Received: 9 August 2021 Revised: 5 June 2022 Accepted: 12 June 2022

DOI: 10.1002/crq.21354

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Group conflict handling under moderate

evaluative partial mediation using entropic
decision framework

Kushal Anjaria

IT and Systems Area, Institute of Rural

Management Anand (IRMA), Anand,
India
Correspondence
Kushal Anjaria, IT and Systems Area,
Institute of Rural Management Anand
(IRMA), Anand, India.
Email: kushal.anjaria@gmail.com
Abstract
The present paper aims to present entropy and fuzzy
degrees of the truth-based framework to handle the
group conflict under moderate evaluative, partial medi-
ation. For group conflict handling, the present work
considers Thomas and Kilmann's five conflict-handling
modes: competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommo-
dating, and compromising. A methodology proposed in
the current work systemically formalizes decision-
making on deploying a conflict-handling method with
mediators' opinions. The formalization of decision-
making elucidated in the present work involves mea-
surements based on entropy and fuzzy degrees of truth.
The current work applies the developed formal quanti-
tative framework to a well-known case of group con-
flict that involves conflict among a group of
engineering students. The case supports the proposed
formal framework. Behavioral, psychological, and cog-
nitive facts about engineers come in handy for valida-
tion of the proposed framework. The case shows that
the proposed approach can be highly generalized, inter-
pretable, and replicable.

1 | INTRODUCTION

One effect of sustained conflict is to narrow our vision of what is possible. Time
and time again, conflicts are resolved through shifts that were unimaginable at the
start. ( Nelson Mandela)
Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2022;40:75–101. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crq © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 75
76 ANJARIA

With globalization, the advancement of technology, geographically distributed organizations

and competitive markets, diverse task groups, and sub-groups have come into existence. Con-
flict is a widespread yet worrisome phenomenon among groups or sub-groups. The group con-
flict, defined as perceived repulsion between two or more groups, or sub-groups, members
(Jehn, 1995), has a complex nature as it has neither a direct cause nor a modest cure. Further-
more, in a group conflict scenario, group members would choose between acting in their self-
interest, taking a stand in their group's parochial interest, or putting forward collective interests
of all or the maximum number of group members. Along with its complex nature, the conflict
has severe personal, organizational, religious, social, and economic consequences (Romer
et al., 1998). As described in the epigraph, Nelson Mandela has narrated the effects of conflict
and the importance of conflict resolution.
One of the aftermaths of the group conflict is group members do not seem to handle dis-
agreement well even though the disagreement, opposing view, or conflict is an elementary char-
acteristic of a human relationship, family, friendship, social life, and permeating organizations
(Yeomans et al., 2020). Multiple researchers have asserted that the presence of conflicts in a
group gives rise to adverse effects (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003), reactance (Mok & Morris, 2009),
avoidance (Smith et al., 1999), and harm to a relationship (Folger et al., 2015). Further, the con-
flicts have positive effects also as due to conflicts, organizations may know diverse viewpoints,
perspectives, logic, and rationales (Yeomans et al., 2020). Thus, group conflict management is a
critical task in organizations to reap the benefits of group conflict and avoid its adverse effects.
According to Rahim (1985), conflict management is an activity that does not reduce, elimi-
nate or avoid conflict but accurately targets the issues and interpersonal entities related to con-
flicts to eliminate adverse effects of conflicts and well-understood different views. Zhao et al.
(2019) suggested that managers or leaders play a critical role in group conflict. Zhao et al. advo-
cated that conflict in a group results from group member interaction. De Cremer and Van
Knippenberg (2002) indicated that the leaders are influencers who ensure that group members
can achieve their goals by optimizing their interaction. Being the influencers, leaders are intrin-
sically concerned with managing the group conflict (Ayoko et al., 2014). Fong and Snape (2015)
presented evidence of how leadership mediation affects group levels and empowers individual
and group outcomes. The leaders or managers—compared with the subordinates—perceive
more procedural justice and perceive the mediation in more effective ways (Bollen &
Euwema, 2013). Bollen et al. (2012) suggested that leader mediators use negotiation and media-
tion conflict management techniques. However, instead of only negotiation techniques, the pre-
sent paper aims to formally investigate a leader's role as a mediator in managing the group
conflict using a systemic construct.
Literature suggests that sometimes complex situations may also arise when leaders aim to
manage group conflicts. If the group members have multiple leaders or managers, they may not
accept a single leader/manager as a mediator (Zhao et al., 2019). For multiple leaders, the task
of mediation becomes more complicated. The leaders have to foresee certain aspects based on
group size, members' expertise, the role of group members, and the type of support received
from recommender systems while managing group conflict. Then the leaders can make confi-
dent decisions (Nguyen et al., 2019). For some complex, conflicting issues, the predictive tasks
become complicated for leaders/managers (Deli
c et al., 2020). As a result, it becomes tough for
the leaders/managers to decide which conflict handling and management model should be
deployed. The presence of multiple leaders as mediators, predictive tasks, conflict handling
model deployment, and complex, conflicting issues create an uncertain entourage. For the
group having uncertainty and conflicts among members, it is not straightforward to decide the
ANJARIA 77

belief and content of the interaction among the members (Weingart et al., 2015). The present
work aims to formally investigate multiple leaders or managers' roles as mediators in managing
the group conflict in the highly unsettled entourage and uncertain environment. Further, the
proposed research also aims to guide the organization about the suitability of conflict handling
and management model out of five models, competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodat-
ing, and compromising, proposed by Thomas and Kilmann (1975). The organizations can
deploy the proposed model to handle the conflict or conflict issue statements.
The presence of multiple managers/leaders as mediators avoids the ill-effects of “dark
leaders” and “destructive conflict instigators” (Zhao et al., 2019). It considers the belief of
each group member and response from the leaders who are acting as mediators. In a nutshell,
contributions of the present work are as follows:

• Paper presents entropy and fuzzy degree of truth-based approach for handling group conflict
using a moderate evaluative, partial mediation system.
• An approach, proposed in the present work, formalizes the decision-making related to the
deployment of conflict-handling mode with mediators' opinions. The formalization of
decision-making, elucidated in the current work, involves quantification.
• The paper showcases the utilization of the proposed approach with the help of a well-known
and openly available case study that demonstrates conflict among a group of engineering stu-
dents. The present paper validates the proposed methodology with the help of psychological
facts related to engineers.

After the introduction, we have organized the paper as follows: The following
section discusses the relevant literature related to conflict and role of mediators. Section 3 dis-
cusses the degree of truth and entropy-based proposed methodology, which helps decide the
conflict handling strategy. The section describes five conflict-handling models presented by
Thomas and Kilmann (1975). Section 4 elucidates a case study about conflict and conflict man-
agement. Section 5 discusses implications, limitations, and future scope of the degree of truth
and entropy-based methodology. The final section, Section 6, concludes the present work.

2 | LITERATURE R EVIEW

Schneider (1993) suggested that it is highly critical to find the “degree of certainty or truth”
when an entourage is unsettled, and the environment is uncertain. Schneider explained the
degree of certainty using the example of a communication gap among scientists, media, and
members of public and government officials. As discussed above, group conflict management
also faces a challenge due to a highly unclear environment. Motivated by Schneider's work, we
have also deployed a degree of certainty or truth to design the formal framework in group con-
flict management, where leaders play mediator roles. After deploying the degree of truth, it
becomes crucial to reconsider the uncertainty to solve the complex problem of group conflict
management effectively using a system. The present work puts forward the entropy concept to
recalculate the uncertainty. Seidenfeld (1986) suggested that entropy is the effectual equipment
to calculate the uncertainty. Further, researchers have widely used entropy to study organiza-
tional issues utilizing an expert system and decision support systems (Anjaria, 2020). The uncer-
tain environment is the primary factor that motivated the degree of truth and entropy-based
strategy in the present work.
78 ANJARIA

Chen (2003) asserted that based on entropy law, human psychology forms a unified theory
and presents the universal natural law. From group conflict management perspectives, it is evi-
dent that conflict management, handling, and resolution require communication and detailed
information about conflict issues. Chen (2003) noted that information and communication are
entropy reductions, and all human activities are fundamentally entropy-driven processes. As a
result, it is natural to understand the human decision process, psychology, and conflict han-
dling patterns from entropic perspectives. The entropy measurement will gauge the effective-
ness of any uncertainty handling mechanism. Shannon suggested that it is crucial to observe
and measure the microstate of the mechanism before measuring the entropy (Bromiley
et al., 2004). Motivated by these facts, we consider the opinion of each individual in the group
as a microstate and assign equal importance to their opinion. Wiener (1954) has advocated the
idea of moral reform pioneered by Dewey (1896). Moral reform is context-sensitivity and
responsibility that make organisms in the organization aware of the full implications of its
effects on itself and nature and the entropic consequences of its natural embeddedness
(Anjaria & Mishra, 2017). Thus, entropy is helpful in organizational scenarios also. In the pre-
sent work, we deploy entropic concepts to achieve organizational moral communications and
reforms to eliminate the issue of person-centeredness in the conflict-handling framework. The
question is, what if a person changes their opinion before you resolve the conflict. Does change
in opinion affect the entropy? Entropy need not increase or change drastically in a system, not
in equilibrium or part of such a system (Anjaria & Mishra, 2018). That is one more reason
we have chosen an entropic framework to handle the group conflict. Wiener described the
importance of entropy to manage organisms in the organization as:

In the external world with which we are immediately concerned, there are stages
which, though they occupy an insignificant fraction of eternity, are of great signifi-
cance for our purposes, for in them entropy does not increase and organization and
its correlative, information, are being built up. ( Wiener, 1954, p. 31)

