Running head: COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 1

Complementarity of Conflict Management Styles in Supervisor-Subordinate Relationships:

Realistic Versus Hypothetical Settings

Cristina Montagna

Long Island University POST

COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the influence of supervisors’ conflict managements styles

on the conflict management styles of subordinates during both real and hypothetical conflict

tasks, to ascertain if complementarity explains the supervisor-subordinate interactional

relationship.  Two methods have been selected for this study and will be measured through the

use of Rahim's Organizational Conflict Inventory—II (1983).  In the study's first method, one

group will complete the survey after experiencing a real-world conflict task (i.e. the "Escape

Room"), thus measuring participants' perceptions of real-world behavior. In the study's second

method, another group will complete the survey without participating in a real-world conflict

task, thus measuring participants' perceptions of intentional (hypothetical) behavior. A review of

the extant literature on this topic, along with the proposed study’s theoretical framework,

expected results, data analysis, and implications are also presented. 

Keywords: complementarity, conflict management styles, ROCI—II, supervisor, subordinate

COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 3

Purpose of the Study

Within organizations, managing interpersonal conflicts is an essential task of

supervisors.  The way the supervisors choose to handle conflicts (i.e., their conflict management

style) can influence the conflict behaviors of subordinates, their well-being, and the effectiveness

of the organization (de Reuver, 2006).  Therefore it is useful to gain more insight into the

conflict management styles (CMS) of supervisors and their subordinates. 

Within hierarchical structures, typical role expectations include supervisors exhibiting

dominant behaviors (because they control valued resources, making them powerful) and

subordinates exhibiting submissive behaviors, even during conflict situations (Orford, 1986). 

When supervisors and subordinates exhibit atypical role expectations (i.e., submissive superiors

and dominant subordinates), many studies explain this unexpected behavior as competitive

complementarity (de Reuver, 2006).  According to interpersonal circumplex theories (see Figure

1), complementarity occurs when individuals behave opposite along the control dimension (i.e.,

dominance induces submission and submission induces dominance), even in hierarchical

relationships (i.e., supervisor-subordinate) (Markey, Lowmaster, & Richler, 2010).  The studies

supporting the complementarity of superior-subordinate conflict behaviors have either been

simulation or hypothetical survey-based (Bluhm, Widiger, & Miele, 1990; de Reuver, 2006;

Markey et al., 2010; Orford, 1986; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003), but have yet to explore this

complementarity in naturally occurring settings (e.g., real-world conflict tasks).  Thus, the

purpose of the present study will be to explore the relationship between a supervisor’s CMS and

its influence on a subordinate’s CMS in both, hypothetical and naturally occurring settings, to

clarify if complementarity will occur in realistic supervisor-subordinate interactions, as it has

been suggested in hypothetical and simulated scenarios.

COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 4

In this study, a classification of conflict management styles is presented. Next,

organizational power, and how it relates to conflict management style, as well as interpersonal

circumplex theories, is discussed.  This is followed by research supporting the complementarity

of supervisor-subordinate conflict interactions, thus providing a rationale for the proposed study

and its hypotheses.  The proposed study’s methodology, expected results, data analysis, and

implications are then considered. 

     Theoretical Framework

Conflict Management Styles (CMS)

Defining terms.  Within literature pertaining to organizational theory, conflict is often

defined as the involved parties’ awareness of opposition of goals, values, opinions, or activities

(Thomas, 1988).  Interpersonal conflict refers to conflict between two or more interacting

individuals, as a manifestation of incompatibility, disagreement or differences between the

parties involved (Rahim, 1995).  It can involve the same or different hierarchical levels (Rahim,

1995).  A party’s action based on a conflict experience is defined as conflict management (de

Reuver, 2006).

Models of CMS.  In review of organizational conflict management styles, several models

exist (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Folett, 1926; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1988).  Folett (1926)

identified three primary ways in which supervisors manage conflict: domination/competition,

compromise, and collaboration/integration.  Based on this model, Blake and Mouton (1964),

added two additional conflict management styles: avoiding and accommodation/smoothing,

forming a managerial grid comprised of the five conflict management styles.  In Blake and

Mouton’s (1964) model, these five conflict management styles (see Table 1) are measured along

two dimensions: “concern for people” and “concern for production”.  Overtime, these two
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 5

dimensions became better known as “assertiveness” and “cooperativeness” (Thomas, 1988), or

“concern for self” and “concern for others” (Rahim, 1983). 

