An exploratory factor analysis of sources underlying organisational conflict-a comparative approach between public and private sector banks.
Nischal, Shivani ; Bhalla, G.S.
"The uncertainty that accompanies organisational change
heightens prospects for intra organisational conflict"--Chris Van
Tonder
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
Life is not a grand harmony. Conflicts are always part of it. The
number as well as range of sources of conflict generation is substantive
but most of these were theoretical conceptualizations with precise
empirical research a rarity. This is little to indicate that
organisations actually attempt to establish the underlying causes of
organisational conflict and often resorts to conflict management
strategies without determining the sources or causes of conflict which
is regarded a key element for resolving conflict (Mayer, 2000; Havenga,
2004; Tonder, 2008; Visagie, 2008). This research paper actually
attempts to explore the various factors or issues behind the conflict
scenario in the organisations with the help of exploratory factor
analysis. The variables have been derived from theoretical review of
literature, intuitive knowledge of researchers and after consulting
employee database of banks selected under study (table II). In
literature review, Bahadur (1993) indicated in her research that the
major causes of conflict were competition between individuals,
competition between department, competition between groups, scarcity of
resources, ambiguity of rules & legislation, changes in
organisational structure & system and introduction of new
technology. Wall et al (1995) revealed that the various causes of
conflict that were (a) Individual characteristics including personality,
values, goals, commitment to position, stress & anger, (b)
Interpersonal factors, (c) Communication, (d) Behaviour, (e) Structure,
(f) Previous interaction and related issues. Galinsky (2002) especially
focused upon various causes of inter-group conflict that were
incompatible interests, scarcity of resources, and competition over same
resources etc. Tonder, Havenga and Visagie (2008) explored the perceived
sources, causes and impacts of conflict in two South African
organisations. Factor analysis extracted the four major factors namely
(a) racially informed management practices, (b) inadequate and
ineffective resources, (c) work demands associated with technology and
(d) unjust layoffs. Ongori Henry (2009) identified the major causes of
conflict that were responded by respondents were limited resources (29
percent), followed by interdependence (19 percent), competition (11
percent), poor planning (14 percent), lack of communication (11
percent), and performance criteria (9 percent) with their respective
percentages. Ghaffar (2010) found limited resources, independent work
activities, differentiation of activities, communication problems,
difference in perceptions, environment of organisation, individual
differences, unclear authority structures, difference in attitudes, task
symmetries and difference in time horizons as major sources of conflict.
Hotepo et al (2010) indentified lack of resources (25 percent), followed
by Communication problems (20.8 percent), competition (12.5 percent),
lack of cooperation (12.5 percent), inter-dependence (10.4 percent),
different expectations (10.4 percent) and salary comparison (9.4
percent) as major conflict generating factors with their respective
percentages. Pathak Mitali (2010) stressed upon the psychological
dimensions of stress and conflict and revealed the factors causes stress
were work overload, pressures on duty and demanding superior. These
stressful factors arouse from task demands, role demands, interpersonal
demands, organisational structure, organisational life stage and
organisational leadership. Obasan (2011) explored that the major causes
of conflict that were unacceptable terms of employment, poor human
relations, no worker participation and autocratic style of managers.
Adebile and Ojo (2012) found that the major causes of
intra-organisational conflict were communication (30 percent), followed
by different expectations (18.7 percent), lack of resources (16
percent), salary comparison (16 percent), lack of cooperation (9.3
percent), competition (6.7 percent) and interdependence (2.7 percent)
with their respective percentages. The conflict management can only be
possible if the highly destructive factors underlying the conflict
scenario are well known. Even though review of literature is quite
exhaustive in nature but certain gaps in empirical as well as
theoretical grounds are still prevalent. The present study will try to
cover some of the research gaps pertaining to empirical work on conflict
generating sources in public and private sector banks of Punjab in
comparative form.
Objectives and Research Methodology
The main objectives of research paper are (i) to explore the
factors underlying the destructive conflict in public and private sector
banks of Punjab and (ii) to analyse comparatively the significant
factors generating conflict between public and private sector banks
selected under the sample of the study. The sample of the study includes
541 bank employees from twenty commercial banks situated in Amritsar,
Jalandhar and Ludhiana cities of Punjab. Ten banks each from public
sector and private sector has been selected on the basis of highest
number of employees (Prowess Software and annual reports of these banks
March, 2011). Convenience cum Judgement sampling technique had been
chosen for the purpose of study. The pre-tested structured questionnaire
has been utilized under the study and responses were recorded on 5
point's likert scale. Data analysis has been done with the help of
SPSS V. 18. Exploratory factor analysis, weighted average mean scores
and Independent sample t-test have been applied to analyse the data.