Researchers have attempted to identify the sources of conflicts (Gulbrandsen et al., 2018;
Gulbrandsen et al., 2019). However, there are practically no studies or minimal research related
to the formalization of entropy dynamics in organizational setup, especially in conflict han-
dling, management, and resolution domain (Bondar et al., 2021). Such studies are necessary for
connection with its influence on the indicator of the state of the organization, conflict handling,
and its corresponding entropy. Further, the literature theoretically correlated adverse situations
and conflict-handling strategies (Hignite et al., 2020, pp. 319). However, the literature does not
provide a formalized quantitative approach to correlate conflict and conflict handling strategies.
Thus, the formulated ideas and provisions of the entropy concept of handling group conflict
require their development in the indicated direction.
Thomas and Kilmann (1975) noted that most of the research reported empirical,
questionnaire-based, or manager's rating based organizational and group conflict theory. It is
challenging to check the result's reliabilities and validities in such studies since they utilize sub-
jective instruments. Further, Thomas and Kilmann (1975, pp. 742) asserted that most studies
lack validation and reliability since the studies deploy methodologies just because others have
deployed the same methods. The present work uses an entropy-based quantitative degree of
truth or certainty approach to avoid the limitation mentioned above of the questionnaire-based
empirical methodologies. Combining the two measures, that is, entropy and quantitative
degrees can make conflict measurement more accurate and comprehensive (Xu et al., 2021).
ANJARIA 79

T A B L E 1 Identification of the research gap and how the proposed approach aims to fill the research gaps

Sr. Type of
no. research gap How the proposed approach aims to fill research gaps
1 Confusion The literature on conflict management has presented opposing views on
spotting evaluating and non-evaluating mediation styles (Moberly, 1997). Further, the
literature also has not clearly stated what moderate evaluation is. Present work
aims to consider and explain the implications of moderate evaluation based
mediation
2 Neglect spotting Most organizational and group conflict articles present empirical, case-based,
theory-based, or questionnaire-based approaches (Zhao et al., 2019). Very few
articles focus on the quantitative, experimental, or methodological approach
for conflict management or resolution. As a result, the conflict handling
decision support system has not been developed. Present work provides a
quantitative and generalized methodological approach that can be deployed to
resolve and manage most group conflict situations using a system
3 Application The present work deploys a formal approach based on calculating the degree of
spotting truth (Ayoko et al., 2014). The formal process presented in work may
encourage mathematicians and decision-makers to solve complex issues about
group conflict management. As a result, the proposed approach may foster
interdisciplinary research

The degree of truth approach is flexible and straightforward (Morcillo et al., 2010). Further,
it manages inaccuracies, fuzziness, uncertainties associated with diverse operating conditions
(Verma & Sharma, 2014). The degree of truth-based approach closely resembles human cogni-
tion and reasoning (Alonso et al., 2015, pp. 222). As a result, organizations may associate the
proposed methodology with response scales, such as Likert scales, visual analog scales, possibil-
ity scales, and semantic differentials scales (Anjaria, 2022; APA dictionary of psychology, 2020).
Using the scales mentioned above, one can record group members' responses, interactions, and
beliefs. Finally, the recorded values can be provided as an input to the degree of truth-based
methodology. Thus, accepting and integrating all response scales is the unique characteristic of
the proposed degree truth/certainty-based approach. Psychology suggests that one can explain
the degree of truth and future events in the best possible way using probability or possibility
(Sherman et al., 1981). In the present work, the leaders can provide expert views using probabil-
ity or possibility, which can manage conflict using mediation effectiveness and hierarchical
position on procedural justice perceptions. Winter et al. (2022) presented relevant insights and
discussed best practices, focusing on addressing challenges and opportunities in the field of con-
flict and mediation. Based on the above arguments, Table 1 explains identified research gaps.
We have derived the types of research gaps shown in Table 1 from Rivard's work
(Rivard, 2014). The next section discusses the proposed methodology in detail.

3 | P R O P O S ED M E T H O D O LO G Y

In a group, generally, two types of conflicting situations arise (1) conflict about tasks and
(2) conflict about the relationships. The study suggests that people tend to address conflict more
constructively when they discern the conflict more about the task than about relationships
(Tjosvold et al., 2006). The proposed approach can handle both types, that is, task and
80 ANJARIA

relationship conflicts in the group. Consider a hypothetical example in which it is described

which kind of input is required to the decision support system to handle the group conflict:

Example 1 There is a group G of n members in an organization.. Assume that

in group G, conflicting situation C arises. The conflicting situation C has two con-
flicting issues, that is, C1 and C2. Pawlak (1981) and Lang et al. (2019) have dis-
cussed the issues about any conflict and their role in information system formation.
Group G decided that two leaders/managers should be acting as mediators. The
input of the leaders/managers M1 and M2 is recorded using possibilities. Figure 1
describes the example.

As shown in Figure 1, V11, V12 up to V16, describes the group members' opinions in per-
centage. For example, if V11 is equal to 39%, then it describes that from group G, 39% of mem-
bers strongly disagree over the conflict issue statement C1. Similarly, if V25 is 28%, then it
depicts that 28% of group G members strongly agree on the conflict issue statement C2. Further,
M1 and M2 describe the opinion of managers/leaders as an expert or mediators. In Figure 1, the
conventions of recorded responses from group members and mediating managers/leaders such
as V11 and P12 describe two numbers associated with the letter. The first number indicates the
chronological order of conflict issue statements or the unique sequence number of mediating

F I G U R E 1 A hypothetical scenario of group conflict in a societal or organizational context

ANJARIA 81

managers. The second number, associated with the letter, shows the sequence of options in the
response scale.
Lang et al. (2019) narrated the importance of taking input from the mediator as an expert in
the decision support system. The present methodology successfully works if managers/leaders
provide input in the possibility or probability form to the decision support system. Dubois et al.
(1993) explained that leaders would provide the input for each conflict issue based on the exper-
tise, that is, C1 and C2. The inputs of managers/leaders may depict likely positive or negative
consequences of conflicts on the organization or society. Levin (2000) explained two extremes
regarding evaluative mediation. At one extreme, the mediator/leader may be unequivocally
evaluative and take a stand. At the other extreme, the leader or manager/leader acting as medi-
ators may avoid any suggestion of evaluative notion. Then, there are intermediate possibilities,
in which a mediator may use tips ranging from overt to subtle-predictive of a likely outcome.
Roberts (2007) suggested that one should carefully craft a mediation process, primarily when
handled by a system, so that that organization can understand parties' views of conflicts. New
possibilities that can mediate the conflicts should also be conveyed to the parties having a con-
flict. So, without the evaluation tool, group members in conflict continue to rehash the same
conflicting issues, and a rigid evaluative approach may cause dissatisfaction.
Further, Roberts (2007) have noted that moderate evaluative mediation has good results. As
a result, group members' and mediators' opinions and responses have been recorded using a
response scale in the present work. The advantage of response scales like the Likert scale is that
they better express opinions, provide flexible views and versatile collection, and perception of
thought. As a result, parties would not feel that mediators have rigid views or opinions
(Anjaria, 2022). As shown in Figure 1, M1 and M2 would be associated with each conflict issue
statement, that is, C1 and C2. Consider that, in Example 1, for C1, values of M1 and M2 would
be independent, and for C2, values of M1 and M2 would be separate. Levin (2000) has suggested
that no rule is available on how mediators should behave. The mediators function according to
different philosophies, personal beliefs, organizational and social boundaries, and stylistically
different ways. As a result, the present work records individual and independent opinions of
mediators using a response scale. For C1 in Figure 1, suppose P11 is 0.42. With 42% confidence,
mediator M1 agrees with the C1 conflict issue statement. Similarly, consider, for C2, P22 is 0.37.
That means mediator M2 disagrees with C2 with 37% confidence.
Sometimes, multiple managers/leaders act as mediators to manage the group conflict
(Samaniego & Gonzales, 1999). First, it is crucial to collect all the mediators' inputs and calcu-
late the combined effect to develop the methodology. Consider that for any conflict issue state-
ment C, n managers/leaders provide their inputs. So, as described in Figure 1, input provided
by the nth manager/leaders can be recorded as Mn ¼ ðPn1, Pn2,Pn3Þ. Suppose all managers/
leaders provide possibility-based input. The possibility-based input is straightforward compared
to probability-based input. In probability-based input, mediators have to ensure that the sum of
all the input probabilities must be equal to a hundred (Koroliuk et al., 1978). In case of possibil-
ity, mediators do not have to worry about the total, and they may record the independent inputs
in an unbiased way.
Assume that conflict C among the group members is whether to provide funding to a partic-
ular NGO or not. For conflict C, conflict issue statement C1 states that “If the group provides
the funding to the NGO, then it would be beneficial to the organization.” Out of the n leader
mediator, the second leader provides input for conflict statement C1 as M2 ¼ ð0:9, 0:2, 0Þ. The
M2 indicates that a leader/manager agrees with C1 with 90% confidence. Further, the same
manager/leader believes that there is a 20% possibility that the C1 can be wrong for various
82 ANJARIA

reasons. So, he disagrees with C1 also. Finally, by providing the third parameter of M2 as 0, the
mediator indicates that he is sure about the outcome of C1, and there is no uncertainty. The
present work records the input in the sub-normalized form (Dubois & Prade, 2000, pp. 11). The
sub-normalized form means the input options, that is, the benefit to organization and society,
not beneficial and not sure may or may not have possibility 1. M2 discussed in this example rep-
resents possibility distribution. It is noteworthy that, like probability distribution, the summa-
tion of values of all random variables in possibility distribution is not equal to 1. In this case,
the summation of values of all random variables in M2 is 1.1.
Suppose total n managers/leaders (where n > 1) provide their input in the form of possibili-
ties for conflict statement C1. In the proposed approach, we combine all the possibility-based
inputs delivered by all n managers/leaders for C1. Equation (1) shows the process of combina-
tion or fusion:


C1M combined ¼ MIN Pð1 to n,1Þ ,P ð1 to n,2Þ ,P ð1 to n,3Þ ð1Þ

In Equation (1), M combined is a combination of all inputs provided by all n managers/leaders;