Table 1

Defining Five Conflict Management Styles

Conflict Management Definition

Style
Dominations/Competition This style involves standing up for one’s own rights and ignoring
others’ needs and expectations.  This is a win-lose style expression
of a forcing behavior in order to win one’s position.
Compromise  This style involves seeing both parties involved in give
and-take or sharing solutions, whereby both parties accept to give
up something to make mutually acceptable decisions.
Collaboration This style involves collaboration between the parties that are
willing to reach a mutual and acceptable solution through
openness, exchange of information, examination and exploration
of differences for arriving to a constructive solution that goes far
beyond personal and limited visions of the problem.  This is a win-
win style.
Avoiding This style involves failing to satisfy personal concerns as well as
the concerns of the other party. It has been associated with
withdrawal, buck-passing, sidestepping situations.

Accommodating/Obliging This style involves neglecting and sacrificing personal concern so

to satisfy the concern of the other party, by attempting to minimize
differences and emphasizing commonalities to satisfy the concern
of the other party.
Adapted from “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Styles of Handling Interpersonal
Conflict: First-Order Factor Model and Its Invariance Across Groups” by M. A. Rahim and N. R.
Magner, 1995, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), p. 123.

Power-Dependence Theory

According to Richard Emerson’s power-dependence theory, the basis of power is having

control of valued resources, that another (person/group) is dependent upon (de Reuver, 2006). 

“A” has power over “B” when “A” has resources that can affect the extent to which “B”

accomplishes goals (Tjosvold, Sun, & Wan, 2005).  In other words, “B” depends on “A” if “B”

has goals and needs that “A’s” valued resources (power) can fulfill.  The power-dependence
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 6

theory also explains that the more dependent a person is in a relationship, the less power that

person has in that relationship (i.e., the more “B” depends on “A”, the less power “B” has) (de

Reuver, 2006). 

Organizational Power & Conflict Management Style

In applying the power-dependence theory to organizations, power bases are mainly

allocated through the hierarchical structure of the organization (Tjosvold et al., 2005).  Power

derived from the hierarchical structure is perceived as legitimate and normal as it follows from

the design of the organization (de Reuver, 2006).  Thus, within an organization’s hierarchical

structure, the actions of subordinates (the powerless) differ from the actions of supervisors (the

powerful who control valued resources), even within a conflict situation: supervisors are usually

dominant (likely to utilize a dominant CMS) and subordinates are usually submissive (likely to

utilize a submissive CMS) (de Reuver, 2006).  This is also consistent with role expectations

(Orford, 1986).  But what happens when a supervisor-subordinate relationship is not consistent

with role expectations (i.e., supervisor’s submissiveness and subordinate’s dominance)?

Interpersonal Circumplex Model

Research in the area of interpersonal circumplex theories provides predictions about the

dominance–submission dimension of human behavior in social interactions (Orford, 1986). 

Interpersonal circumplex theories organize interpersonal behavior along the control dimension

(anchored by dominance and submission, see Figure 1) (Carson, 1969).  According to the

theories, complementarity is the predicted response to dominant and submissive behavior. 

Specifically, complementarity occurs when individuals behave opposite along the control

dimension (i.e., dominance induces submission and submission induces dominance) (Markey et
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 7

al., 2010).  The model also posits that when this complementary response occurs, the partners

will like each other more and will be more comfortable and productive (Carson, 1969).

Figure 1. The interpersonal circumplex model organizes interpersonal behavior along the control
dimension, anchored by dominance and submission. Adapted from "Interaction Concepts of
Personality" by R. Carson, 1969, Chicago, IL: Adeline.