Exploratory Factor Analysis of Sources of Conflict at Workplace
This section deals with the data analysis of first objective of the
study i.e. to identify the factors responsible for causing destructive
conflict in the public and private sector banks of Punjab and the first
step of scale refinement has been initiated. A total of 48 variables
have been selected as mentioned in appendices for the purpose of
indentifying the various factors of conflict perceived by employees of
public sector and private sector banks under study. The selection of
these variables (Table II) are based upon the review of literature,
intuitive knowledge of the researcher as well as direct interviewing
with the employees of these banks under study. Reliability analysis has
been conducted in order to identify and eliminate irreverent variables.
According to criteria of scale purification and development by
Churchill, 1974, The variables C9, C10, C15, C16, C21, C24, C41, C42
& C46 has been excluded and the overall composite value of alpha has
increased to 0.875 that can be clearly observed from table I. So, the
process of checking reliability of the scale provided 39 items scale
named as C-Scale.
Exploratory Factor analysis has been performed in order to examine
the sample adequacy and appropriateness of data so collected. In the
present research work, the factor analysis has been employed on 39
statements with the help of principal component method that considers
total variance and derives factors that contain small proportion of
unique variance. In current study, the VARIMAX approach of orthogonal
rotation was used to simplify the columns of the factor matrix providing
simplified and more meaningful factors. Items having loadings less than
0.40 have been dropped (Hair et al, 2003). Factor analysis resulted into
ten factor solution (Table II). The KMO measure of sampling adequacy is
an index used to examine the appropriateness of factor analysis and
comes out 0.675, as mentioned in Table II. High value of KMO that range
between 0.50 and 1.0 indicate that sample size is adequate for applying
factor analysis (Kaiser, 1970). Diagonals of anti-image correlation
display the KMO statistic for each variable varying from 0.6 to 0.8 and
found sufficiently high for the items under study. Anti-Image matrices
concerning sources of conflict in workplace indicate the existence of
true factors. Partial correlations are low as compares to others. So,
the true factors exist in the data under analysis. The Bartlett's
test of sphericity is a test statistic used to examine the hypothesis
that the variables considered in the study are uncorrelated and
correlation matrix of variables under study is an identity matrix i.e.
each variable correlates perfectly with itself but no correlation with
other variables. In the current study, the test value ([chi square]) =
27424.012, which is found highly significant and p=0.000 * that
indicates the rejection of null hypothesis and concluded that
correlation matrix of variables under study is not an identity matrix.
The correlation matrix of sources of conflict computed mean correlations
that vary between 0.011-0.878. High correlation is found between the
variables under study. So, the selected 39 variables' scale (Table
I & II) has been subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis with the
help of principal component method. Items having loadings less than 0.40
have been dropped. Also based upon the thumb rule, the sample size
should be at least five times of the number of variables has been
ensured and items for which factor loadings was found less than 0.40
have been dropped to purify scale and judging construct validity.
According to Pett, Lackey and Sullivan (2004), the commutative variance
explained should be more than 60 percent in social sciences. Table II
displays the proportion of variance explained by ten extracted factors
and total variance explained i.e. 82.154 percent. According to criteria
given by Kaiser, 1960, Factors having Eigen value greater than 1 were
kept only. It depicts that the variance explained by that factor is more
than unexplained variance. Factor Loadings has been analysed with the
help of rotated component matrix. Table II further provides the summary
of the results of Factor Analysis which further displays the mean
importance, factor loadings, percentage of variance explained, Eigen
values and cronbach's alpha ([alpha]) for various factors that has
been extracted with the help of EFA. Coefficients having loading less
than 0.40 has been suppressed in the analysis because loading less than
.40 represents low correlation and would be insufficient. The criteria
for convergent validity have been satisfied because all the variables
within a single factor are highly correlated. Convergent validity can be
very much evident from factor loadings mentioned in Table II as they are
highly correlated. Convergent validity has been satisfied by all three
aspects i.e., construct reliability ([alpha] > 0.60); all dominant
variable within factor have factor loading greater than 0.45 ([pi] >
0.45) and variance extracted is greater than 0.5 for all constructs.
