V S R Q G L Q J O \ H V W D E O L V K H G W K H H [ L V W H Q F H R f a positive correlation between the compromising style and agreeableness, and a negative correlation between the dominating style and agreeableness.

Ejaz et al. (2012yf F R Q G X F W H G D V W X G \ W R L Q Y H V W L J D W H W K H U H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q W K H G L I I H U H Q W F R Q I O L F W K D Q G O L Q J V W \ O H s and personality traits. Their study comprised call center representatives in Pakistan and revealed significant connotations among the diverse conflict handling styles and the Big Five traits. The results displayed that both the integrating and obliging conflict styles were positively correlated to openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, while the compromising and dominating conflict styles, were positively linked to openness and extroversion. Additionally, the avoiding style was positively associated with neuroticism.

On the other hand, Whitworth (2008yf I R X Q G Q R D V V R F L D W L R Q E H W Z H H Q S U H I H U U H G F R Q I O L F W K D Q G O L Q J V W \ O H V D Q d personality factors among female nurses in Southern Mississippi.

Generations X and Y Born between the years 1965-1980, ranging in age from 35 to 50, Generation X, otherwise known as the Baby Busters, was the first generation to really have to deal with the dramatic shift in workplace paradigms brought about by the technological revolution. They were the first to own personal computers, and the first to modernize.

They are seen as generally driven by the mantra "work to live" (Fraone et al. , 2008yf 7 K L V J H Q H U D W L R Q K D V Z L W Q H V V H d many crises in its time. They are "accustomed to recurring economic recessions," and familiar with "oil shortages, terrorist attacks, and soaring inflation." According to Saleh (2008yf J H Q H U D W L R Q ; G H Y H O R S H G V N H S W L F L V P D Q d independence, which helped them succeed in an entrepreneurial setting. They are considered to have a great work ethic and unflinching loyalty when it comes to their workplace.

Also known as Millennials, generation Y ranges in age from 15 to 34, born between 1981 and 2000. Unlike their Baby Busters counterparts, the Millennials were born into an already hi-tech environment. Their time experienced its fair share of violence, particularly with regards to terrorist attacks (Mukundan et al. , 2013yf 5 H V S H F W L Y H O \ W K H L r mantra, "work my way," can be seen as resulting from a career-driven personality that characterizes the generation.

Millennials are considered "special, sheltered, confident, team oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving" (Howe and Strauss, 2000yf Z K R L Q D G G L W L R Q W R E H L Q J K L J K P D L Q W H Q D Q F H D Q G K L J K U L V N F D Q D O V R E H K L J K R X W S X W " (Fraone et al. , 2008yf 7 K H \ D U H K L J K O \ Q H W Z R U N H G D Q G D U H L Q F R Q V W D Q W V H D U F K R I L Q V W D Q W J U D W L I L F D W L R Q .

Millennials see work as elective, if only to further their personal goals; they have a different definition of loyalty than their predecessors and are sometimes described as self-centered. They are contentious to the systems of hierarchy widely accepted by generation X, and rather, expect more of a mentoring role from their supervisors.

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 5 of 20 They would not mind leaving their employer if they find a better opportunity elsewhere for themselves. They expect to be included in intellectual talk and in management decisions (Mukundan et al. , 2013, p. 83yf 7 K H \ U H V S H F t positions and titles, and want a good relationship with their boss. This does not always mix well with generation X's independent nature and hands-off style, and can cause conflict.

Hypothesis development Several previous research studies explored the relationships between the Big Five personality traits and the different conflict management styles, which led to identifying some significant associations among them. This study, however, intends to take things further by investigating a possible moderator of the various relationships.

Thus, the main research question of this paper is the following:

RQ1. Do generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between each of the Big Five personality traits and the five conflict management styles?

A main characteristic of the dominating conflict style is the use of power to achieve results. Since the characteristics of both generations X and Y do not comprise power use, the relationship between the personality traits and the dominating style is supposedly independent on X and Y. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H1. Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and the dominating conflict style.

Additionally, the integrating conflict style is characterized by a large concern for both one's own and the other party's objectives. Unlike generation Y, generation X is known for joining gains and ultimately reaching an acceptable solution. This, in turn, will result in easiness to deal with external relationships and situations, a portrayal of being extroverted. For this reason, it is theorized that generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between extroversion and the integrating style, and that the strength of this relationship is greater for generation X than for generation Y. Nevertheless, not sufficient common characteristics are found between the remaining personality traits and the integrating conflict style. Therefore, the following three hypotheses are formed:

H2a. Generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between extroversion and the integrating conflict style.

H2b. Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism, and integrating conflict styles.

H2c. The moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between extroversion and the integrating conflict style is greater than that of generation Y.