In supervisor-subordinate hierarchical relationships this complementarity is still predicted

to ensue.  Supervisors will likely utilize a dominant CMS, which will likely be complimented by

subordinates utilizing a submissive CMS, consistent with role expectations (Orford, 1986).  But

even in situations where supervisors’ and subordinates’ behaviors are inconsistent with typical

role expectations, it is predicted that supervisors utilizing a submissive CMS, will likely be

complimented by subordinates utilizing a dominant CMS, consistent with competitive

complementarity (de Reuver, 2006).  Although a submissive supervisor and a dominant

subordinate, exhibit an asymmetrical power relationship with atypical role expectations, studies

(Bluhm et al., 1990; de Reuver, 2006; Markey et al., 2010; Orford, 1986; Tiedens & Fragale,

2003) have shown that a supervisor’s submissiveness encourages competitive complementarity

on the subordinate’s part.  If the subordinate does not confront the submissive supervisor with
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 8

domination tactics, he/she will appear weak, thus encouraging the subordinate’s use of

domination (de Reuver, 2006). 

Because it can be used to describe personality and social relationship processes, the

interpersonal circumplex (IPC) provides an integrative approach to understanding the conflict

management styles of dominance and submission (Markey et al., 2010).  It has also been used as

the conceptual framework for several studies that have explored the relationship between

interpersonal conflict management styles (i.e., dominant and submissive) and hierarchical status

(i.e., supervisor and subordinate), as presented in the following literature review.  

Literature Review

Orford’s (1986) review of fourteen studies pertaining to interpersonal complementarity

supports the prediction that dominant and submissive behaviors are complementary. 

Furthermore, his research finds that complementarity between dominant and submissive

behavior is particularly likely when a status difference exists (e.g., supervisors showing more

dominance, and subordinates more submission, and vise versa) (p. 374).  There is considerable

support, from the studies reviewed, that interpersonal contingencies are affected by factors of

hierarchical role expectations, access to resources (power), and status (p. 375).  

Bluhm et al. (1990) further explored the prediction that dominant and submissive (verbal

communication) behaviors are complimentary, through a simulated design, with 80 participants. 

Blum et al.’s (1990) study paired confederates (who portrayed either dominant or submissive

communication behaviors) with subjects, during a collaborative task (i.e., Lego building).  Their

findings show that complementarity between dominant and submissive behaviors is determined

primarily by individual differences (i.e., hierarchical roles) (p.469).

COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 9

In a similar simulated study, Tiedens and Fragale’s (2003) 98 participants were exposed

to a confederate who displayed (nonverbal) behavior that was either dominant (through postural

expansion) or submissive (through postural constriction).  Tiedens and Fragale (2003) base their

study on the interpersonal circumplex model along with evolutionary theory, which posits that

human postural expansion and constriction is reminiscent of the dominance displays in other

species (e.g., chimpanzees).  The study’s findings suggest that dominance invites submissiveness

and submissiveness invites dominance, especially in a hierarchically differentiated relationship

(p. 565).  These findings are consistent with the propositions made by interpersonal circumplex

theorists (p.565).  

Even a recent study conducted by Markey et al. (2010) furthered Bluhm et al.’s (1990)

and Tiedens and Fragale’s (2003) research, by exposing 66 participants to a confederate who

displayed, both, (verbal) communication and (nonverbal) behavior that was either dominant or

submissive, during collaborative tasks (i.e., an Etch-A-Sketch maze task and a Lego building

task).  Markey et al.’s (2010) findings also support the complementary nature of interpersonal

interactions, in which a supervisor’s (dominant or submissive) verbal and nonverbal behavior

influences complimentary behavior of his or her subordinate (interaction partner).

In addition to literature reviews (Orford, 1986), and simulated studies (Bluhm et al.,

1990; Markey et al., 2010; and Tiedens & Fragale, 2003), other studies exploring the relationship

between hierarchical power and CMS are survey-based, analyzing participant perceptions rather

than data from observational coders (de Reuver, 2006).  De Reuver’s (2006) study utilized the

TOC “Test for Handling Common Organizational Conflict,” a situation-response inventory, to

survey 488 business managers.  The study’s findings similarly suggest that supervisors dominate

more with submissive subordinates, and vise versa (i.e., supervisors are more submissive with
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 10

dominant subordinates), supporting the complementarity predicted by interpersonal circumplex

theories. 

