바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

An Exploratory Study on Work Conflict Experience

Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues / Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues, (P)1229-0661; (E)1229-0661
2014, v.20 no.3, pp.205-233



Abstract

This study aims to identify work conflicts in Korean socio-cultural context by applying grounded theory. Survey has been conducted through in-depth interviews with 11 different employees from various occupational categories. Data collected from the survey were then analyzed based on the grounded theory of Strauss and Corbin (1998), thus resulted in a paradigm model consisting of 31 categories, 63 subcategories, and 100 concepts by open coding. Axial coding was then conducted and the results were as follows. The causal condition was the ‘character of an opponent’. Contextual conditions which affect the causal condition were ‘situational characteristics’, ‘character of an opponent’, ‘character of oneself’, and their ‘mutuality’. ‘Negative feeling’ was the central phenomena of work conflict and action/interaction strategies were verified to be ‘avoidance’, ‘expression’, ‘effort toward solving problems’ and ‘increasing conflict’. Intervening conditions were ‘interrelation’, ‘intervention’, and ‘group/task characteristics’. The consequences were organized as ‘conflict continuance’, ‘personnel change’ and ‘positive effect’. Through selective coding, ‘managing with the conflict’ was derived as core-category and three different types of management were classified. Ultimately, this study shows how employees work in Korea experience the work conflicts and what kinds of socio-cultural factors have influence on the work conflicts, which can supplement previous inadequate empirical research. Also, this study can provide implications and suggestions as a fundamental integrated model for the future empirical research on work conflicts.

keywords
work conflict, grounded theory, socio-cultural context, 직장 내 갈등, 근거이론, 사회문화적 맥락

Reference

1.

강규산, 탁진국 (2011). 팀내 경쟁과 팀 몰입, 팀 만족의 관계: 관계갈등의 매개효과를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 24(1), 157-181.

2.

김의철, 박영신 (2005). 북유럽과 동아시아에서의 신뢰, 관계와 시민 사회: 심리, 사회, 문화적 분석. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 11(1), 133-161.

3.

김지혜, 탁진국 (2010). 조직 집단 내 갈등의 선행변인에 대한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 23(3), 397-418.

4.

대한상공회의소 (2013). 창조경제 외치지만... 기업문화 고작 59점. 헤럴드경제. http:// news.heraldcorp.com/view.php?ud=20130507000058&md=20130510005258_BK에서 2014. 4. 22. 인출.

5.

성양경, 김명언 (2006). 팀 내에서 직무갈등과 관계갈등간의 역학. 산업 및 조직 심리학회: 구두발표. 436-437.

6.

이종한 (2000). 한국인의 대인관계의 심리사회적 특성: 집단주의적 성향과 개인주의적 성향으로의 변화. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 6(3), 201-219.

7.

이준호, 박지환 (2011). 집단 내 갈등과 이직의도의 관계에서 직무만족의 매개효과: 한국과 중국 종업원들의 공통점과 차이점. 한국심리학회지 산업 및 조직, 24(1), 75-102.

8.

잡코리아 (2014). 직장인 80% ‘회사 우울증’ 경험. 중앙일보. http://joongang.joins.com/ article/aid/2014/04/01/13897644.html?cloc=olink|article|default에서 2014.4.1. 인출.

9.

전무경, 김정환, 한권희, 남궁일성 (2006). 조직 내 갈등이 조직구성원의 직무태도에 미치는 영향 관한 연구. 대한경영학회지, 19, 159-180.

10.

조긍호 (2007). 동아시아 집단주의와 유학 사상: 그 관련성의 심리학적 탐색. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 21(4), 21-54.

11.

조긍호, 김지연, 최경순 (2009). 문화성향과 분노통제: 분노 수준과 공감의 매개효과를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 23(1), 69-90.

12.

천만봉 (2008). 국제기업의 조직갈등이 기업성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구. 인터넷비즈니스연구, 9(2). 65-92.

13.

최상진, 박수현 (1990). ‘우리성’에 대한 사회심리학적 한 분석. 한국심리학회연차대회 학술발표논문집, 69-78.

14.

최상진, 최수향 (1990). 정의 심리적 구조. 한국심리학회 연차대회 학술발표논문초록, 1-9.

15.

최상진, 김기범 (1999). 한국인의 심정심리: 심정의 성격, 발생과정, 교류양식 및 형태. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 18(1), 1-16.

16.

플랜업 (2011). 직장인들은 어떨때에 회사를 그만두고 싶다고 생각을 할까?. 뉴스웨이브. http://n.newswave.kr/sub_read.html?uid= 136535&section=sc2에서 2014.4.27. 인출.

17.

한성호 (2008). 과업갈등과 관계갈등의 전이에 대한 조절변수 효과. 성균관대학교 석사학위 논문.

18.

홍선임 (2002). 갈등 수용성, 갈등 효능감, 상사의 유형이 집단 내 관계갈등과 과업갈등에 미치는 영향. 고려대학교 석사학위 논문.

19.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for the top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148.

20.

Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of motions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 629-643.

21.

Bowers, B. (1990). Grounded theory, In B, Sarter (Ed.), Paths to knowledge (pp.29-33). New York: National League for Nursing Press.

22.

Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151-158.

23.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.509-534). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357-384.

25.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Social Conflict: The Emergence and Consequence of Struggle and Negotiation. In S. T. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & H. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (5th ed. Vol. 2, pp.983-1023). New York: Wiley.

26.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2011). Conflict at Work: Basic Principles and Applied Issues. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology 3(461-493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associations.

27.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.

28.

De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L.. & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360-390.

29.

Dijkstra, M. T. M., Van Dierendonck, D., Evers, A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). Conflict and well-being at work: the moderating role of personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 87-104.

30.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

31.

Guerra, J. M., Martínez, I., Munduate, L., & Medina, F. J. (2005). A contingency perspective on the study of the consequences of the conflict types: the role of organizational culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 157-176.

32.

Huang. J. C. (2010), Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict: The moderating role of team goal orientation and conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(3), 334-355.

33.

Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in teams. Journal of Management, 25, 117-141.

34.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

35.

Jehn, K. A. & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 187-242). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

36.

Jehn, K. A., & Manni, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251.

37.

Lu, L., Zhou, F., & Leung, K. (2011). Effects of task and relationship conflicts on individual work bahaviors. Internatuional Journal of Conflict Management, 22(2), 131-150.

38.

Mason, J. (1999). 질적연구방법론 [Qualitative Researching]. 김두섭 역. 서울: 나남출판. (원전은 1999년에 출판)

39.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

40.

Rispens, S. (2012). The Influence of Conflict Issue Importance on the Co-occurrence of Task and Relationship Conflict in Teams. Applied Psychology, 61(3), 349-367.

41.

Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246.

42.

Shaw. J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy. M. K., & Scott. K. L. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 391-400.

43.

Simon, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intergroup Trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-112.

44.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of Qualitative Research. New Deli: Sage publications.

45.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506-520.

46.

Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57-76.

Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues