Abstracts
Résumé
Cet article examine l'utilisation et l'efficacité des méthodes de gestion de conflit interpersonnel utilisées par les doyens d'université avec leurs directeurs de département et les professeurs de leur faculté. L'auteur discute les implications théoriques de l'étude pour la gestion des conflits ainsi que les implications pratiques pour l'administrateur.
Abstract
This study is based on three models, those of: Pondy, Blake and Mouton, and Thomas. The author particularly refers to the five main methods or strategies for managing interpersonal conflict developed by Blake and Mouton.
The subject of the article is the university dean. It examines his efforts at management of conflicts with department directors and teaching staff, and their effectiveness. The sample includes five Ontario universities of average size, and five deans on each campus, representing various disciplines and professional faculties. Interviews were conducted with them, and a questionnaire was sent to all department directors concerned.
Five hypotheses were developed along the lines of Blake and Mouton methods/strategies for managing interpersonal conflict, each related also to efficiency.
As far as results are concerned, "problem solving" is perceived for example, by department directors as the best method used by deans to manage interpersonal conflict. However, this is not the style used by most deans.
"Forcing" used in a general way in conflict management are seen as inefficient by teaching staff. However, periodic constraint in specific areas is considered slightly effective by department directors.
Professors see "compromising" as moderately effective when used as an overall style of conflict management. Department directors interpret this style as "neutral" efficiency when used in specific areas. According to department heads and professors, this is the style most frequently used.
"Smoothing" is considered moderately effective when used as a general style of conflict management by professors, while department heads see it as neutral or slightly ineffective when used in specific areas.