Moreover, the central characteristic of the avoiding style is the withdrawal from a conflict. Generation X tends to suppress from conflict more than generation Y as these individuals are usually more responsible (a feature of conscientiousnessyf P R U H D W H D V H Z L W K W K H L U V X U U R X Q G L Q J V D I H D W X U H R I H [ W U R Y H U V L R Q \f, and more likely to behave in harmony with others' interests (a feature of agreeablenessyf % H F D X V H R I W K L V L W L V H [ S H F W H G W K D W J H Q H U D W L R Q V ; D Q d Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, and the avoiding conflict style, and that the strength of this relationship is greater for generation X than for generation Y. Unlike the common characteristics between conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness, and the PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 6 of 20 avoiding conflict style, such commonalities cannot be pinpointed for the two remaining personality traits, openness, and neuroticism. Consequently, the next three hypotheses are developed:

H3a. Generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness, and the avoiding conflict style.

H3b. Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between openness and neuroticism, and the avoiding conflict style.

H3c. The moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness, and the avoiding conflict style is greater than that of generation Y.

Furthermore, a main characteristic of the obliging conflict style is a low concern for one's own goals. Both generations X and Y are concerned for their objectives and do not neglect their desires. For that reason, the association between the personality factors and the obliging style is expected to be independent on X and Y.

Therefore, the subsequent hypothesis is developed:

H4. Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and the obliging conflict style.

In addition, a fundamental characteristic of the compromising conflict is reaching middle ground position where give-and-take strategies are applied to satisfy both one's own and others' objectives. Contrasting to generation Y, generation X seems to be more willing to compromise as they show self-control and behave devotedly, known features of being conscientious. As a result of this, it is hypothesized that even though generations X and Y may have a moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style, the effect of generation X is expected to be larger than that of generation Y. Unlike the common characteristics between conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style, such similarities cannot be found for the remaining personality traits, openness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Thus, the following three hypotheses are formulated:

H5a. Generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style.

H5b. Generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between openness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, and the compromising conflict style.

H5c. The moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style is greater than that of generation Y.

Research design and data collection The aim of this research is to test whether generations X and Y, as separate cohorts, moderate the relationship between conflict handling styles and personality.

For the purpose of collecting data for this study, the top electronic retail companies in Lebanon were contacted.

The Lebanese electronic retail sector is one of the most developed sectors, and is a major contributor to the Lebanese economy. This sector was chosen for its popularity across generations; it largely employs members of the newer generations, who grew up surrounded by technology, while holding onto members of the older PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 7 of 20 generation as well.

In order to carry out the data collection process, e-mails were sent to the HR departments of ten selected companies. The addressed e-mail contained a brief introduction about the purpose of the study and asked whether they would like to participate by completing it. The questionnaire was then sent to the HR departments of the eight companies that agreed to take part in it, which distributed it to their employees across all levels. All participants were assured complete anonymity.

The questionnaire was initially piloted by three management professors and five professionals in the field during the first week of June 2013. Then, it was amended where needed to ensure content validity. The final questionnaire was administered between July 2013 and December 2013, culminating in a total of 214 responses from the participating companies, in which 199 were usable.

The questionnaire collected demographic data regarding age, gender, education, years of work experience, and position. Also, it contained a section with questions regarding the conflict handling styles (integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromisingyf D Q G D Q R W K H U V H F W L R Q S H U W D L Q L Q J W R S H U V R Q D O L W \ R S H Q Q H V V , conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stabilityyf .

Construct measures The question relating to age asked about date of birth, divided into the following categories: 1981-2000, 1965-1980, and 1964 or before. These categories were chosen in order to identify generations X and Y. The answers of participants born before 1965 were removed from consideration.

The conflict resolution styles were measured using the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory II, constructed by Afzalur Rahim in 1983 and based on the five items depicted in the present survey: dominating style (Q1-Q4yf ; integrating style (Q5-Q8yf D Y R L G L Q J V W \ O H 4 4 \f; obliging style (Q13-16yf D Q G F R P S U R P L V L Q J V W \ O H 4 \f. This scale was used to accurately measure the conflict resolution styles of the employees. To this end, the effect of generations X and Y on conflict resolution can be accurately studied as this instrument has been proven valid and reliable (Hopkins and Yonker, 2015; Rahim, 1983yf .

The personality traits were measured using the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-Ryf D Q G 1 ( 2 ) L Y H ) D F W R r Inventory (NEO-FFIyf F R Q V W U X F W H G D Q G G H Y H O R S H G E \ & R V W D D Q G 0 F & U D H \f, and based on the five items depicted in the present survey: openness (Q1-Q5yf F R Q V F L H Q W L R X V Q H V V 4 4 \f; extraversion (Q11-Q15yf D J U H H D E O H Q H V s (Q16-20yf D Q G H P R W L R Q D O V W D E L O L W \ 4 4 \f. The above mentioned scale was used to accurately measure the personality traits of the employees working in the electronic retail industry in Lebanon. To this end, the moderating effect between generations X and Y, and conflict resolution can be accurately studied as this instrument has been proven valid and reliable (Oshio et al. , 2014; Karkoulian et al. , 2009yf .

Both instrument statements were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agreeyf .

Results Demographics Pertaining to the participants' generation, 51.3 percent belong to generation Y while 48.7 percent belong to generation X. Regarding the gender of the respondents, 56.8 percent are females and 43.2 percent are males.