Limitations of Extant Literature

Although the studies of Orford (1986), Bluhm et al. (1990), Tiedens and Fragale (2003),

Markey et al. (2010), and de Reuver (2006) suggest that hierarchical power or one’s status within

an organization influences the complementarity between a supervisor’s and subordinate’s

conflict management style, they are limited by several methodological factors.  Orford’s (1986)

findings and suggestions for superior-subordinate relationships with regard to CMS, were based

primarily on studies exploring the asymmetrical power relationship between mental health

professionals and their clients, which may not be generalizable to populations other than the ones

utilized in the studies.  The observational studies of Blum et al. (1990), Tiedens and Fragale

(2003), and Markey et al. (2010) are limited by: (a) small homogenous sample sizes; (b) coding

schemes used by observational raters; and (b) examining complementarity utilizing a less than

natural interaction environment (i.e., simulated tasks, employing confederates).  Based on the

latter, it is unclear if complementarity would occur in more realistic supervisor-subordinate

interactions in which both persons freely express their behaviors.  

Although de Reuver’s (2006) study included a larger sample size and actual

organizational supervisors (rather than confederates), it only explored hypothetical conflict

scenarios (via the TOC survey), not naturally occurring conflict situations/tasks.  Thus, the same

methodological limitation holds true for survey research: the generalizability of survey study

findings to actual real-world superior-subordinate interactions, where individuals may freely

vary their behavior, is somewhat unclear.  As such, the aforementioned studies suggest the need

for future research to explore the relationship between a supervisor’s CMS and its influence on a
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 11

subordinate’s CMS in a naturally occurring interaction/setting, to clarify if complementarity will

occur in realistic supervisor-subordinate interactions.  Based on this suggestion, as well as the

findings of the research presented here, and the predictions of interpersonal circumplex theories,

it is hypothesized that the results of a CMS survey, based on hypothetical conflict tasks, will be

similar to the results of a CMS survey based on a naturally occurring conflict task (H3), thus

supporting complementarity occurring in both hypothetical and realistic supervisor-subordinate

interactions.  Hence, the following hypotheses were formulated for both hypothetical (H2a and

H2b) and realistic (H1a and H1b) supervisor-subordinate CMS interactions:

 Method I Hypotheses: Realistic Conflict Task

o H1a: A supervisor’s dominance is more likely with submissive subordinates.

o H1b: A supervisor's submissiveness is more likely with dominant subordinates.

 Method II Hypotheses: Survey Only Task

o H2a: A supervisor’s dominance is more likely with submissive subordinates.

o H2b: A supervisor's submissiveness is more likely with dominant subordinates.

 Method III Hypothesis: Exploring the Relationship Between Methods I & II

o H3: Perceived CMS during an actual conflict task is positively related to

perceived CMS during hypothetical scenarios.

Method

Participants

Data for this study will be collected from 220 employees (subordinates and their direct

supervisors), from twenty different organizations.  From each organization, ten subordinates

along with their direct supervisor are expected to participate in one of the study’s two methods

(see Research Set-Up).  Prior to the study, data on preferred management styles from all
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 12

supervisors will be collected by asking them to briefly describe (in a narrative) how they manage

conflict with subordinates in the workplace, which will then be coded to ensure that the study is

surveying both dominant and submissive-type supervisors.  

The participants will represent a convenience sample from New York City businesses

(50%) and non-profit organizations (50%), from which the researcher has local access to.  Of the

sample, it is estimated that 50% will be female.  The anticipated age range of participants is

between 22 and 62 years.  It is also expected that a majority of these participants will have a

Bachelor’s or Master’s degree. 

Research Set-Up: A Two Method Procedure

To explore the influence of supervisors’ conflict managements styles (independent

variable) on the conflict management styles of subordinates (dependent variable) during both real

and hypothetical conflict tasks, to ascertain if complementarity explains the supervisor-

subordinate interactional relationship, as perceived by the parties involved, the following study

was designed.  Two methods were selected for this study, to consider the extent to which

complementarity occurs in both hypothetical and realistic perceptions of supervisor-subordinate

interactions, as measured through the use of Rahim's Organizational Conflict Inventory—II

(ROCI—II) (1983).  The ROCII—II will be completed by two groups of participants — one

group that completes the survey after experiencing a real-world conflict task (Method I), and one

group that completes the survey without participating in a real-world conflict task (Method II). 