Discriminant validity has also been satisfied as the variables are more
strongly related to its own factors rather than to other factors ([pi]
> 0.45 in own particular construct and [pi] < 0.15 in other
constructs). The Labelling of various factors and their description has
been mentioned as follows:
Factor-1 Defective Administrative, Structural and Behavioural
Issues
This is very first factor that explains 23.587 percent of total
variance explained (maximum) and has highest Eigen value of 8.727.
Eleven variables have been loaded on this factor. The highest loading
0.933 is for the variable "Misuse of Power" followed by
"Unclear Authority Structures" with a loading of 0.922,
"Defective Administrative Procedures" with a loading of 0.912,
"Open Criticism" with a loading of 0.885, "Desire for
Autonomy" with a loading of 0.850, "General & Conduct
Issues" with a loading of 0.708, "Attitude Problems" with
a loading of 0.641, "Blocking Other party's goals" with a
loading of 0.640, "Unrealistic Expectations of Employees" with
a loading of 0.506, "Low Job Satisfaction" with a loading of
0.490 and "Snubbing done amongst Employees" with loading of
0.470. This factor covers all statements concerning administration
pressures, structural problems and behavioural problems that emerge as
an important source of conflict at workplace.
Factor-2 Lack of Synchrony and Individual Differences
This factor explains 15.616 percent of total variance explained and
has Eigen value of 5.778. This factor consists of seven variables.
"Interpersonal Disagreements" has a highest factor loading of
0.936 followed by "Different Idea logic and Philosophic Basis"
with a loading of 0.924, "Personality Clashes" with a loading
of 0.831, "Value Discrepancies" with a loading of 0.623,
"Personal Likes & Dislikes" with a loading of 0.582,
"Cultural & Racial Differences" with a loading of 0.524,
and "Role Clashes" with a loading of 0.509. This factor states
that the various discrepancies or differences among employees such as
cultural, values, racial, interpersonal disagreements and different
ideological issues cause conflict at workplace.
Factor-3 Conflict Generation Through Emotional Escalations
This factor has an Eigen value of 5.480 and explains 14.811 percent
of total variance explained. Four statements have been loaded on this
factor. "Professional Jealousies" has highest factor loading
of 0.888 followed by "Anger & Stress" with a factor
loading of 0.847, "Frustration" with a factor loading of 0.776
and "Bullying & Harassment" with a factor loading of
0.554. This factor elaborates that various emotional escalations such as
frustration on job, professional jealousies, anger & stress
contributes towards generation of conflict in selected banks under
study.
Factor-4 Inadequate Resources and Performance Issues
This factor explains 6.938 percent of total variance and has an
Eigen value of 2.567. This factor consisted of five statements.
"Limited resources" has a highest factor loading of 0.740
followed by "Insufficient Bonus & Reward Policy" with a
factor loading of 0.726, "Promotional Failures" 0.689,
"Salary Differences" with a factor loading of 0.661 and
"Performance Issues" with a factor loading of 0.480. This
factor demonstrates the non-availability of resources, various
promotional and performance issues at workplace generate conflicting
situations.
Factor-5 Lack of Adoption to Work and Related Problems
Four statements have been loaded on this factor. "Resistance
to use new technology" has maximum loading of 0.908 followed by
"Task Interdependence" with a factor loading of 0.592,
"No Proper Division of Work" with a factor loading of 0.572
and "Work Overload" with a factor loading of 0.552. All the
statement under this very factor elaborates problems related to work
that cause conflict in banks.
Factor-6 Preferential Treatments
This Factor explains 5.155 percent of total variance and has an
Eigen Value of 1.907. This factor consists of two statements. "One
Sided Preferential treatments" has a highest factor loading of
0.826 followed by "Favouritism" with a loading of 0.570.
Preferential treatments provided in the workplace emerged as a source of
conflict among the other employees of banks selected under current
study.
Factor-7 Interactional Issues
This factor is defined as lack of cooperative behaviour, improper
and insufficient communication generates conflicting scenario at the
workplace. This factor has Eigen value of 1.275 and explains 3.447
percent of total variance. "Improper & Insufficient
Communication" has highest loading of 0.719 followed by "Lack
of Cooperation" with a loading of 0.522.