MIN is a minimum function such that MINðα,βÞ ¼ α if α < β and vice versa. In Equation (1),
the term Pð1 to n,1Þ depicts that the MIN function applies to all possibilities provided by 1 to
n managers about the feasibility of option-1. Equation (1) is motivated by Zadeh's triangular
fusion norm (Solaiman & Bossé, 2019, pp. 207). Leaders or managers are the central entity of
the group who always aims to initiate such interactions among the group members, reducing
the negative effects of conflict (Zhao et al., 2019). Based on the theory of Zhao et al. (2019),
Equation (1) assumes that input provided by each manager/leader who acts as a mediator is
equally and fully reliable and, as a result, performs conjunctive fusion. Suppose, for any C1,
M1 ¼ ð0:9, 0:3, 0Þ and M2 ¼ ð0:7, 0:1, 0:2Þ. So, based on the Equation (1):

C1M combined ¼ MIN ½ðP11, P21Þ, ðP12, P22Þ, ðP13, P23Þ

¼ MIN ½ð0:9, 0:7Þ, ð0:3, 0:1Þ, ð0, 0:2Þ
¼ ½0:7, 0:1, 0:

Thus, M combined is (0.7, 0.1, 0) since between the values of P11, that is, 0.9 and P21, that is, 0.7,
the value of P21 is the minimum value, between values P12, that is, 0.3 and P22, that is, 0.1, the
values of P22 is the minimum and finally between P13 and P23, the value of P13, that is, 0 is
the minimum value. An added advantage of Equation (1) is that it eliminates highly differing
inputs provided by the mediators (Yager, 2011). As a result, Equation (1) can handle the conflict
among the mediators also. Suppose for any C1, M1 = (1, 0, 0.34) and M2 = (0, 1, 0.42). The
inputs provided by both the mediators are highly conflicting since M1 completely agrees with
C1 while M2 completely disagrees with C1. Using Equation (1), C1M combined ¼ ð0, 0, 0:34Þ. Thus,
Equation (1) has balanced the conflict and provided the combined result. Further, if required,
during later stages of conflict management, opinions of other experts regarding C1 can be
recorded, and their inputs can be fused with C1M combined . In selecting other experts to get accu-
rate C1M combined , groups or organizations can consider making diversity a program objective of
mediator selection, as suggested by Day-Vines et al. (1996). During conflict management, other
experts' results can be immediately fused with the existing C1M combined at any point in time.
This property of Equation (1) provides a unique feature during conflict management. If there
ANJARIA 83

are 1 to n conflict issue statements for any conflict C, then one can apply Equation (1) to each
conflict issue statement and obtain values of C1M combined to CnM combined .
The values of C1M combined to CnM combined describe the ideal situation. If group opinion
matches the mediators' opinion, extensive conflict management activities are not required. For
example, C1M combined ¼ ð0:8, 0:1, 0Þ. In C1, if the value of V1 is 80%, then group opinion is simi-
lar to the mediator's opinion, and the mediators can easily influence the other group members.
In the present work, two representations of percentage have been used interchangeably—for
example, 80% and 0.8. Balkis (2007) studied that if the leaders get convinced that most group
members agree with their opinion, they are better at negotiation than the subordinates. If the
group's opinion does not match the mediators' opinion, group conflict management becomes a
complex task. The present paper considers the complicated situation where the group's opinions
and the mediator may or may not match. In such a complex situation, an organization can han-
dle conflict with mediators' opinions.
To check opinions of group and mediators are matching or not, one can calculate the differ-
ence of opinion using Equation (2) as

DiffCn ¼ ðjVn1  Pn2j, Vn2, jVn3  Pn3j, Vn4, jVn5  Pn1j, Vn6Þ ð2Þ

Equation (2) only combines the expert opinion with the three opinions associated with the
Likert scale, that is, strongly disagree, strongly agree, and neutral. It is noteworthy that
Equation (2) only considers extreme opinions to decide to avoid an extreme response style
effect (Greenleaf, 1992). Greenleaf suggested that the extreme response style effect means
respondents' tendency to avoid answering extreme opinions on the Likert scale even though
they have firm opinions; psychologically, respondents agree to the nearest extreme
opinions only.
Solaiman and Bossé (2019) suggested that it is possible to relate and compute possibil-
ities with probabilities. Thus, in Equation (2), it is possible to subtract possibility-based
mediator opinion (Pn) from probabilistic group opinion (Vn). Jamieson (2004) suggested
that it would not be appropriate to consider options agree and strongly agree as
equidistance options. As a result, one cannot perform operations based on standard devi-
ations on the data obtained by such possibilities. Equation (2) strictly adheres to this rule.
It is interesting how Equations (1) and (2) follow the degree of certainty-based approach
as they generalize the Zadeh's t-norm property. They may also be represented using lat-
tice L instead of interval values in ½0, 1 (Li & Luo, 2018). An outcome of Equations (1) and (2)
μ : ℝn ! L is t-norm if for any x, y  ℝn and all λ  ½0, 1 the inequality μðλx þ ð1  λÞyÞ ≥ μðx Þ þ
μðyÞ holds. Even though all the options are present on the Likert scale, it provides indicative
results only. For example, it is difficult to guess the actual belief of the group members who
have opted for “Neutral” and “Do not know” options. The present work harnesses a fuzzy
degree of truth and a certainty-based approach to utilize the uncertain quantitative measures
obtained using Equations (1) and (2). In literature, fuzzy degrees of truth and Likert scale-based
approaches have been widely used (Li, 2013). In a nutshell, Figure 1 describes the existing con-
flict situation, Equation (1) provides an ideal situation that leads to conflict resolution, and
Equation (2) indicates the distance between the current and ideal situation. Figure 2 describes
two states: (1) existing scenario and (2) ideal situation. The following sub-section utilizes both
the equations and Figure 2 to calculate decision-making entropy. Figure 2 considers two states
to solve the complex challenge of group conflict management. Using the states described in
Figure 2, an organization can deploy an appropriate conflict handling model.
84 ANJARIA

F I G U R E 2 Two states to measure the entropy

Next, the study describes five conflict-handling models presented by Thomas and Kilmann
(1975) and their relation with Equations (1), (2), and entropy. The present work does not sug-
gest considering conflict handling strategies in a particular sequence and order. Instead, the
work emphasizes a lucid explanation of formalism and the correlation between conflict han-
dling strategies and entropy.

1. Avoiding conflict handling strategy: The avoiding strategy is the most challenging and confus-
ing as literature has not reached a consensus. Hignite et al. (2020) suggested avoiding con-
flict issues as the issue does not warrant attention. Greeff and Tanya De Bruyne (2000) said
that one could prevent the conflict issue when the members in conflict demonstrate unasser-
tive, uncooperative behavior. Due to this behavior, the issue becomes secondary. The
avoiding strategy generates a lose-lose situation. The present work considers the definition
provided by Hignite et al. (2020) and avoids the conflict issue. Suppose, for Cn, Equation (2)
is applied. In Equation (2), if j Vn1  Pn2 j, j Vn3  Pn3 j, and j Vn5  Pn1 j is equal to or near
to zero, then one can assert that at present, the conflict issue Cn can be avoided. The three
differences of Equation (2) are zero or near to zero means weight provided by all the media-
tors corresponds to group members' opinions. In other words, for Cn, the group members
concurred with the mediators, and issue Cn does not warrant immediate attention and
efforts. As a result, the mediators can avoid Cn for the time being and focus on other conflict
issues statements.
2. Competing conflict handling strategy: Thomas and Kilmann (1975) and Hignite et al. (2020)
suggested that one can deploy a competing strategy under situations where decision-makers
are confident about their decisions. The present work considers a competing approach when
the opinions of all the mediating managers converge. If the opinions converge, then only the
mediators can influence the group and deploy a competing strategy. First, the mediators'
combined values obtained using Equation (1) are normalized to calculate whether the opin-
ions are convergent or not. After that, the entropy of the normalized value is calculated. For
any conflict statement C1, if combined opinions of mediators are estimated as C1M combined
using Equation (1), then normalized combined mediator opinions can be calculated using
Equation (3) as:
ANJARIA 85

C1M combined
NormalizedC1M combined ¼ ð3Þ
MAXðC1M combined Þ

In Equation (3), MAX is a function that finds the maximum value from C1M combined . For any
C1, if M1 = (1, 0.34, 0) and M2 = (0, 0.42, 1) then using Equation (2), one can calculate
C1M combined = (0, 0.34, 0). For the value of C1M combined if Equation (3) is applied then value of
MAXðC1M combined Þ would be 0.34. Each value of C1M combined is divided by 0.34. Thus, the final
value of NormalisedC1M combined would be (0, 1, 0). Equation (3) is motivated by Yager's normal-
ization method (Yager, 2011). To calculate the entropy of Normalized C1M combined , Shannon
entropy (Lin, 1991) is used. If P1, P2, and P3 are the possibilities of normalized combined medi-
ator input Normalized C1M combined , then the entropy can be calculated in bits using Equation (4)
as:
X
H ðNormalisedC1M combined Þ ¼  Pi log2 Pi ð4Þ
i

For Normalized C1M combined ¼ ð0, 1, 0Þ, if Equation (4) is applied then H ðNormalisedC1M combined Þ
is 0. If p is zero in Equation (4), then as per the principle of ensemble entropy (MacKay, 2003,
pp. 32), entropy would be zero. Suppose, for any Cn, CnM combined is equal to (0.7, 0.3, 0). Then,
NormalisedCnM combined would be (1, 0.42, 0). If Equation (4) is applied then
H ðNormalisedCnM combined Þ would be 0 + 0.52 = 0.52. In such cases, the entropy would not be
zero. If we observe the C1M combined ¼ ð0, 1, 0Þ and CnM combined ¼ ð1, 0:42, 0Þ, then it is evident
that for C1M combined , almost all the mediators are confident about the opinion, that is, mediators
disagree with C1 since P2 = 1. On the other hand, for CnM combined , most mediators are confi-
dent and agree with the conflict issue statement Cn since P1 is 1, and a considerable number of
mediators are confident and disagree with Cn since P2 is 0.42. From an entropy perspective, the
entropy of C1 is 0, and the entropy of Cn is 0.52. Entropy is the measure of uncertainty, and
higher entropy indicates higher uncertainty in the system. Since, in the case of C1, most man-
agers/leaders are confident about their opinion, there is no uncertainty. As a result, entropy is
zero. For Cn, the opinions of the mediators are divided. These differences in opinions cause
uncertainty, and as a result, entropy is 0.52, that is, 52%.
As stated earlier, a competing conflict handling strategy can be strictly applied when the
decision-makers are certain about their decision. From entropy perspectives, one can state that
if entropy is zero or near zero (i.e., in mathematical terms ≈ 0), then there is a certainty, and if
entropy is greater than zero, then there is uncertainty in the decision. In the above example,
for C1, since entropy was 0, decision-makers were confident and specific about their
opinion, and for Cn, entropy was 0.52, and decision-makers had a difference of views. Thus, a
competing conflict handling strategy can be applied when the entropy of normalized
combined mediator decision (obtained using Equations 1 and 3) is zero. Mathematically, if
H ðNormalisedCM combined Þ ¼ 0, then a competing conflict handling strategy can be used. If
H ðNormalisedCM combined Þ ≠ 0, one should refrain from using the competing conflict handling
strategy.