Each method will now be detailed in turn.

Method I: Real-world conflict task & survey procedure.  Of the twenty participating

organizations, ten organizations will be randomly selected to participate in the real-world

conflict task (i.e., one supervisor with ten of his/her employees from each of the ten selected
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 13

organizations).  These ten teams or pre-existing groups will partake in a real-life team-based

puzzle game known as an “Escape Room,” where the supervisor and his/her team of employees

(subordinates) will be locked in a room and have to find hidden objects, figure out clues, and

solve the room’s puzzles together (i.e., solve conflict tasks) in order to earn their freedom and

“escape the room,” within 60 minutes.  This will take place at a local “Escape Room” facility

that can simultaneously accommodate ten participating groups.  Prior to this task, the

experimenter will explain to the participants that they have been invited to partake in a fun team-

based puzzle game led by their supervisor, and then complete a short (10 minute) survey after

their team has “escaped the room.” Supervisors will be asked to lead their team through the

escape room’s various tasks, the same way they would lead their team through any

organizational task.

Method II: Survey Only Procedure.  Of the twenty participating organizations, ten

organizations that were not randomly selected to participate in the real-world conflict task will

only be asked to complete the short, 10 minute survey on conflict.   As an incentive, each

participant upon completion of the survey will be given a free ticket to experience the “Escape

Room” with a friend or family member at another time of their choosing.  Participants will be

invited to enter any available conference room in the facility to complete the survey.  (This

method of in-person survey completion has been selected, as opposed to e-mail surveys, to

ensure as many completed surveys as possible).

Measures

The survey to be completed by all participants is Rahim’s Organizational Conflict

Inventory—II (ROCI—II) (1983).  It is a 35-item survey measuring the degree of perceived

interpersonal conflict with supervisors, subordinates, and peers, available in three forms (Lester,
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 14

Inman, & Bishop, 2014).  For the purposes of this study, supervisors will complete Form B of

the inventory, indicating how they handle conflict with their subordinates, and subordinates will

complete Form A, indicating how they handle conflict with their supervisor.  Each of the

survey’s items is cast on a five-point Likert scale.  A higher score represents greater use of a

conflict strategy (p. 123).

Two conflict-strategy scales of the ROCI—II will be used: “dominance” (5 items) and

“submissiveness” (12 items).  The dominance scale consists of the competitive conflict

management style, and the submissiveness scale consists of avoiding and accommodating

conflict management styles, as defined by Rahim (1995) (see Conflict Management Styles).  

For participants experiencing the real-world conflict task (the “Escape Room”), they will

be asked to reflect on the management of their behavior (with their supervisor or subordinate)

during the conflict task, as they respond to the survey.  For the participants who are not

experiencing the real-world conflict task (the “Escape Room”), they will be asked to reflect on

how they would intend to behave (with their supervisor or subordinate), during hypothetical

conflict tasks/situations, as they respond to the survey.  Thus, using a valid and reliable

instrument, the first method is measuring perceptions of real-world behavior, whereas the second

method is measuring perceptions of intentional (hypothetical) behavior (i.e., how participants

believe they would behave during a real-world conflict task).  

Analysis and Expected Results

The following section is a tentative plan for the study’s data analysis procedure, and is

limited by the researcher’s available knowledge concerning statistical analysis, as a first year

doctoral student.
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 15

Preliminary Analysis

In examining the relationship between supervisors’ conflict behavior (independent

variable) and subordinates’ conflict behavior (dependent variable), the effects of subordinates’

individual characteristics will also be considered.  Analyses of variance with age, gender, and

education, as independent variables, will be performed for each conflict strategy separately. 

Although it is difficult to predict the results of this preliminary analysis, they may be similar to

the results of de Reuver’s (2006) survey study, which showed no significant interaction effects

between age, gender, education, supervisors’ CMS and subordinates’ CMS. 