Additionally, concerning the level of education, the majority of the participants (43.2 percentyf D U H K R O G H U V R I a bachelor's degree and 38.6 percent hold a degree higher than bachelor. Relating to the years of work experience, PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 8 of 20 41.2 percent of the participants had zero to five years of experience, 21.6 percent had six to ten, 12.1 percent had 11-15, 12.1 percent had 16-20, and 13.1 percent had above 20 years of work experience. Moreover, the majority of the respondents occupied non-managerial positions (49 percentyf S H U F H Q W R F F X S L H G P L G G O H O H Y H O P D Q D J H P H Q t positions, 20.2 percent occupied operational management positions, while only 9.6 percent occupied top-level management positions.

Correlation To test for relationships between the five personality traits and the different styles of conflict, a correlation matrix was conducted. The results are displayed in Table I.

The outcomes show that no significant relationships exist between the dominating style and the Big Five personality traits. This is in line with neither the study of Wang (2010yf Z K R I R X Q G W K D W W K H G R P L Q D W L Q J V W \ O H D Q d agreeableness have a significant negative relationship, nor the study of Ejaz et al. (2012yf Z K R I R X Q G W K D t dominating style is positively related to openness and extroversion. The integrating conflict style, however, is positively correlated to openness (consistent with both the findings of Wang, 2010 and Ejaz et al. , 2012yf , conscientiousness (unfailing to Ejaz et al. , 2012yf H [ W U R Y H U V L R Q D Q G D J U H H D E O H Q H V V V L P L O D U W R ( M D ] et al. , 2012yf D W a significance level of 0.01, and negatively correlated to neuroticism (unfailing to Wang, 2010yf D W D V L J Q L I L F D Q F e level. Moreover, the avoiding conflict style is significantly related to openness at a 0.01 significance level, and significantly related to extroversion and agreeableness at a 0.05 significance level, which are not in line with Wang's (2010yf D Q G ( M D ] et al. 's (2012yf V W X G \ , Q D G G L W L R Q W R W K L V W K H R E O L J L Q J F R Q I O L F W V W \ O H L V Q H J D W L Y H O \ F R U U H O D W H d to conscientiousness, but positively correlated to neuroticism (consistent to Wang's, 2010 results but not to Ejaz et al. , 2012 resultsyf D W D V L J Q L I L F D Q F H O H Y H O $ O V R W K H F R P S U R P L V L Q J F R Q I O L F W V W \ O H L V V L J Q L I L F D Q W O \ U H O D W H G W o openness, conscientiousness, and extroversion at a 0.01 level of significance and to agreeableness (unfailing to Wang's, 2010 researchyf D W D V L J Q L I L F D Q F H O H Y H O .

Regression analysis To assess probable generational differences in the intercept and slope for prediction of conflict style, a regression was conducted to predict conflict style from generations (dummy coded 1=generation X, 0=generation Yyf , personality traits, and a product term to represent a generation-by-personality traits interaction. Thus, the regression model is applied to test the moderating effect of generations X and Y on the relationship between each personality trait and each conflict handling style.

In relation to the dominating conflict style, results reveal that the regression models to predict the dominating style from the generation with respect to the Big Five personality factors are not statistically significant. In other words, no significant interaction was found between any personality traits moderated by generations X and Y with the dominating conflict style. This supports H1 that generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and the dominating conflict style. The output is shown in Table AI.

Furthermore, relative to the integrating conflict style, the overall regression model to predict the integrating style from the generation with respect to extroversion is statistically significant with R=0.4302, R2=0.1851, F=25.3956, and p-value=0.0000. The interaction of generations on the relation between extroversion and the integrating style is statistically significant with b 3=0.5348 and a corresponding p-value=0.0016. Additionally, the effect of generation X (0.7511yf R Q W K H V W D W H G U H O D W L R Q V K L S L V J U H D W H U W K D Q W K H H I I H F W R I J H Q H U D W L R Q < \f. No other significant relationships were found between the remaining personality traits and the integrating conflict style.

This provides evidence to support H2a and H2b , which state that generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between extraversion and the integrating conflict style, but not between openness, PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 9 of 20 conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and the integrating conflict style. Also, H2c which states that the moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between extroversion and the integrating conflict style is greater than that of generation Y is supported. The results are illustrated in Table II.

In turn, the overall regression equation to predict the integrating style relative to extroversion is as follows:

(Equation 1yf Replacing the variables into the expression, the equation becomes:

(Equation 2yf The nature of this interaction can be comprehended by substituting the dummy variable score values into the above regression equation.

For generation Y:

(Equation 3yf Thus:

(Equation 4yf For generation X:

(Equation 5yf Simplifying the expression, the equation becomes:

(Equation 6yf Furthermore, the overall regression model to predict the avoiding conflict style from the generation with respect to the personality traits is performed. Results show that the interactions of generations on the relation between the integrating style and conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are statistically significant with p-values of 0.0145, 0.0455, and 0.0282, respectively. The moderating effect of generation X on each relationship is greater than the effect of generation Y, as illustrated in Table III. However, no significant interactions are found between the remaining two personality traits moderated by generations X and Y and the avoiding conflict style. This provides evidence to support H3a and H3b , that there is a moderating effect of generations X and Y on the relationship between conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness, and the avoiding conflict style, while there is no such moderating effect on the relationship between openness and neuroticism, and the avoiding conflict style. Additionally, H3c is also supported since the moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness, and the avoiding conflict style is greater than that of generation Y.