Factor-8 Domestic Impacts/Issues
This is eighth identifiable factor having an Eigen value of 1.065
and explains 2.880 percent of the total variance. This factor covers two
variables. The variable "Family Background" has a loading of
0.549 followed by "Domestics Life's Impact" with loading
of 0.534. Family background and domestic issues often impact the psyche
and behaviour of the personnel working in these banks and contributes
towards conflicting scenario in banks.
Factor-9 Job Insecurity
Job Insecurity variable having Eigen value=1.042 explains 1.768
percent out of the total variance explained. This factor is having a
factor loading of 0.551 and composite mean score of public and private
sector scenario came out to be 2.8121 while there is high job security
in public sector banks so the respondents had given low weightage to
this particular variable with WAS=1.2 but high job insecurity had been
found among the employees of private sector banks with WAS=4.3. Hence
conflict generation through insecurity of job have been majorly found
among the employees of private sector commercial banks.
Factor-10 Impact of Strong Bank Unions
This is last identifiable factor having 1.652 percent of total
variance explained with an Eigen value of 1.020. Bank unions have been
strongly impacting the human behaviour and working environment so long;
thereby generating conflictual scenarios in this service sector. Bank
unions are having strong impact towards the generation of conflicts in
these public sector banks (WAS=3.9), private sector banks (WAS=3.5) and
overall composite sample (WAS=3.7) selected under study with their
respective weighted average scores.
Comparative Study between Public and Private Banks concerning
Various Sources of Conflict
Now under comparative study between public and private sector
banks; Table III displays rank orders that has been computed on the
basis of WAS (Weighted Average Scores) which clearly indicates that
"Interactions issues" ranks first with WAS=4.2 followed by
"Conflict Generation through Emotional Escalations" (WAS=4.0);
Lack of Adoption to Work and Related Problems (WAS=3.9); Impact of
Strong Trade Unions (WAS=3.9); "Defective Administrative,
Structural & Behavioural Issues" (WAS=3.7); "Lack of
Synchrony and Individual Differences" (WAS=3.6); "Domestic
Impacts" (WAS=2.8); "Preferential Treatments" (WAS=2.7);
"Inadequate Resources and Performance Issues" (WAS=2.6) and
Job Insecurity (WAS=1.2) with their respective weighted average scores
in public sector banks. Wherever in private sector banks,
"Interactional Issues" & "Job Insecurity" with
WAS=4.3 ranks first followed by "Lack of Adoption to Work and
Related Problems" (WAS=4.2); "Conflict Generation through
Emotional Escalations" (WAS=4.1); "Domestic Impacts"
(WAS=4.0); "Defective Administrative, Structural & Behavioural
Issues" (WAS=3.7); "Lack of Synchrony and Individual
Differences" (WAS=3.6); "Preferential Treatments"
(WAS=3.6); Impact of Strong Trade Unions (WAS=3.5) and "Inadequate
Resources and Performance Issues" (WAS=2.5) with their respective
weighted average scores. Overall pooled results indicates that
"Interactional Issues" with WAS=4.2 ranks first followed by
"Lack of Adoption to Work and Related Problems" (WAS=4.1);
"Conflict Generation through Emotional Escalations" (WAS =
4.0); "Defective Administrative, Structural & Behavioural
Issues" (WAS=3.7); "Impact of Strong Bank Unions"
(WAS=3.7); "Lack of Synchrony and Individual Differences"
(WAS=3.6); "Domestic Impacts" (WAS=3.4); "Preferential
Treatments" (WAS=3.1); "Job Insecurity" (WAS=2.8) and
"Inadequate Resources and Performance Issues" (WAS=2.5) with
their respective weighted average scores.
After the exploration of these ten factors of conflict generation,
Independent sample t-test has also been applied in order to find out the
significant differences of opinions towards various factors generating
conflict among the employees of public sector and private sector banks.
This section deals with testing the null hypothesis (H01) which
states that there is no significant difference in the factors
responsible for conflict perceived by the employees of public sector and
private sector banks. According to sector orientation, respondents have
been divided into two categories: public sector and private sector.
Various sources of conflict have been taken as dependent variables and
sector has been taken as independent variable. Table IV depicted summary
of descriptive statistics and t-test applied on various sources of
conflict according to sectorial distribution.
H01 (Null Hypothesis): There is insignificant difference in the
factors responsible for conflict perceived by the employees of public
sector and private sector banks.