Testing Hypotheses 1 and 2 

To test H1a, H1b, H2a, and H2b, the scores of subordinates’ dominance and

submissiveness will be measured in conflicts with dominant and submissive supervisors (as will

be displayed in a Table exhibiting mean scores and standard deviations).  In line with H1a and

H2a, it is expected that supervisors are likely to dominate with submissive subordinates.  H1b

and H2b are also expected to be confirmed: a supervisor's submissiveness is more likely with

dominant subordinates.  Confirmation of these hypotheses is expected, based on the results of

previous (simulated and survey) studies and the predictions of complementarity (in the superior-

subordinate relationship) according to interpersonal circumplex models.

Testing Hypotheses 3

To test H3, comparing supervisors’ perceived conflict management styles (dominance or

submissiveness) with the study’s methodology (experience with real-world conflict task or

hypothetical scenarios), via a 2x2 factorial design, will determine if the study’s results suggest

that: perceived CMS during an actual conflict task is positively related to perceived CMS during

hypothetical scenarios.  This design enables the calculation of three effects: (a) difference in
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 16

subordinate's CMS as influenced by supervisor's CMS (dominant or submissive); (b) difference

in subordinate’s CMS as influenced by the study’s methodology (experience with real-world

conflict task or hypothetical scenarios); (c) and the interaction of a supervisor’s CMS and the

study’s methodology on the subordinate’s CMS (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). 

Confirmation of H3 is expected, based on the results of previous (simulated and survey) studies

and the predictions of complementarity (in the superior-subordinate relationship) according to

interpersonal circumplex models.

Discussion

This study has been designed to explore the relationship between a supervisor’s CMS and

its influence on a subordinate’s CMS in both, hypothetical and naturally occurring settings, to

clarify if complementarity will occur in realistic supervisor-subordinate interactions, as it has

been suggested in hypothetical and simulated scenarios.  Based on the findings of previous

studies, and the predictions of interpersonal circumplex theories, it is hypothesized that the

results of a CMS survey, based on hypothetical conflict tasks (H2), will be similar to the results

of a CMS survey based on an actually occurring conflict task (H1), thus supporting

complementarity occurring in both hypothetical and realistic supervisor-subordinate interactions

(H3).  It is this study’s intention to confirm these hypotheses via two methods: (a) exposure of

half of the participants to a real-world conflict task (teams finding their way out of the “Escape

Room”), followed by completion of the ROCI—II; and (b) exposure of half of the participants to

only the ROCI—II, in which they are expected to rate their behavioral intentions during a

hypothetical conflict task/situation.  

COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 17

Limitations

The findings in this study intend to provide an important stepping stone to further

research on complementarity, but they must be understood within the context of their

limitations.  First, the participants in this study represent a sample of convenience, and will be

limited to 220 employees from local NYC businesses and non-profits. Thus, it is possible that the

results of this study may not be generalizable to larger and more diverse populations.  Second, in

both of the study’s methods, complementary behavior will be assessed using the same instrument

(ROCI—II).  As such, participants’ perceptions (as well as their individual differences) will be

assessed by a self-report, which is subject to responder bias.

A third limitation in this study might be related to the real-world conflict task (i.e., the

“Escape Room”) that the participants will experience.  The tasks set up in the escape room will

be purposefully novel and fairly ambiguous so that the participants will have an equivalent level

of experience and skill to complete them.  However, the tasks are somewhat contrived and

unnatural, and therefore may not elicit the true interpersonal dynamics that might be found in a

more naturally occurring interaction (e.g., at the participants’ place of work).

In addition, complementary behavior may also be more likely in some kinds of situations

than in others (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003).  For example, in the escape room, if participants are

more focused on team-building to solve the room’s puzzles in order to collectively escape, they

may be less likely to engage in hierarchically differentiated behavior than when they are in a

naturally occurring conflict setting (e.g., at the participants’ place of work).  Alternatively, when

there are greater rewards (i.e., escaping to room) associated with being in a dominant position;

subordinates may be less willing to adopt a submissive stance, even in the presence of their

supervisor.  Thus, although the escape room method is intended to represent a real-world conflict
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 18

task, it may illicit the opposite of expected complimentary participant behavior, and encourage:

(a) supervisor-subordinate relationships that are equally integrative in CMS

(cooperative/collaborative), rather than complementary dominant-subordinate; or (b) supervisor-

subordinate relationships that are reciprocal rather than complementary, where most participants

are seeking dominance.  In these cases, this study’s hypotheses will most likely be rejected.