By this, the overall regression equation to predict the avoiding style relative to conscientiousness is as follows:

(Equation 7yf Replacing the dummy variable score values into the above expression, the equation becomes.

For generation Y:

(Equation 8yf Thus:

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 10 of 20 (Equation 9yf For generation X:

(Equation 10yf Simplifying the expression, the equation becomes:

(Equation 11yf Likewise, the regression equation to predict the avoiding style relative to extraversion is as follows.

For generation Y:

(Equation 12yf For generation X:

(Equation 13yf Similarly, the regression equation to predict the avoiding style relative to agreeableness is.

For generation Y:

(Equation 14yf For generation X:

(Equation 15yf Moreover, in relation to the obliging conflict style, no significant interactions were found between any personality traits moderated by generations X and Y. This supports H4 that generations X and Y do not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and the obliging conflict style. The output table is shown in Table AII.

Finally, relative to the compromising conflict style, the overall regression model to predict this style from the generation with respect to conscientiousness is statistically significant with R=0.3327, R2=0.1107, F=6.3057, and p-value=0.0004. The interaction of generations on the relation between conscientiousness and the compromising style is significant with b 3=0.4321 and a corresponding p-value=0.0236. Also, the moderating effect of generation X (0.5228yf R Q W K H U H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q F R Q V F L H Q W L R X V Q H V V D Q G W K H F R P S U R P L V L Q J F R Q I O L F W V W \ O H L V J U H D W H U W K D Q W K D t of generation Y (0.0907yf 1 R V L J Q L I L F D Q W L Q W H U D F W L R Q V Z H U H I R X Q G E H W Z H H Q W K H U H P D L Q L Q J S H U V R Q D O L W \ W U D L W s moderated by generations X and Y with the compromising conflict style, as illustrated in Table IV. This provides evidence to support H5a and H5b that generations X and Y have a moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style, but no moderating effect on the relationship between openness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, and the compromising conflict. In addition to this, H5c is supported as the moderating effect of generation X on the relationship between conscientiousness and the compromising conflict style is greater than that of generation Y.

Thus, the regression equation to predict the compromising style relative to conscientiousness is as follows.

For generation Y:

(Equation 16yf PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 11 of 20 For generation X:

(Equation 17yf Discussion The results indicated no moderating effect of generations X and Y between the dominating conflict handling style and the Big Five personality traits. This seems in line with the characteristics of generations X and Y, which do not comprise the use of power to complete any objectives. This is true especially for generation Y who prefer to work in teams instead of dominatingly leading as they are more team oriented (Howe and Strauss, 2000yf .

Moreover, the results showed no moderating effect of generations X and Y between the obliging conflict handling style and the Big Five personality traits. Both generations X and Y do not sacrifice their own needs or goals to satisfy others. On the contrary, individuals of generation Y believe in empowerment, are achievement oriented, and acquire career-driven personalities. They are also considered self-centered enough not to abide by other people's desires (Mukundan et al. , 2013yf .

On the other hand, results revealed that generations X and Y moderated the relationship between the integrating conflict style and extraversion. However, X had a greater moderating effect than Y. Individuals of generation X are most likely to prefer an integrating style for conflict handling since it is the most constructive among the conflict styles and may lead to joint gains for both parties. Generation X is known for joining gains and eventually reaching a suitable solution. They also acquire a great concern for their own as well as another party's best interest. They are flexible and usually more loyal than generation Y. All of these characteristics ease their dealings in relationships and situations, a description of being extroverted. Generation Y individuals, nonetheless, like to work their own way and tend to leave when something better comes along (Mukundan et al. , 2013yf .

Additionally, generations X and Y moderated the relationship between compromising conflict style and conscientiousness. Conversely, X had a larger moderating effect than Y. This stems from the independent and reliable character of generation X, who are more devoted and responsible, two of the characteristics of the compromising handling style (Borges et al. , 2010; Saleh, 2008yf , Q G L Y L G X D O V R I J H Q H U D W L R Q ; D U H P R U H Z L O O L Q J W R J L Y e up something in exchange for something else, unlike individuals of generation Y, who are regarded as more selfish and sheltered (Howe and Strauss, 2000yf & R Q W U D V W L Q J W R J H Q H U D W L R Q < L Q G L Y L G X D O V Z K R E H O R Q J W R J H Q H U D W L R Q ; V H H m to be more willing to compromise as they show self-control and behave dutifully, known features of being conscientious.