3. Collaborating conflict handling strategy: The collaborating conflict handling strategy is one of
the most prevalent strategies as it maintains equilibrium between assertiveness and
86 ANJARIA

cooperativeness (Hignite et al., 2020, pp. 317). The collaborating conflict handling strategy
can be used when meeting all the group members' opinions is crucial (Hignite et al., 2020,
pp. 319). Thomas and Kilmann (1975) suggested that collaborating organizations can deploy
collaborating conflict handling strategy when the organization incorporates multiple per-
spectives so that there should not be any present or past ill-will among the group members
involved in a conflict. Callanan et al. (2006) named collaborating conflict handling strategy a
time-consuming win-win conflict management style since it takes a long time to handle con-
flict using a collaborating approach. Time is the critical factor in handling the conflict, and a
collaborating strategy is not suitable for time-critical conflict situations. To decide whether
the collaborating conflict handling strategy can be utilized, one can deploy the entropy con-
cept. However, one can use a joint entropy concept to decide on a collaborating strategy,
along with Shannon's entropy. The joint entropy indicates the amount of conflicting infor-
mation available with two or more entities (Tang & Rahmim, 2009). For any conflict issue
statement C1, joint entropy of two opinions V11 (Strongly disagree) and V15 (Strongly agree)
(completely divergent views) can be calculated using Equation (5) as:

H ðV 11,V 15Þ ¼ ðV 11  V 15Þlog2 ðV 11  V 15Þ ð5Þ

In Equation (5), V11 and V15 are independent events. As a result, independent events
(V11 * V15) provide a joint probability of independent events. If the multiplication of V11 and
V15 is zero, joint entropy would be zero as per the principle of ensemble entropy
(MacKay, 2003, pp. 32). The idea behind the joint entropy is if joint entropy of two extremes,
that is, V11 (Strongly Disagree) and V15 (Strongly Agree), is near to, equal to or greater than 0.5
(in bits), then it indicates that the members, having completely divergent opinions, possess
highly conflicting information. In such a case, if an organization goes for collaborating conflict
handling strategy, then conflict handling would be highly time-consuming. One more reason
for being a collaborative conflict handling strategy time consuming (when joint entropy is equal
to or greater than 0.5) is psychological distance and thought barriers among the group members
having divergent opinions are very high (Wakita et al., 2012). The organization requires more
than a feasible time to overcome the high psychological distance and handle the conflict using
a collaborating strategy when joint entropy is near or equal to or greater than 0.5 (in bits).

4. Compromising conflict handling strategy: Compromising conflict handling strategy is a strat-

egy that aims to find the workable solution when strong opponents pursue completely diver-
gent opinions (Hignite et al., 2020). The compromising strategy is neither assertive nor
cooperative and results in non-optimal solutions for conflict handling (Mahon, 2009). One
can quickly identify using Equation (5) whether the opponents or group members pursue
completely divergent opinions or not. For any C1, if joint entropy of two extremes, that is,
V11 (Strongly Disagree) and V15 (Strongly Agree), is near to, equal to, or greater than 0.5
(in bits), then that indicates that the members have opposite opinions. In such a case, the
compromising conflict-handling strategy can be deployed.
5. Accommodating conflict handling strategy: In accommodating conflict handling strategy,
members sacrifice their self-interest to satisfy the needs of others (Voki
c & Sontor, 2009).
The method generates a lose-win outcome. The accommodating approach is not highly use-
ful. The group members follow this strategy when conflict issue is not essential to them and
want to make conflict handling smooth (Giles et al., 2007, pp. 130). Literature suggests that
ANJARIA 87

it is a rarely deployed strategy to handle conflict (Hignite et al., 2020). Since it is a lose-win
strategy, it is seldom used by the group members to manage the conflict when no other tech-
niques work. The present work also asserts that one can deploy an accommodating conflict
handling strategy when all the above-mentioned methods fail.

Table 2 summarizes all conflict handling strategies, theoretical details, and formalized
entropy-based approach that indicates which particular method can be deployed. Table 2
describes the formalism of conflict handling strategies as an extension of the table provided by
Thomas and Kilmann (1975). Thomas and Kilmann provided theoretical explanations and
details for each conflict-handling method. In the current work, Table 2 provides a proposed
entropy-based approach and a formal rationale behind the deployment of conflict handling
strategy.
Table 2 articulates theory and proposed formalism about conflict handling and management
strategies. Figure 3 shows formal approaches, their sequences, and literary sources of each step
of the proposed methodology. One of the primary advantages of the proposed method is that it
can avoid the activated group fault-line (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). An activated group fault-line
means group members perceive subgroups based on demographic characteristics. The proposed
entropy and degree of freedom-based approach can avoid activated group fault-line as no group
members' entitlement configurations are involved in the proposed methodology.
The following section discusses a case study to understand the concept of proposed entropy-
based methodology and how it helps organizations decide the deployment of conflict handling
and management.

4 | A CA S E S TU D Y A B O U T CO N F LI C T AN D C O N F L I C T
MANAGEMENT

The present section investigates the implication of the proposed methodology on real datasets.
The current section includes the datasets published as a critical part of reputed research reports
and research papers to support open science practices. The present section considers conflict in
academic organizations. The current work considers a case of conflict among engineering stu-
dents. The case's prime objective is to elicit conflicting views of engineering students on the
essential generic and specialist skills and attributes for a modern engineer if engineering is con-
sidered science and art. Further, to consider mediation's effect, the present case considers engi-
neering school teachers, faculty members, and trainers as a mediator. One can consider
teachers, trainers, and faculty members as servant leaders in general (Herman &
Marlowe, 2005). As a result, teachers can be regarded as influential leaders or managers and
deemed mediators (Bowman, 2005). More reasons behind consideration of teachers/trainers/
faculties as mediators and serving leaders are as follows:

• The developmental commitments of faculties/teachers are about maintaining or managing

the energies and inspiring creative and ingenious energy in one's students and colleagues. In
general terms, the role of the classroom teachers/trainers/faculties is “helping everyone else
to succeed.” (Jennings & Stahl-Wert, 2016).
• The teacher, as a serving leader, aims to provide knowledge and skills that would be benefi-
cial to the students in the workplace and community settings. Teachers strive to enhance the
performance of students by positively influencing them.
88
T A B L E 2 Conflict handling strategies, theoretical detail, and proposed an entropy-based formal approach
(the present work adopts the first two columns from the work of Thomas and Kilmann (1975). The last-
emphasized column is the contribution of the present work)
Conflict
handling
strategy Type of research gap
Avoiding * The conflict issues can be sometimes
avoided as the issue does not warrant
attention
* The strategy can be deployed when the
members in conflict demonstrate
unassertive, uncooperative behavior,
and due to this behavior, the issue
becomes secondary
* The avoiding strategy generates a lose-
lose situation
Competing * Competing strategy can be used in
situations where decision-makers are
confident about their decisions
* The competing strategy is highly
assertive and less cooperative
* The outcome of the strategy would result
in a win-lose situation
Collaborating * The collaborating strategy maintains
equilibrium between assertiveness and
cooperativeness
* The strategy should be carefully
deployed as it may result in a highly
time-consuming process
* The collaborating conflict handling
strategy can be used when it is vital to
meet all the group members' opinions
and goals
* The strategy meets the goals of self and
possibly others
* The outcome of the strategy would result
in a win-win situation
ANJARIA
Entropy-based formal approach
As shown in Figure 1, for any conflict
issue statement, Cn, Vn1, Vn3, and Vn5
indicate options of group members
strongly disagree, neutral, and strongly
agree, respectively. Further, Pn2, Pn3,
and Pn1 indicate combined mediators'
opinions disagree, neutral, and agree,
respectively. For these options, if
j Vn1  Pn2 j, j Vn3  Pn3 j, and j
Vn5  Pn1 j is zero or nearly equal to
zero, then one can assert that at present,
the conflict issue Cn can be avoided
If normalized combined possibilities
provided by mediating managers/leaders
have entropy zero or near zero, then one
can derive that all mediators are
confident about their choices. In such
cases, a competing strategy can be
deployed. One can use Equation (3) to
get mediating managers' normalized
combined possibilities. Further,
Equation (4) describes how to calculate
the entropy of normalized combined
possibilities obtained using Equation (3).
In this strategy, managers can try to
influence the opinions of group
members
For any C1, if joint entropy of two
extremes, that is, V11 (strongly disagree)
and V15 (strongly agree), are near to,
equal to or greater than 0.5 (in bits),
then it indicates that the members,
having completely divergent opinions,
possess highly conflicting information.
In such a case, if the organization goes
for a collaborating conflict handling
strategy, then the conflict handling
would be highly time-consuming,
infeasible, and a lengthy process. The
high joint entropy also indicates high
psychological distances. In such a
situation, a collaborating strategy is not
suitable
ANJARIA 89

