medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial del Sistema Mexicano de Investigación en Psicología (SMIP)

2018, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Invest Psic 2018; 10 (1)

Validation of the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Questionnaire (CIT) in Mexican employees

Mendoza-Cárdenas, Miguel De Jesús; Calderón-Mafud JL

Language: Spanish
References: 32
Page: 31-38
PDF size: 666.77 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Interpersonal conflict at work is an inherent variable in organizational behavior. Its consequences can be positive or negative, according to the intensity in which it is presented, mainly aecting productivity and the working environment. The objective of this article is to show the results of the validation of the questionnaire on Interpersonal Conflict at Work (CIT) in Mexican population. A reliability analysis and the exploratory factor analysis of the questionnaire were performed in a sample of 158 employees from different companies. The obtained results evidenced an adequate level of reliability both in the full scale (α = .87) and in the dimensions of task conflict (α = .78) and conflict of relationships (α = .91). CWI is an eective instrument to measure interpersonal confliict at work in Mexican population.


REFERENCES

  1. Behfar, K., Mannix, E., Peterson, R., & Trochim, W. (2011). Conflict in small groups: ˜e meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127-176

  2. Beniítez, M., León, J. M., Ramírez, J. Y., Medina, F. J., & Munduate, L. (2012). Validation of the Interpersonal Conict at Work Questionnaire (CIT) among Spanish employees. ´Estudios de Psicología,´33(3), 263-275.

  3. Benítez, M., Medina, F., & Munduate, L. (2012). La gestión de conictos relacionales en las organizaciones de servicios. ´Anales de Psicología,´28(1), 139-149.

  4. Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., Barnes, L. B., & Greiner, L. E. (1964). Breakthrough in organization development.´Harvard Business Review,´42(6), 133-155.

  5. Cox, K. B. (1998). Antecedents and e€ects of intergroup conict in the nursing unit (PhD thesis). Virginia Commonwealth University, United States.

  6. De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conict and the eµectiveness of organizational teams.´Journal of Organizational Behavior,´22(3), 309-328.

  7. De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis.´ Journal of Applied Psychology, ´88(4), 741.

  8. Hall, R. H., & Organizaciones, E. (1996). Procesos y resultados. ´México, Ciudad de México: Ediciones Prentice-Hall Hispanoamérica.

  9. Izquierdo, I., Olea, J., & Abad, F. J. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema, 26(3), 395-400.

  10. Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing eµectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value¶based intragroup conict. International Journal of Conict Management, 5(3), 223-238. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/ eb022744.

  11. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the bene§ts and detriments of intragroup conict.´Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.

  12. Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conict types and dimensions in organizational groups.´Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.

  13. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). ˜e dynamic nature of con- flict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conict and group performance.´Academy of Management Journal,´44(2), 238- 251.

  14. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.

  15. Kimsey, W. D., & Fuller, R. (2003). Conictalk: An instrument for measuring youth and adolescent conict management message styles. Conict Resolution Quarterly, 21(1), 69-78

  16. Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Martínez, I., Dorado, M. A., & Mañas, M. A. (2004). Efectos positivos de la activación del conicto de tarea sobre el clima de los equipos de trabajo. ´Revista de Psicología Social,´19(1), 3-15.

  17. Munduate, L. (1993). La aproximación psicosocial al estudio del conicto y la negociación laboral en España. Una revisión. Psicothema, 5(1), 261-275.

  18. Munduate, L., & Dorado, M. A. (1999). El conicto en los grupos de trabajo.´En J. F. Morales, & S. Yubero (Eds.), El grupo y sus conictos (pp. 101-116). Cuenca, España: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

  19. Munduate, L., Ganaza, J., Peiro, J. M., & Euwema, M. (1999). Patterns of styles in conict management and eµectiveness. ´ International Journal of Conict Management,´ 10(1), 5-24.

  20. Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory.´Organization Science,´7(6), 615-631.

  21. Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conict: Concepts and models. ´Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 296-320.

  22. Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376.

  23. Rahim, M. A. (2010).”Managing conict in organizations. New York, United States: Transaction Publishers.

  24. Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention.´Psychological Reports, 44(3, pt. 2), 1323-1344.

  25. Sánchez, J. C., Tejero, B., Yurrebaso, A., & Ana, L. (2006). Cultura Organizacional: Desentrañando Vericuetos. Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana, 1(3), 374-397.

  26. Schmidt, W., & Tannenbaum, R. (2000). Management diµerences. En Harvard Business Review on Negotiation and Con- flict Resolution (pp. 2-3).´Harvard, United States: Harvard Business School Press.

  27. Simons, T., & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conict in top management teams: ˜e pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111.

  28. ˜Tomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and Conflict Management. En M. F. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago, United States: Rand McNally.

  29. Tomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Re- flections and update.´ Journal of Organizational Behavior, ”13(3), 265-274.

  30. Tomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). —omas-Kilmann Con- flict Mode Instrument. Nueva York, United States: Xicom.

  31. Wall, V. D., & Nolan, L. L. (1986). Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conict in task-oriented groups.”Human Relations, ”39(11), 1033-1051.

  32. Weiner, B. (1972). —eories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Oxford, England: Markham.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com