Finally, generations X and Y moderated the relationship between the avoiding style and conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness, X having a greater effect than Y. Individuals of generation X aim to achieve and plan behavior rather than react spontaneously, and they are more willing to withdraw in order to find a solution that is acceptable to all (or to simply avoid the confrontationyf 7 K H \ D U H P R U H D G U L I W D Q G S O H D V D Q W , Q G L Y L G X D O V R f generation Y, however, are willing to take more risks (Fraone et al. , 2008yf 7 K H L U D W W L W X G H V D U H L Q I O X H Q F H G E \ W R G D \ s increased violence and numerous hollow reality shows (Mukundan et al. , 2013yf 8 Q O L N H J H Q H U D W L R Q < J H Q H U D W L R Q X tends to suppress from conflict more than generation Y, as these individuals are usually more responsible (a feature of conscientiousnessyf P R U H D W H D V H Z L W K W K H L U V X U U R X Q G L Q J V D I H D W X U H R I H [ W U R Y H U V L R Q \f, and more likely to behave in harmony with others' interests (a feature of agreeablenessyf .

Conclusion, limitations, and future research Earlier research that examined the relationship between personality and conflict management styles have found varying results ranging from weak to strong relationships. The understanding of what influences an individual's choice of which management style he/she chooses is of great use for managers in general and human resource PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 12 of 20 managers in particular. This study showed that the inconsistency could be the result of some factors that moderate this relationship. The age of individuals contributes to the strength or the weakness of the various relationships between personality and conflict handling styles. Findings suggest that generations X and Y do not moderate the relationships among the personality traits and the dominating and obliging conflict styles. They do, however, have varying moderating effects on the relationships between specific personality traits and the integrating, avoiding, and compromising styles.

This study investigated the moderating effect of generations X and Y on a sample of employees within the electronic retail service sector in Lebanon. It is recommended that future research examine such a relationship in other sectors and cultures for generalizability. Since generation Z (born in the late 1990syf Z L O O V R R Q E H H Q W H U L Q J W K e job market, further studies should include this cohort when investigating the relationships. Finally, for a deeper understanding of the relationship, it is advisable to use both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods.

Table IPersonality traits and conflict styles [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Table IIModerating effect on the integrating conflict style [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Table IIIModerating effect on the avoiding conflict styles [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Table IVModerating effect on the compromising conflict style [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Table AIModerating effect on the dominating conflict style [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Table AIIModerating effect on the obliging conflict style [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 1 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 2 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 3 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 4 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 5 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 6 PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 13 of 20 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 7 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 8 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 9 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 10 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 11 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 12 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 13 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 14 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 15 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 16 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] Equation 17 [figure omitted; refer to PDF] References Almlund, M., Duckworth, A.L., Heckman, J.J., and Kautz, T.D., (2011yf 3 H U V R Q D O L W \ S V \ F K R O R J \ D Q G H F R Q R P L F V Q R .

w16822, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Antonioni, D., (1998yf 5 H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q W K H % L J ) L Y H S H U V R Q D O L W \ I D F W R U V D Q G F R Q I O L F W P D Q D J H P H Q W V W \ O H V , International Journal of Conflict Management , Vol. 9 no. 4, pp. 336-355.

Anwar, M., Shahzad, K., and Ijaz-ul-Rehman, Q., (2012yf 0 D Q D J L Q J F R Q I O L F W V W K U R X J K S H U V R Q D O L W \ P D Q D J H P H Q W , African Journal of Business Management , Vol. 6 no. 10, pp. 3725-3732.

Behfar, K.J., Peterson, R.S., Mannix, E.A., and Trochim, W.M.K., (2008yf 7 K H F U L W L F D O U R O H R I F R Q I O L F W U H V R O X W L R Q L n teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes", PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 14 of 20 Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 93 no. 1, pp. 170-188.

Blake, R., and Mouton, J., (1964yf The Managerial Grid , Gulf, Houston, TX.

Blake, R.R., and Mouton, J.S., (1984yf Solving Costly Organizational Conflicts , Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Borges, N.J., Manuel, R.S., Elam, C.L., and Jones, B.J., (2010yf ' L I I H U H Q F H V L Q P R W L Y H V E H W Z H H Q 0 L O O H Q Q L D O D Q d Generation X medical students", Medical Education , Vol. 44 no. 6, pp. 570-576.

Boyce, C., Wood, A., and Powdthavee, N., (2013yf , V S H U V R Q D O L W \ I L [ H G " 3 H U V R Q D O L W \ F K D Q J H V D V P X F K D V Y D U L D E O H ' economic factors and more strongly predicts changes to life satisfaction", Social Indicators Research , Vol. 111 no.

1, pp. 287-305.

Brett, J., (2001yf Negotiating Globally: How to Negotiate Deals, Resolve Disputes, and Make Decisions Across Cultural Boundaries , Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Carlson, N., (2010yf Psychology the Science of Behaviour , ISBN 978-0-205-64524-4, Pearson Canada, p. 438.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Reimers, S., Hsu, A., and Ahmetoglu, G., (2009yf : K R D U W W K R X " 3 H U V R Q D O L W \ S U H G L F W R U V R f artistic preferences in a large UK sample: the importance of openness", British Journal of Psychology , Vol. 100 no.

1, pp. 501-516.