T A B L E 2 (Continued)

Conflict
handling
strategy Type of research gap
Compromising * The compromising strategy aims to find
a workable solution when strong
opponents pursue completely divergent
opinions
* It results in neither winning nor losing
Accommodating * Accommodating conflict handling
strategies can be deployed when
members are ready to sacrifice their
self-interest to satisfy others' needs
* It does not satisfy the personal needs of
some individuals
* It results in a lose-win situation
* It is rarely used strategy
Entropy-based formal approach
For any C1, If joint entropy of two
extremes, that is, V11 (strongly disagree)
and V15 (strongly agree), are near to,
equal to, or greater than 0.5 (in bits),
then that indicates that the members
have opposite opinions. In such a case,
compromising a conflict-handling
strategy can be deployed
It is a rarely used strategy. No one
generally sacrifices personal interest
without any reason. One can deploy an
accommodating strategy when all the
above mentioned formal entropy-based
approaches fail to identify proper
conflict handling strategy

F I G U R E 3 Formal approaches, their sequences and sources of the proposed methodology

In the current case, a group of engineering students has conflict or difference of opinion
about “Engineering Design.” The views of the students have been recorded using a five-point
Likert scale. The Likert scale data about conflict has been obtained from the research work of
Lindsley and Burrows (2007). Lindsley and Burrows conducted a study on a group of 97 stu-
dents. The study was conducted with a mean difference of .72 p < .01. The conflict, conflict
issue statements, and opinions of the students have been recorded in Table 3. Lindsley and Bur-
rows (2007, pp. 13) have incorporated a detailed questionnaire to get the data about conflict
issue statements C1 to C4. Due to space limitations, we have not included the entire question-
naire in the present work.
Next, the opinions of teachers/faculties as leaders were recorded. The case considers two
groups of leaders. The first group of mediators has expertise in different fields of science,
90 ANJARIA

T A B L E 3 Conflict, conflict issue statements, and opinions of a group in conflict (opinions are described in
terms of how many people in % have given opinion)

Conflict C “conflict about Engineering Design”

Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Conflict issue statements (V1) (V2) (V3) (V4) agree (V5)
C1: General impressions of 0.0% (V11) 0.0% (V12) 0.0% (V13) 16.7% (V14) 83.3% (V15)
engineering
C2: General impression of the work 0.0% (V21) 0.0% (V22) 2.1% (V23) 40.7% (V24) 57.2% (V25)
engineers do and its relevance
with Engineering Design
C3: How engineers contribute to 0.0% (V31) 2.1% (V32) 44.7% (V33) 40.7% (V34) 12.5% (V35)
society through Engineering
Design
C4: General Impression of 0.0% (V41) 4.2% (V42) 38.6% (V43) 42.6% (V44) 14.6% (V45)
Engineering design as an Exact
Science

Note: This table uses consistent nomenclature as described in Figure 1.

technology, and engineering but not in Engineering Design. And the second group of mediators
is experts in Engineering Design. The study considers two groups as it is crucial to consider
mediators with different thought processes, cultures, and cognition. Table 4 presents inputs pro-
vided by two mediating groups with probabilistic and possibilistic figures. The terminologies
used in Tables 3 and 4 are aligned with Figure 1. The study presented by Lindsley and Burrows
only presents probabilistic data in the form of a percentage. The study considered 47 teachers/
faculties as mediators. In the present work, we have converted probabilistic data into
possibility-based data to get the exact situation described in Figure 1. Appendix A shows the
method and an example to convert probabilistic data into possibility-based data. Table 4 sepa-
rates probabilistic data and possibility-based data using hyphens; for example, for C2 of M1,
P15 is described as 0.391–0.642. For P15, 0.391 is probabilistic input, and 0.642 is possibility-
based input.
In Table 3, the conflict issue statements C1 to C4 explain how many percentages of students
have opted for a particular option; on the other hand, in Table 4, possibility-based inputs and
probability-based inputs of the experts have been recorded. Next, using Equation (1), we merge
expert opinions M1 and M2 for C1 to C4. Table 5 shows the merger.
Next, one can check the suitability of each conflict-handling strategy for conflict C and con-
flict issue statements C1 to C4.

1. Avoiding: First, one can calculate Diff C1 to Diff C4 using Equation (2) to check if avoiding
strategy is suitable for conflict management or not. Diff C1 = (0, 0, 0.044, 0.833, 0.323), Diff
C2 = (0, 0, 0.021, 0.593, 0.07), Diff C3 = (0.044, 0.499, 0.553, 0.015, 0.081), Diff C4 = (0.0471,
0.195, 0.366, 0.276, 0.052). If the extremes, that is, strongly disagree, neutral, and strongly
agree, are nearly equal to zero, then avoiding conflict handling strategy would be ideal. In
the above sets of the differences, for Diff C2 values, one can conclude that for C2, avoiding
conflict handling and management techniques would be ideal. For Diff C2, the value of the
 ANJARIA

T A B L E 4 Opinions from a group of experts M1 and M2 in the form of probability and possibility

Input from mediating group M1 (Faculties expert in Science, Technology, and Engineering but not specifically in Engineering Design)

Strongly Strongly
Conflict issue statements disagree (V1) Disagree (V2) Neutral (V3) Agree (V4) agree (V5)
C1: General impressions of engineering 0.00–0.00 (P11) 0.00–0.00 (P12) 0.043–0.068 (P13) 0.631–1 (P14) 0.326–0.51 (P15)
C2: General impression of the work engineers do and its 0.00–0.00 (P11) 0.00–0.00 (P12) 0.00–0.00 (P13) 0.609–1 (P14) 0.391–0.642 (P15)
relevance with Engineering Design
C3: How engineers contribute to society through 0.022–0.044 (P11) 0.26–0.52 (P12) 0.50–1 (P13) 0.196–0.392 (P14) 0.022–0.044 (P15)
Engineering Design
C4: General Impression of Engineering design as an Exact 0.022–0.0471 (P11) 0.111–0.237 (P12) 0.467–1 (P13) 0.356–0.762 (P14) 0.044–0.094 (P15)
Science
Input from mediating group M2 (Faculty expert in Engineering Design)

Strongly Strongly
Conflict issue statements disagree (V1) Disagree (V2) Neutral (V3) Agree (V4) agree (V5)
C1: General impressions of engineering 0.023–0.044 (P11) 0.00–0.00 (P12) 0.023–0.044 (P13) 0.512–1 (P14) 0.442–0.863 (P15)
C2: General impression of the work engineers do and its 0.00–0.00 (P11) 0.00–0.00 (P12) 0.00–0.00 (P13) 0.512–1 (P14) 0.488–0.953 (P15)
relevance with Engineering Design
C3: How engineers contribute to society through 0.023–0.054 (P11) 0.302–0.720 (P12) 0.419–1 (P13) 0.186–0.443 (P14) 0.07–0.167 (P15)
Engineering Design
C4: General Impression of Engineering design as an Exact 0.07–0.150 (P11) 0.464–1 (P12) 0.349–0.752 (P13) 0.070–0.150 (P14) 0.047–0.101 (P15)
Science
91
92 ANJARIA

T A B L E 5 Combined opinions of experts M1 and M2 for conflict issue statements C1 to C4

Combined opinions of experts M1 and M2 for conflict issue statements C1 to C4

Strongly Strongly
Conflict issue statements disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree
C1: General impressions of engineering 0.00 0.00 0.044 1 0.51
C2: General impression of the work engineers 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.642
do and its relevance with Engineering Design
C3: How engineers contribute to society 0.044 0.52 1 0.392 0.044
through Engineering Design
C4: General Impression of Engineering design 0.0471 0.237 0.752 0.150 0.094
as an Exact Science

strongly disagree option is 0; the value of neutral is 0.02, which is near to 0, and the value of
strongly agree is 0.07, which is again considered small and near to zero value. Thus, for C2,
avoiding strategy is ideal. Further, intuitively also, the opinions of group members, M1 medi-
ators, and the opinions of M2 mediators are almost similar. In such a situation, an organiza-
tion can avoid the C2 conflict issue statement for the time being and focus on C1, C3, and
C4 to solve conflict C. Literature considers this strategy as a lose-lose strategy since it avoids
opinions of group members who have divergent opinions. If an organization deploys the
avoiding conflict handling strategy, then there are chances that the organization may miss
out on a crucial opportunity to learn from the divergent opinion.
2. Competing: For competing strategy, it is crucial to calculate normalized combined mediator
opinions for C1, C2, C3, and C4 conflict issue statements. Table 5 describes that C1, C2, and C3
have MAXðC1M combined Þ = MAXðC2M combined Þ = MAXðC3M combined Þ = 1. That means for
Equation (3), the denominator is 1. From this fact, it can be concluded that combined mediator
opinions for C1, C2, C3 are already normalized. For C4, Equation (3) provides
NormalisedC4M combined ¼ ð0:0626, 0:3151, 1, 0:199, 0:125Þ. Next, one can calculate entropy for a
normalized combined mediator. For C1, C2, C3, and C4, H ðNormalisedC1M combined Þ ¼ 0:688
(in bits), H ðNormalisedC2M combined Þ ¼ 0:41 (in bits), H ðNormalisedC3M combined Þ = 1.40
(in bits), H ðNormalisedC4M combined Þ ¼ 1:5 (in bits). Here, C1, C2, C3 and C4 are in possibilistic
form. As a result, the entropy is greater than 1 (Solaiman & Bossé, 2019). The entropy of normal-
ized combined mediator opinions is not zero or nearly equal to zero in the present case. Thus, a
competing conflict avoidance strategy is not suitable for C1, C2, C3, and C4.
3. Collaborating: One can decide the applicability of a collaborating conflict handling strategy
using a joint entropy concept. Joint entropy of extreme opinions of group G1 can be calcu-
lated using Equation (5). First, populations having extreme opinions can be multiplied.
Table 3 shows that not a single group member strongly disagrees with the conflict issue
statements C1 to C4. In this case, the value of one extreme, that is, “strongly disagree,”
would be zero. Further, multiplications of extreme for C1 to C4 would be zero. As per
Equation (5) and the ensemble entropy principle, joint entropy for each conflict issue state-
ment would be zero. In this case, a collaborating conflict handling strategy is suitable for
each conflict issue statement, from C1 to C4. We have also considered “disagree” and
“agree” opinions for further investigation. An extreme response style effect can be avoided
by considering non-extreme divergent views (Greenleaf, 1992). For C1 and C2, not a single
group member disagrees with the conflict issue statements. In this case, again, the joint
ANJARIA 93