A final limitation of the escape room task is that complementary behavior in hierarchical

relationships may depend on it remaining unconscious (Markey et al., 2010).  With participants

consciously aware (knowledgeable) that they will be partaking in a team-building activity, led by

their supervisor, and followed by a survey, the interactions between supervisors and superiors

may be altered.  This knowledge may empower the participants to decide on the structure of their

relationships, rather than simply falling into a complementary pattern of behavior (as

experienced in their natural occurring work environment).

Expected Implications & Contributions

Theoretical.  The expected tendency of participants in this study to respond to dominant

behavior with submissive behavior and submissive behavior with dominant behavior will be

consistent with the propositions made by interpersonal circumplex theorists (Carson, 1969).  The

intended results of this study will suggest that interpersonal circumplex theories can help predict

and understand interpersonal patterns of CMS, as influenced by hierarchical roles.  Thus,

interpersonal circumplex theories could likely be used to understand hierarchical interchanges in

conflict situations.

Practical.  The expected results of this study are meant to suggest that the interaction

between hierarchical position (supervisor or subordinate) and power use (dominance or

submission) should lead supervisors to reconsider carefully which approach they apply in dealing
COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 19

with a given conflict.  If supervisors are aware of the power status that triggers their CMS, they

are better able to make intentional choices concerning their conflict behavior.  The findings of

the current study could be used in management training to improve supervisory skills in

influencing subordinates at work.  This is especially important given that the relational

interaction patterns of supervisors with their subordinates can have a profound impact on the

effectiveness of the organization and the well-being of its members (de Reuver, 2006). 

Future Research 

Considering the study’s limitations, several recommendations are made for future

research.  First, a much larger sample size, from across the United States should be used,

increasing the generalizability of findings.   Second, rather than utilizing a self-report to measure

individual differences, observational studies with trained coders should be used.  For instance,

employees can be observed in naturally occurring settings, via video cameras, and their dominant

and submissive behaviors coded.  Third, if within this study, the escape room task is unable to

elicit the true interpersonal dynamics that might be found in a naturally occurring interaction,

future observational studies should occur in more naturally occurring settings, such as the

participants’ place of work.  

A fourth consideration is that research should consider the sequences and combinations

of conflict styles, not just individual conflict styles.  A final consideration is that other studies

should explore reciprocal (as opposed to complementary) relationships between supervisors and

subordinates (i.e., dominant superiors reciprocated by dominate subordinates, and submissive

supervisors reciprocated by submissive subordinates).

COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 20

References

Blake, R. R., & Moutin, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Training & Development Journal,

21(1), 2-5.

Bluhm, C., Widiger, T., & Miele, G. (1990). Interpersonal complementarity and indiviual

differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), 464-471.

Carson, R. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago, IL: Adeline.

Cohen, L., Manion, L, & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New

York, NY: Routledge.

de Revuer, R. (2006). The influence of organizational power on conflict dynamics. Personnel

Review, 35(5), 589-603. doi: 10.1108/00483480610682307

Follett, M. P. (1996). The giving of orders. In Shafritz, J.M. & Ott, J.S. (Eds.). Classics of

organization theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Lester, P. E., Inman, D., & Bishop, L. K. (2014). Handbook of tests and measurement in

education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Markey, P., Lowmaster, S. & Richler, W. (2010). A real-time assessment of interpersonal

complementarity. Personal Relationships, 17, 13-25.

Orford, J. (1986). The rules of interpersonal complementarity: Does hostility beget hostility and

dominance, submission? Psychological Review, 93(3), 365-377.

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of

Management Journal, 26(2), 368- 376. doi: 10.2307/255985

Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling

interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122-132. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.122

COMPLEMENTARITY OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES 21

Thomas, K. W. (1988). The conflict handling modes: Toward more precise theory. Management

Communication Quarterly, 1(3), 430-436. doi: 10.1177/0893318988001003009

Tiedens, L., & Fragale, A. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive

nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558-568. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558

Tjosvold, D., Sun, H. F., & Wan, P. (2005). An experimental examination of social contexts and

the use of power in a Chinese sample. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(6), 645-

661. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.145.6.645-662