Clarke, S., and Robertson, I.T., (2005yf $ P H W D D Q D O \ W L F U H Y L H Z R I W K H % L J ) L Y H S H U V R Q D O L W \ I D F W R U V D Q G D F F L G H Q t involvement in occupational and nonoccupational settings", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 78 no. 1, pp. 355-376.

Costa, P.T., and McCrae, R.R., (1988yf 3 H U V R Q D O L W \ L Q D G X O W K R R G D \ H D U O R Q J L W X G L Q D O V W X G \ R I V H O I U H S R U W V D Q d spouse ratings on the NEO Personality-Inventory", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 54 no. 1, pp.

853-863.

Costa, P.T. Jr, and McCrae, R.R., (1992yf Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-Ryf D Q G 1 ( 2 ) L Y H ) D F W R r Inventory (NEO-FFIyf 3 U R I H V V L R Q D O 0 D Q X D l , Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.

DeChurch, L.A., Hamilton, K.L., and Haas, C., (2007yf ( I I H F W V R I F R Q I O L F W P D Q D J H P H Q W V W U D W H J L H V R Q S H U F H S W L R Q V R f intragroup conflict", Group Dynamics , Vol. 11 no. 1, pp. 66-78.

Dolan, S.L., (2006yf Stress, Self-Esteem, Health and Work , Palgrave Macmillan, p. 76.

Durupinar, F., Pelechano, N., Allbeck, J.M., Gudukbay, U., and Badler, N.I., (2009yf + R Z W K H R F H D Q S H U V R Q D O L W \ P R G H l affects the perception of crowds", IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications , Vol. 3 no. 1, pp. 22-31.

Ejaz, S.S., Iqbal, F., and Ara, A., (2012yf 5 H O D W L R Q V K L S D P R Q J S H U V R Q D O L W \ W U D L W V D Q G F R Q I O L F W K D Q G O L Q J V W \ O H V R I F D O l center representatives and appraisal of existing service model", International Journal of Psychological Studies , Vol.

4 no. 4, pp. 27-36.

Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., (2005yf , Q F R P H D Q G Z H O O E H L Q J D Q H P S L U L F D O D Q D O \ V L V R I W K H F R P S D U L V R Q L Q F R P H H I I H F W , Journal of Public Economics , Vol. 89 no. 1, pp. 997-1019.

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 15 of 20 Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., and Frijters, P., (2004yf + R Z L P S R U W D Q W L V P H W K R G R O R J \ I R U W K H H V W L P D W H V R I W K H G H W H U P L Q D Q W s of happiness?", Economic Journal , Vol. 114 no. 1, pp. 641-659.

Fraone, J., Hartmann, D., and McNally, K., (2008yf 7 K H P X O W L J H Q H U D W L R Q D O Z R U N I R U F H P D Q D J H P H Q W L P S O L F D W L R Q V D Q d strategies for collaboration", Boston, MA, available at:

www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/cwf/research/publications/pdf/MultiGen_EBS.pdf.

Fumham, A., Swami, V., Arteche, A., and Chamorro-Premuzic, T., (2008yf & R J Q L W L Y H D E L O L W \ O H D U Q L Q J D S S U R D F K H V D Q d personality correlates of general knowledge", Educational Psychology , Vol. 28 no. 2, pp. 427-437.

Giebels, E., and Janssen, O., (2005yf & R Q I O L F W V W U H V V D Q G U H G X F H G Z H O O E H L Q J D W Z R U N W K H E X I I H U L Q J H I I H F W R I W K L U G - party help", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 14 no. 2, pp. 137-155.

Goldberg, L.R., (1993yf 7 K H V W U X F W X U H R I S K H Q R W \ S L F S H U V R Q D O L W \ W U D L W V American Psychologist , Vol. 48 no. 1, pp. 26- 34.

Graziano, W.G., and Tobin, R.M., (2009yf $ J U H H D E O H Q H V V L Q / H D U \ 0 5 D Q G + R \ O H 5 + ( G V \f, Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior , Guildford Press, New York, NY.

Hong, L.C., and Kaur, S., (2008yf $ U H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O F O L P D W H H P S O R \ H H S H U V R Q D O L W \ D Q G L Q W H Q W L R n to leave", International Review of Business Research Papers , Vol. 4 no. 3, pp. 1-10.

Hopkins, M.M., and Yonker, R.D., (2015yf 0 D Q D J L Q J F R Q I O L F W Z L W K H P R W L R Q D O L Q W H O O L J H Q F H D E L O L W L H V W K D W P D N H a difference", Journal of Management Development , Vol. 34 no. 2, pp. 226-244.

Howe, N., and Strauss, W., (2000yf Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation , Vintage Books, New York, NY.

Jeronimus, B.F., Riese, H., Sanderman, R., and Ormel, J., (2014yf 0 X W X D O U H L Q I R U F H P H Q W E H W Z H H Q Q H X U R W L F L V P D Q d life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 107 no. 4, pp. 751-764.

Jones, G., George, J., and Belkhodja, O., (2013yf Contemporary Management , McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.

Judge, T.A., and Ilies, R., (2002yf 5 H O D W L R Q V K L S R I S H U V R Q D O L W \ W R S H U I R U P D Q F H P R W L Y D W L R Q D P H W D D Q D O \ W L F U H Y L H Z , Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 87 no. 1, pp. 797-807.