entropy of C1 and C2 for opinions' “agree” and “disagree” would be zero. Thus, for C1 and
C2 conflict issue statements, the Collaborating conflict handling strategy would be fast to
reach a consensus and consume less time. For C3 and C4, few group members either agree
or disagree. For C3 and C4, one can calculate joint entropy using Equation (5). For C3, joint
entropy is 0.05 (in bits), and for C4, joint entropy is 0.10 (in bits). Thus, if an organization
applies a collaborating strategy to handle conflict C, then conflict issue statement C4 would
slightly take longer than other conflict issue statements.
4. Compromising: From the above values-calculated to decide the applicability of collaborating
conflict handling strategy, it is evident that joint entropy of each conflict issue statement C1
to C4 is not nearly equal to or equal to 0.5 for extreme opinions. Further, for opinions agree
and disagree also, joint entropy is not near 0.5. So, the compromising conflict-handling strat-
egy does not apply to any conflict issue statement for conflict C. However, for C4, it is shown
above that a collaborating approach may take longer to handle the conflict. If C is a time-
critical conflict, then for C4, a compromising strategy can be deployed if a collaborating
strategy is taking too long.
5. Accommodating: In the present case, it is evident from the above calculations that for each
conflict issue statement, at least one of the above four conflict handling strategies is applica-
ble. Thus, for conflict C described in this case, an accommodating strategy does not apply at
all to any conflict issue statement. Table 6 summarizes all conflict issue statements and
appropriate conflict-handling strategies.

Table 6 also shows that conflict issue statement C4 may create problems in time-critical con-
flict handling. C4 is problematic, as it is time-consuming. Table 6 also suggests that C2 can be
avoided initially, and the organization may focus on C1, C3, and C4. Later, C2 can be solved to
find the solution to conflict C.
Present work takes the help of literary surveys, data, and interviews to support the results
presented in Table 6. Pavelich et al. (1995) noted that engineering students would have high
problem-solving capabilities. Further, engineering students tend to develop better cross-
technological and cross-cultural communication skills (Gilleard & Gilleard, 2002). Dominguez
et al. (2016, pp. 9) suggested that psychologically, a person having high-quality problem-solving
capabilities and better communication skills uses collaborating conflict resolution strategy.

T A B L E 6 Summary of conflict issue statements and applicability of conflict handling strategies

Avoiding Competing Collaborating Compromising Accommodating

Conflict conflict conflict conflict conflict conflict
issue handling handling handling handling handling
statement strategy strategy strategy strategy strategy
C1

C2

C3

C4 a b

a
Conflict issue statement C4 would slightly take longer than other conflict issue statements in a collaborative strategy.
b
For time-critical conflict C, after deploying the collaborating strategy, if C4 is taking too long then compromising strategy can
be used.
94 ANJARIA

Table 6 demonstrates this fact formally with the help of entropy-based concepts. Further,
Percival et al. (1992, pp. 14) suggested that thinking dominant people avoid competing and
accommodating conflict handling strategies. Singh (2002) and Kordova et al. (2015) suggested
that engineers can think dominantly and rationally instead of thinking artistically and socially.
Thus, it is evident that a group of engineers avoids competing and accommodating strategies in
the present case and deploy rational collaborating, avoiding, or compromising strategies.
The entropy and degree of truth-based concept consider the entire population and their
choices-opinions. Based on the population's opinions, entropy can be calculated, and the incli-
nation of a group can be derived. The present case considered a homogeneous group where
each member was an engineering student. As a result, it was easy to gauge their psychological
inclination. We evaluated the present case associated with engineering. With the help of well-
known psychological facts about engineers (Tabbi, 1992), the results and decisions about the
deployment of conflict handling strategies can be verified. The proposed entropy-based method-
ology is global and applicable to handling the conflict of heterogeneous groups and where there
can be people with various knowledge bases, educational backgrounds, experiences, gender,
and professions. Apart from the present case, the approach applies to the following existing case
studies and literature without any change in methodology: conflict on e-learning (Zervos
et al., 2013), conflict about legislative initiatives at the international level and the European
level (Cominelli & Lucchiari, 2017), conflict of interest among Italian medical oncologists
(DeCensi et al., 2018), a Portuguese case study of tourism conflict (Almeida et al., 2018) and
many more. Due to space limitations, we have not described the results of each case study.
However, the proposed approach finds the appropriate conflict-handling strategies in each
case mentioned above. The following section discusses the proposed approach's implications,
limitations, and possible future scope.

5 | DEG REE OF TR UTH AND ENTR OPY-B ASED

METHODOLOGY: A DISCU S S I O N O N I M P L I C A T I O N S ,
LIMITATION S AN D FU TU R E S CO P E

Researchers have used Pawlak's information systems model to handle the conflict situation
using a system. However, the limitation of Pawlak's approach is that it records and presents the
opinions of an individual group member during conflict handling. If the group is too large,
recording individual group members' views and deciding the conflict handling strategy becomes
a complicated task. The present work takes a population-based approach. As a result, the com-
plexity of recording opinions of individual group members and intricate calculations can be
avoided based on the documented opinions. Further, the proposed approach can handle and
manage conflict in a group with many group members. Using Pawlak's model, group members
and mediators cannot record their opinions anonymously. On the other hand, the present
approach respects the privacy of the group members and mediators.
Several research works have classified group conflict into three categories: a socio-affective
type of group conflict, labeled process-based conflict, and cognitive task-based group conflict.
The proposed degree of truth and entropy-based approach can handle all three categories of
group conflict. It formally manages interpersonal incompatibilities among group members, dis-
agreements about the content of decisions, and differences in ideas, opinions, and viewpoints.
Even though the proposed approach takes combined views of group members and mediators
into consideration, it also respects symmetry, knowledge base, the origin of the belief,
ANJARIA 95

intergroup-intragroup belief, time to resolve conflict, power, experience, and possibility of

peaceful conflict resolution. Marques et al. (2015) suggested that existing organizations prefer
the contingency approach concerning the strategies used to manage group conflict and their
effectiveness. The proposed methodology also follows the contingency approach. The process is
developed based on the principle that there is no “one best way” and that each conflict manage-
ment strategy can be appropriate under certain circumstances and preferences. Moreover, the
proposed entropy-based approach is gender-neutral as it does not suggest the conflict handling
strategy based on gender. McIntyre (2007) also stated that there are no significant differences
between men and women regarding conflict management and handling style.
The present work considers multiple conflict issue statements for a single conflict C. More-
over, the proposed approach suggests different conflict-handling strategies independently and
individually for each conflict issue statement. To consider conflict handling strategy alone for
each conflict issue statement is a significant breakthrough as through the empirical study of
375 subjects, Wall and Nolan (1986) concluded that conflict issue statements require various
conflict-handling strategies to avoid the principal-agent problem. The methodology proposed in
the present work can avoid the principal-agent problem due to the Likert scale-based opinion
recording approach. In the present work, one person or entity in the group would not be able to
make decisions and/or take actions on behalf of, or that impact, another person or entity in the
group. Most of the studies have used a Likert scale-based approach to study the mitigation of
the principal-agent problem. Aaldering et al. (2013) studied the impact of the principal-agent
problem in intra-group conflict.
The proposed approach quantitatively formalizes the group conflict handling procedure. For
quantitative formalization, the proposed method automatically takes a variety of factors, such
as the group size, the similarity of the group members, the similarity of opinions, the extreme
response style effect, and the type of support offered by the leader mediators. As a result, one
can utilize a strictly formalized proposed approach to design the recommender system to man-
age group conflicts. Nguyen et al. (2019) presented simulation and a recommender system for
Conflict resolution in group decision making. However, Nguyen et al. suggested that it was dif-
ficult for their developed recommender system to record group behavior, collect data containing
various conditions, and validate the system's results. The present paper attempts to overcome
these limitations as it is a generalized formal approach applicable to all possible types of conflict
and records group behavior using entropy. Further, the proposed method can be utilized for
online service systems (Wang et al., 2016) to provide recommendations to resolve the conflict of
a geographically distributed group.
The proposed approach is based on the entropy concept, which aims to capture group mem-
bers' behavioral and psychological inclination and mediators through a Likert scale. Stamps
(2002) suggested that if the relationship between rated diversity of opinions and entropy is
strong and linear, it is relatively easy to handle the subjective impression of diversity to resolve
a group conflict situation. In the present work also, from Equations (1)–(5), it is evident that the
proposed methodology maintains the linearity between Likert scale-based rated diversity and
entropy. By utilizing entropy concepts in the present work, large, irregular, and variable cogni-
tive functions can be mapped and quantified, as Shi et al. (2020) suggested.
Even though the proposed formal approach is robust and globally applicable to manage
group conflicts, the study has several limitations. The proposed methodology can handle and
normalize the conflict among the mediators. However, the proposed approach cannot capture
the unethical behavior of mediating managers that can unintentionally instigate conflict in a
workgroup. Further, the proposed methodology cannot test the hypothesis about the number of
96 ANJARIA