Karkoulian, S., Messarra, L., and Sidani, M., (2009yf & R U U H O D W H V R I W K H E D V H V R I S R Z H U D Q G W K H E L J I L Y H S H U V R Q D O L W y traits: an empirical investigation", Journal of organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict , Vol. 13 no. 1, pp.

71-82.

Lahey, B.B., (2009yf 3 X E O L F K H D O W K V L J Q L I L F D Q F H R I Q H X U R W L F L V P American Psychologist , Vol. 64 no. 1, pp. 241-256.

Laney, M.O., (2002yf The Introvert Advantage , Thomas Allen &Son Limited, pp. 28-35.

Liao, C., and Lee, C., (2009yf $ Q H P S L U L F D O V W X G \ R I H P S O R \ H H M R E L Q Y R O Y H P H Q W D Q G S H U V R Q D O L W \ W U D L W V W K H F D V H R f Taiwan", International Journal of Economics and Management , Vol. 3 no. 1, pp. 22-36.

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 16 of 20 Lyons, S., and Kuron, L., (2014yf * H Q H U D W L R Q D O G L I I H U H Q F H V L Q W K H Z R U N S O D F H D U H Y L H Z R I W K H H Y L G H Q F H D Q G G L U H F W L R Q s for future research", Journal of Organizational Behavior , Vol. 35 no. S1, pp. S139-S157.

McCrae, R.R., and Costa, P.T., (1987yf 9 D O L G D W L R Q R I W K H I L Y H I D F W R U P R G H O R I S H U V R Q D O L W \ D F U R V V L Q V W U X P H Q W V D Q d observers", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 52 no. 1, pp. 81-90.

McMullin, J.A., Duerden Comeau, T., and Jovic, E., (2007yf * H Q H U D W L R Q D O D I I L Q L W L H V D Q G G L V F R X U F H V R I G L I I H U H Q F H V a case study of highly skilled information technology workers", British Journal of Sociology , Vol. 58 no. 2, pp. 297- 316.

Meyer, S., (2004yf 2 U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O U H V S R Q V H W R F R Q I O L F W I X W X U H F R Q I O L F W D Q G Z R U N R X W F R P H V Social Work Research , Vol. 28 no. 3, pp. 183-190.

Mukundan, S., Dhanya, M., and Saraswathyamma, K.P., (2013yf $ V W X G \ R Q W K H F R Q I O L F W U H V R O X W L R Q V W \ O H V R f Generation Y students in indian context", International Journal of Global Business , Vol. 6 no. 1, pp. 81-90.

Oshio, A., Abe, S., Cutrone, P., and Gosling, S.D., (2014yf ) X U W K H U Y D O L G L W \ R I W K H - D S D Q H V H Y H U V L R Q R I W K H W H Q L W H m personality inventory (TIPI-Jyf Journal of Individual Differences , Vol. 35, pp. 236-244. doi: 10.1027/1614- 0001/a000145.

Pepin, J., (2005yf $ Q L Q Y H V W L J D W L R Q R I Z K H W K H U F R S L Q J P H F K D Q L V P V P H G L D W H W K H U H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q S H U V R Q D O L W y traits and conflict management styles", Dissertations and Theses Database no. AAT MR06973, St Mary's University.

Rahim, M.A., (1983yf $ P H D V X U H R I V W \ O H V R I K D Q G O L Q J F R Q I O L F W Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 26 no. 2, pp.

368-376.

Rahim, M.A., (1992yf Managing Conflict in Organizations , 2nd ed., Praeger, Westport, CT.

Rahim, M.A., and Bonoma, T.V., (1979yf 0 D Q D J L Q J R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O F R Q I O L F W D P R G H O I R U G L D J Q R V L V D Q G L Q W H U Y H Q W L R Q , Psychology Reports , Vol. 44 no. 3c, pp. 1323-1344.

Robbins, S.P., and Judge, T.A., (2007yf Organizational Behavior , 12th ed., Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A., and Sanghi, S., (2008yf Organizational Behavior , Pearson Education, NJ.

Rothmann, S., and Coetzer, E.P., (2003yf 7 K H E L J I L Y H S H U V R Q D O L W \ G L P H Q V L R Q V D Q G M R E S H U I R U P D Q F H SA Journal of Industrial Psychology , Vol. 29 no. 1, pp. 68-74.

Saleh, K., (2008yf 0 D Q D J L Q J W R P D Q D J H D F U R V V J H Q H U D W L R Q V D W Z R U N D Y D L O D E O H D W :

www.psychologyfoundation.org/pdf/publications/GenerationsAtWork.pdf, (accessed June 16, 2015yf .

Silverthorne, C.P., (2005yf Organizational Psychology in Cross-Cultural Perspective , New York University Press, New York, NY.

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 17 of 20 Shetach, A., (2009yf 7 K H I R X U G L P H Q V L R Q V P R G H O D W R R O I R U H I I H F W L Y H F R Q I O L F W P D Q D J H P H Q W International Studies of Management &Organization , Vol. 39 no. 3, pp. 82-106.

Sodiya, A.S., Longe, H.O., Onashoga, S.A., Awodele, O., and Omotosho, L.O., (2007yf $ Q L P S U R Y H G D V V H V V P H Q W R f personality traits in software engineering", Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management , Vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 163-177.

Srivastava, S., Angelo, K.M., and Vallereux, S.R., (2008yf ( [ W U D Y H U V L R Q D Q G S R V L W L Y H D I I H F W D G D \ U H F R Q V W U X F W L R n study of person-environment transactions", Journal of Research in Personality , Vol. 42 no. 1, pp. 1613-1618.

Srivastava, S., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D., and Potter, J., (2003yf ' H Y H O R S P H Q W R I S H U V R Q D O L W \ L Q H D U O \ D Q G P L G G O e adulthood: set like plaster or persistent change?", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 84 no. 1, pp.

1041-1053.

Thomas, J.L., Bliese, P.D., and Jex, S.M., (2005yf , Q W H U S H U V R Q D O F R Q I O L F W D Q G R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O F R P P L W P H Q W H [ D P L Q L Q g two levels of supervisory support as multilevel moderators", Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 35, pp. 2375-2398.

Thomas, K.W., (1976yf & R Q I O L F W D Q G F R Q I O L F W P D Q D J H P H Q W L Q ' X Q Q H W W H 0 ' ( G \f, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , RandMcNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 889-935.

Trudel, J., and Reio, T.G. Jr, (2011yf 0 D Q D J L Q J Z R U N S O D F H L Q F L Y L O L W \ W K H U R O H R I F R Q I O L F W P D Q D J H P H Q W V W \ O H V - antecedent or antidote?", Human Resource Development Quarterly , Vol. 22 no. 4, pp. 395-423.

Wang, X., (2010yf 7 K H U H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q W K H I L Y H I D F W R U S H U V R Q D O L W \ D Q G F R Q I O L F W P D Q D J H P H Q W V W \ O H V L Q a manufacturing setting", University of Phoenix, AZ, 271pp.

Wilmot, W.H., and Hocker, J.L., (2000yf Interpersonal Conflict , 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Whitworth, B.S., (2008yf , V W K H U H D U H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q S H U V R Q D O L W \ W \ S H D Q G S U H I H U U H G F R Q I O L F W K D Q G O L Q J V W \ O H V " $ n exploratory study of registered nurses in Southern Mississippi", Journal of Nursing Management , Vol. 16 no. 8, pp.

921-932.

Zia, Y.A., and Syed, P.H., (2013yf $ Q H [ S O R U D W R U \ V W X G \ L Q W R W K H F D X V H V R I F R Q I O L F W D Q G W K H H I I H F W R I F R Q I O L F t management style on outcome in a competitive workplace", Journal of Managerial Sciences , Vol. 7 no. 2, pp. 299- 314.

Further reading Heinstrom, J., (2003yf ) L Y H S H U V R Q D O L W \ G L P H Q V L R Q V D Q G W K H L U L Q I O X H Q F H R Q L Q I R U P D W L R Q E H K D Y L R U Information Research , Vol. 9 no. 1, p. 165, available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper165.html, (accessed June 16, 2015yf .

Reich, W., Wagner-Westbrook, B., and Kressel, K., (2007yf $ F W X D O D Q G L G H D O F R Q I O L F W V W \ O H V D Q G M R E G L V W U H V V L Q a health care organization", Journal of Psychology , Vol. 141 no. 1, pp. 5-15.

Appendix Corresponding author Leila Canaan Messarra can be contacted at: [email protected] PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 18 of 20 DETAILS Subject: Research; Problem solving; Qualitative analysis; Markets; Handling; Organizational behavior; Productivity; Data acquisition; Social conflict; Conflict resolution (systemsyf 3 H U V R Q D O L W \ 0 D Q D J H P H Q W V W \ O H V 6 X S H U Y L V R U V $ E V H Q W H H L V P & R Q I O L F t management; Skills; Generations; Constructive conflict; Emotions; Training Editor: Sanjay Kumar Singh, Thomas F Burgess and John Heap Publication title: International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management; Bradford Volume: 65 Issue: 6 Pages: 792-810 Number of pages: 19 Publication year: 2016 Publication date: 2016 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Place of publication: Bradford Country of publication: United Kingdom Publication subject: Business And Economics--Management ISSN: 17410401 Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Journal Article ProQuest document ID: 1798625657 Document URL: https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.co m/docview/1798625657?accountid=33337 Copyright: © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2016 Last updated: 2017-08-18 Database: ABI/INFORM Collection PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 19 of 20 Bibliography Citation style: APA 6th - American Psychological Association, 6th Edition Leila, C. M., Karkoulian, S., & Abdul-Nasser El-Kassar. (2016yf & R Q I O L F W U H V R O X W L R Q V W \ O H V D Q G S H U V R Q D O L W \ .

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6yf 5 H W U L H Y H G I U R m https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1798625657?acc ountid=33337 Copyright Ó 2017 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 20 of 20