valuable resources and staff. For example, McKinley et al. (1986) hypothesized that professors
in institutions with limited administrative staff (a helpful resource) are likely to engage in con-
flicts over staffing resources. It is impossible to test such hypotheses about an increase or
decrease in conflict issues using the proposed approach.
Gartrell et al. (2010) suggested that social relationships among the group members, relation-
ship strength, and personality could impact the group's judgments, conflicts, and decision-
making processes. The proposed methodology does not formalize the social relationship and its
impact on conflict management. Further, along with social relationships, the present work does
not consider the group members' different roles. In practice, particular members tend to have
specific parts in a group (e.g., parents or children). Berkovsky and Freyne (2010) suggested that
each member's position can be brought into play to understand their personal decisions and the
decision of the group. Based on the proposed methodology, our next focus of interest is develop-
ing a mechanism for the automatic optimization-based preference learning model to handle
group conflicts. In the future, we aim to investigate the quality of the group outcome supported
by the interactive group recommendation system (Nguyen et al., 2019) with the entropy-based
dimensions together with different measurement metrics. Future research may investigate
whether a hierarchical position also plays a role when parties are involved in asynchronous
mediation. Asynchronous mediation is a mediation in which parties do not see each other, for
example, online mediation on the internet (Bollen et al., 2012). We plan to associate game-
theoretic analysis (Hazra & Anjaria, 2021; Hazra & Anjaria, 2022) with group conflict handling
and resolution methods as a part of future research. Last but not least, in the future, it would be
interesting to study the linkage between procedural justice perceptions and perceptions of medi-
ation effectiveness. The following section concludes the present work.

6 | C ON C L U S I ON

Existing scholarship consistently reports empirical research on conflict resolution and methods
applied for the same. There are limited studies on the formalized way to select the group con-
flict handling strategies. The present research lays the groundwork for rigorously standardizing
the applicability and selection of group conflict handling strategies. The proposed methodology
utilizes the fuzzy degree of truth and entropy-based approaches to standardize decision-making
and conflict handling meticulously. The paper demonstrates how to deploy moderate evaluative
mediation to benefit from having leaders/managers/experts as mediators. The present work
explains the role of the mediator in conflict handling. The proposed methodology elucidates
how evaluative opinions of different mediators having different skills, expertise, and inclina-
tions can be amalgamated, and a unified result can be quantified. Further, the quantified
impact plays a vital role in deciding the best possible conflict handling strategy based on the
entropic conditions. The findings from these analyses point to the entropy-based pattern of
group conflict handling methods. The present research shows the proposed methodology's gen-
eralizability, interpretability, and replicability. It fosters open science practices by considering
pre-registered theories, hypotheses, publically available data, and a case on group conflict.
Finally, the paper presents implications, limitations of the proposed methodology, and future
research directions.
The paper applied the theoretical entropic model to one of the cases. The case suggests
entropy and a fuzzy degree of truth approaches are synergistically combinable in real-time situ-
ations. The lesson from the case can help the organizations that plan to handle the conflict. The
ANJARIA 97

study will motivate organizations and researchers to explore the entropic model in selecting
conflict handling strategies and forming best practices. The proposed approach can handle con-
flicting situations in family relationships, at work, and in the political sphere. The proposed
method helps create an atmosphere of tolerance, mutual respect, coexistence, and collective
learning during conflict handling. The proposed formal approach will have to discern itself
from the highly partisan progressive advocacy to be successful, which much of the conflict field
has already embraced.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no potential conflict of interests.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data supporting this study's findings are openly available in the article published by
Lindsley and Burrows (2007) at 10.18260/1-2-2503 [doi], URL: https://peer.asee.org/2503. In
our article, the paper is cited as Lindsley and Burrows (2007).

ORCID
Kushal Anjaria https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9034-6977

R EF E RE N C E S
Aaldering, H., Greer, L. L., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2013). Interest (mis) alignments in representative
negotiations: Do pro-social agents fuel or reduce inter-group conflict? Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 120(2), 240–250.
Almeida, J., Costa, C., & Da Silva, F. N. (2018). Collaborative approach for tourism conflict management: A Por-
tuguese case study. Land Use Policy, 75, 166–179.
Alonso, J. M., Castiello, C., & Mencar, C. (2015). Interpretability of fuzzy systems: Current research trends and
prospects. In Springer handbook of computational intelligence (pp. 219–237). Springer.
Anjaria, K. (2020). Negation and entropy: Effectual knowledge management equipment for learning organiza-
tions. Expert Systems with Applications, 157(1), 113497.
Anjaria, K. (2022). Knowledge derivation from likert scale using Z-numbers. Information Sciences, 590(1),
234–252.
Anjaria, K., & Mishra, A. (2017). Relation between cybernetics and information security: From Norbert Wiener's
perspectives. Kybernetes, 46(10), 1654–1673.
Anjaria, K., & Mishra, A. (2018). Relating Wiener's cybernetics aspects and a situation awareness model imple-
mentation for information security risk management. Kybernetes, 47(1), 58–79.
APA. (2020). APA dictionary of psychology response scale. APA. https://dictionary.apa.org/response-scale
Ayoko, O. B., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Jehn, K. A. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of conflict management research. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Balkis, M. (2007). Ögretmen adaylarının davranışlarındaki erteleme egiliminin. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Egitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(21), 67–83.
Berkovsky, S., & Freyne, J. (2010). Group-based recipe recommendations: Analysis of data aggregation strategies.
In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on recommender systems (pp. 111–118).
Bollen, K., & Euwema, M. (2013). Workplace mediation: An underdeveloped research area. Negotiation Journal,
29(3), 329–353.
Bollen, K., Ittner, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2012). Mediating hierarchical labor conflicts: Procedural justice makes
a difference—For subordinates. Group Decision and Negotiation, 21(5), 621–636.
Bondar, A., Bushuyev, S., Bushuieva, V., & Onyshchenko, S. (2021). Complimentary strategic model for manag-
ing entropy of the organization. In ITPM (pp. 293–302).
Bowman, R. F. (2005). Teacher as servant leader. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues,
and Ideas, 78(6), 257–260.
98 ANJARIA

Bromiley, P. A., Thacker, N. A., & Bouhova-Thacker, E. (2004). Shannon entropy, Renyi entropy, and informa-
tion. Statistics and inf. series (2004-004) (p. 9).
Callanan, G. A., Benzing, C. D., & Perri, D. F. (2006). Choice of conflict-handling strategy: A matter of context.
The Journal of Psychology, 140(3), 269–288.
Chen, J. (2003). An entropy theory of psychology and its implication to behavioral finance. Available at SSRN
465280.
Cominelli, L., & Lucchiari, C. (2017). Italian mediators in action: The impact of style and attitude. Conflict Reso-
lution Quarterly, 35(2), 223–242.
Day-Vines, N. L., Day-Hairston, B. O., Carruthers, W. L., Wall, J. A., & Lupton-Smith, H. A. (1996). Conflict reso-
lution: The value of diversity in the recruitment, selection, and training of peer mediators. The School Coun-
selor, 43(5), 392–410.
De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma
and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 858–866.
DeCensi, A., Numico, G., Ballatori, E., Artioli, F., Clerico, M., Fioretto, L., Livellara, V., Ruggeri, B.,
Tomirotti, M., Verusio, C., & Roila, F. (2018). Conflict of interest among Italian medical oncologists: A
national survey. BMJ Open, 8(6), e020912.
Deli
c, A., Nguyen, T. N., & Tkalčič, M. (2020). Group decision-making and designing group recommender sys-
tems. In Handbook of e-tourism (pp. 1–23). Springer.
Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3(4), 357–370.
Dominguez, D. G., Sanchez-Diaz, P. C., Fike, D. S., Ramirez, M. N., Walk, M. E., Gottlieb, H., & Parker, R. A.
(2016). A pilot study to examine the conflict handling preferences of health professional students before and
after participation in an interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP) initiative. Health and
Interprofessional Practice, 3(1), 1–12.
Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2000). Possibility theory in information fusion. In Proceedings of the third international
conference on information fusion (Vol. 1, pp. PS6–P19). IEEE.
Dubois, D., Prade, H., & Sandri, S. (1993). On possibility/probability transformations. In Fuzzy logic (pp. 103–
112). Springer.
Folger, J., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2015). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and
organizations. Routledge.
Fong, K. H., & Snape, E. (2015). Empowering leadership, psychological empowerment, and employee outcomes:
Testing a multi-level mediating model. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 126–138.
Gartrell, M., Xing, X., Lv, Q., Beach, A., Han, R., Mishra, S., & Seada, K. (2010). Enhancing group recommenda-
tion by incorporating social relationship interactions. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference
on supporting group work (pp. 97–106).
Giles, H., Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Anderson, M. C. (2007). Accommodating a new frontier: The context of
law enforcement. Psychology Press.
Gilleard, J., & Gilleard, J. D. (2002). Developing cross-cultural communication skills. Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 128(4), 187–200.
Greeff, A. P., & Tanya De Bruyne, A. (2000). Conflict management style and marital satisfaction. Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy, 26(4), 321–334.
Greenleaf, E. A. (1992). Measuring extreme response style. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(3), 328–351.
Gulbrandsen, W., Haavind, H., & Tjersland, O. A. (2018). High-conflict parents in mediation: An analysis of dia-
logues and sources to conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 35(4), 335–349.
Gulbrandsen, W., Haavind, H., & Tjersland, O. A. (2019). Mediation strategies in the face of custody conflicts.
Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(4), 293–309.
Hazra, T., & Anjaria, K. (2021). Analysis and applications of a bridge game. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and
Humanized Computing, 12(11), 1–13.
Hazra, T., & Anjaria, K. (2022). Applications of game theory in deep learning: A survey. Multimedia Tools and
Applications, 81(6), 8963–8994.
Herman, D. V., & Marlowe, M. (2005). Modeling meaning in life: The teacher as servant leader. Reclaiming Chil-
dren and Youth, 14(3), 175.
Hignite, M. A., Margavio, T. M., & Chin, J. M. (2020). Assessing the conflict resolution profiles of emerging infor-
mation systems professionals. Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(4), 6.
ANJARIA 99

Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab) use them. Medical Education, 38(12), 1217–1218.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the
conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The fault-line activation process and the effects of activated fault-lines on
coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
112(1), 24–42.
Jennings, K., & Stahl-Wert, J. (2016). The serving leader: Five powerful actions to transform your team, business,
and community. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kordova, S. K., Ribnikov, G., & Frank, M. (2015). Developing systems thinking among engineers: Recent study
findings. In 2015 Annual IEEE systems conference (SysCon) proceedings (pp. 50–53). IEEE.
Koroliuk, V. S., Portenko, N. I., Skorokhod, A. V., & Turbin, A. F. (1978). Handbook of probability theory and
mathematical statistics (p. 584). Izdatel'stvo Naukova Dumka (in Russian).
Lang, G., Miao, D., & Fujita, H. (2019). Three-way group conflict analysis based on Pythagorean fuzzy set theory.
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 28(3), 447–461.
Levin, M. S. (2000). The propriety of evaluative mediation: Concerns about the nature and quality of an evalua-
tive opinion. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 16, 267.
N
Li, L., & Luo, Q. (2018). Sufficient conditions for triangular norms preserving -convexity. Symmetry,
10(12), 729.
Li, Q. (2013). A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(5), 1609–1618.
Lin, J. (1991). Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
37(1), 145–151.
Lindsley, L., & Burrows, V. (2007). A comparison of attitudes about engineering between introductory design stu-
dents in different programs. In ASEE annual conference and exposition, conference proceedings.
MacKay, D. J. (2003). Information theory, inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press.
Mahon, J. (2009). Conflict style and cultural understanding among teachers in the western United States: Explor-
ing relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1), 46–56.
Marques, F., Lourenço, P. R., Dimas, I. D., & Rebelo, T. (2015). The relationship between types of conflict, con-
flict handling strategies and group effectiveness. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, 3(1),
58–77.
McIntyre, S. E. (2007). Como as pessoas gerem o conflito nas organizações: Estratégias individuais negociais.
An
alise Psicol
ogica, 25(2), 295–305.
McKinley, W., Cheng, J. L., & Schick, A. G. (1986). Perceptions of resource criticality in times of resource scar-
city: The case of university departments. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 623–632.
Moberly, R. B. (1997). Mediator gag rules: Is it ethical for mediators to evaluate or advise. South Texas Law
Review, 38, 669.
Mok, A., & Morris, M. W. (2009). Cultural chameleons and iconoclasts: Assimilation and reactance to cultural
cues in biculturals' expressed personalities as a function of identity conflict. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45(4), 884–889.
Morcillo, P. J., Moreno, G., Penabad, J., & V
azquez, C. (2010). A practical management of fuzzy truth-degrees
using FLOPER. In International workshop on rules and rule markup languages for the semantic web (pp. 20–
34). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Nguyen, T. N., Ricci, F., Delic, A., & Bridge, D. (2019). Conflict resolution in group decision making: Insights
from a simulation study. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 29(5), 895–941.
Pavelich, M. J., Olds, B. M., & Miller, R. L. (1995). Real-world problem solving in freshman-sophomore engineer-
ing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1995(61), 45–54.
Pawlak, Z. (1981). Information systems theoretical foundations. Information Systems, 6(3), 205–218.
Percival, T. Q., Smitheram, V., & Kelly, M. (1992). Myers-Briggs type indicator and conflict-handling intention:
An interactive approach. Journal of Psychological Type, 23(1), 10–16.
Rahim, M. A. (1985). A strategy for managing conflict in complex organizations. Human Relations, 38(1), 81–89.
Rivard, S. (2014). Editor's comments: The ions of theory construction. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), iii–xiv.
100 ANJARIA

Roberts, K. M. (2007). Mediating the evaluative-facilitative debate: Why both parties are wrong and a proposal
for settlement. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 39, 187.
Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., & De Coteau, N. J. (1998). The treatment of persons of color in local television news:
Ethnic blame discourse or realistic group conflict? Communication Research, 25(3), 286–305.
Samaniego, R. Y., & Gonzales, N. A. (1999). Multiple mediators of the effects of acculturation status on delin-
quency for Mexican American adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 189–210.
Schneider, S. H. (1993). Degree of certainty. Research and Exploration, 9, 173.
Seidenfeld, T. (1986). Entropy and uncertainty. Philosophy of Science, 53(4), 467–491.
Sherman, S. J., Skov, R. B., Hervitz, E. F., & Stock, C. B. (1981). The effects of explaining hypothetical future
events: From possibility to probability to actuality and beyond. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
17(2), 142–158.
Shi, L., Beaty, R. E., Chen, Q., Sun, J., Wei, D., Yang, W., & Qiu, J. (2020). Brain entropy is associated with diver-
gent thinking. Cerebral Cortex, 30(2), 708–717.
Singh, A. (2002). Behavioural perceptions of design and construction engineers. Engineering Construction and
Architectural Management, 9(2), 66–80.
Smith, E. R., Murphy, J., & Coats, S. (1999). Attachment to groups: Theory and management. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 94–110.
Solaiman, B., & Bossé, E.
(2019). Possibility theory for the design of information fusion systems. Springer.
Stamps, A. E., III. (2002). Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of General Psychology, 129(3), 300–320.
Tabbi, J. (1992). Strung into the apollonian dream: Pynchon's psychology of engineers. In Novel: A forum on fic-
tion (Vol. 25(2), pp. 160–180). Duke University Press.
Tang, J., & Rahmim, A. (2009). Bayesian PET image reconstruction incorporating anato-functional joint entropy.
Physics in Medicine & Biology, 54(23), 7063–7075.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). The social desirability variable in organizational research: An alterna-
tive explanation for reported findings. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 741–752.
Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Sun, H. (2006). Effectiveness of Chinese teams: The role of conflict types and conflict
management approaches. Management and Organization Review, 2(2), 231–252.
Verma, R., & Sharma, B. D. (2014). A new measure of inaccuracy with its application to multi-criteria decision
making under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 27(4), 1811–1824.
Voki
c, N. P., & Sontor, S. (2009). Conflict management styles in Croatian enterprises – The relationship between
individual characteristics and conflict handling styles. FEB working series (Paper No. 09-05). Faculty of Eco-
nomics and Business–Zagreb.
Wakita, T., Ueshima, N., & Noguchi, H. (2012). Psychological distance between categories in the Likert scale:
Comparing different numbers of options. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 533–546.
Wall, V. D., Jr., & Nolan, L. L. (1986). Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in task-oriented groups.
Human Relations, 39(11), 1033–1051.
Wang, W., Zhang, G., & Lu, J. (2016). Member contribution-based group recommender system. Decision Support
Systems, 87, 80–93.
Weingart, L. R., Behfar, K. J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G., & Jehn, K. A. (2015). The directness and oppositional
intensity of conflict expression. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 235–262.
Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society (No. 320). Da Capo Press.
Winter, H. M., Klapprott, F., Naanaa, M., Turk, A. M., & Winter, S. F. (2022). Psychosocial peer mediation as sus-
tainable method for conflict prevention and management among refugee communities in Germany. Conflict
Resolution Quarterly, 39(3), 195–210.
Xu, S., Hou, Y., Deng, X., Ouyang, K., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, S. (2021). Conflict management for target recognition
based on PPT entropy and entropy distance. Energies, 14(4), 1143.
Yager, R. R. (2011). Conditional approach to possibility-probability fusion. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems,
20(1), 46–56.
Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F., & Gino, F. (2020). Conversational receptiveness: Improving
engagement with opposing views. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131–148.
Zervos, S., Kyriaki-Manessi, D., Koulouris, A., Giannakopoulos, G., & Kouis, D. A. (2013). Evaluation of the e-
class platform of the LIS Dept., TEI of Athens. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73, 727–735.
ANJARIA 101

Zhao, E. Y., Thatcher, S. M., & Jehn, K. A. (2019). Instigating, engaging in, and managing group conflict: A
review of the literature addressing the critical role of the leader in group conflict. Academy of Management
Annals, 13(1), 112–147.

How to cite this article: Anjaria, K. (2022). Group conflict handling under moderate
evaluative partial mediation using entropic decision framework. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 40(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21354

A P P EN D I X A

A.1 | METHOD TO CONVERT PROBABILISTIC DATA INTO POSSIBILITY

BASED DATA
The events that are not very possible do not often occur and are considered surprising when
they occur. The phenomenon of occurrence of events is crucial in probability to possibility con-
version (Solaiman & Bossé, 2019). Solaiman and Bossé used Shackel's probability interpretation
and conversion technique.
Suppose Z ¼ fx 1 , x 2 , …, x N g denote a finite exhaustive and exclusive set of alternatives and
consider the probabilistic variable (X, P) defined on Z. The probability to possibility conversion
(denoted by Pr ! πÞ can be described using Equation (6) as:

P ðx n Þ
π ðx n Þ ¼ , where X n  Z ð6Þ
½MAXxm  Z Pðx m Þ

A.2 | EXAMPLE OF CONVERSION

In Table 4, probabilistic input P from mediating group M1 for C1 is provided as (0.00, 0.00,
0.043, 0.631, 0.326). For P, MAXxm
 Z Pðx m Þ ¼ 0:631. In this  case, the probability to possibility
conversion (denoted by Pr ! πÞ is 0:631 , 0:631 , 0:631 , 0:631 , 0:631 , that is, (0, 0, 0.068, 1, 0.51).
0 0 0:043 0:631 0:326

Similarly, inputs from mediating group M1 for C2 to C4 and inputs from mediating group
M2 for C1 to C4 can be converted into possibility based inputs.
Copyright of Conflict Resolution Quarterly is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.