[H.sub.0]1 (Alternate Hypothesis): There is significant difference
in the factors responsible for conflict perceived by the employees of
public sector and private sector banks.
Factors or variables were put to homogeneity of variance test. The
variables where F value in Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance
was not significant (p>0.05), the t value and its significance in
"Equal Variance Assumed" row was notified and wherever F value
in Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance was found significant
(p<0.05), the t value and its significance in "Equal Variance
not Assumed" row was notified. T values and its significance
(represented by asterisks) have been indicated in table IV. Conclusion
has been drawn that there are significant differences that have been
found regarding the various sources of conflict between the employees of
public sector and private sector banks in the context of CF-5 (t=-4.429;
p<0.05 *), CF-6 (t=-8.407; p<0.05 *), CF-8 (t=-18.716; p<0.05
*), CF-9 (t=-25.251; p<0.05 *) and CF-10 (t=6.215; p<0.05 *)
respectively. Insignificant differences have been found in context of
CF1, (t=-0.413, p>0.05) CF-2, (t=0.199, p>0.05) C-3, (t=-1.886,
p>0.05) CF-4 (t=1.214, p>0.05) and CF-7 (t=0.423, p>0.05)
respectively. Overall status concerning sources of conflict clearly
represents significant differences (t=-6.158, p<0.05 *) regarding
sources of conflict perceived by employees of public sector and private
sector. Results concluded that some sources of conflict are
statistically significant (p<0.05 *) across public and private
sectorial fragments while others have been found insignificant. Null
hypothesis (H01) has been partially accepted in case of CF-1, CF-2,
CF-3, CF-4 and CF-7) and partially rejected in case of CF-5, CF-6, CF-8,
CF9, CF-10 and overall sources of conflict status. Hence differences
have been found practically meaningful.
Conclusion, Suggestions and Managerial Implications
This research paper deals with data analysis regarding two
objectives of the study, i.e., to identify the factors responsible for
generating destructive conflict and to analyse comparatively the
significant factors generating conflict between public and private
sector banks selected under the sample of the study. Ten factors have
been extracted with the help of exploratory factor analysis i.e., (1)
Defective Administrative, Structural & Behaviour Issues, (2) Lack of
Synchrony and Individual Differences, (3) Conflict Generative through
Emotional Escalations, (4) Inadequate Resources and Performance Issues,
(5) Lack of Adoption to Work and Related Problems, (6) Preferential
Treatments, (7) Interactional Issues, (8) Domestic Impacts, (9) Job
Insecurity and (10) Impact of Strong Trade Unions. Further, factor
average scores and rank orders have been calculated in order to find
their relative importance. Independent sample results also revealed
significant differences between the perceptions of public and private
sector bank employees. The results have found in congruence with the
studies conducted by Wall et al (1995); Fisher (2000); Rahim (2002);
Ikeda et al. (2005); Tonder et al. (2008) Ghaffar (2010); Hotepo et al.
(2010) Obasan (2011); Riaz at al. (2011); Kaur (2012); Olukayode at al.
(2012). Managers should give proper attention towards the major
antecedents of conflict generation in the banks because the conflict
management in their relative concerns is only possible if their causes
are well known. So, it has been recommended that management should
follow regular interactive activities to ensure a good degree of
functionality of organisation and sincere efforts should be made towards
understanding of various sources of conflict generation in their
respective banks in order to reduce tensions as well as the impacts of
destructive conflict. It will automatically helps in cultivating a good
atmosphere of mutual acceptance and better understanding. Management
should have open communication policy so that the human resource can
come closer, collaborate and make compromises where possible with the
authorities concerned. If the workplace conflict is managed properly
then it helps the management to achieve its strategic objectives with
the better work performance of banking staff; positive working
environment that will automatically leads towards high organisational
productivity. Further study can be conducted in variety of sectors to
explore the possible sources that generate conflicts in the respective
firms and the impact of destructive conflict can be further examined
upon the work productivity of bank personnel as well as upon
organisation's overall performance.
References
Adebile, O.A., & Ojo, T.O. (2012). Management of organizational
conflict in Nigeria polytechnics, an empirical study of the federal
polytechnic. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2 (3),
229-243.
Bahadur, F. (1993, June). Conflict management in Nepalese
organisations. Tribhuvan University Journal, 26 (1), 19-28.
Bercovitch, J. (1982). Conflict and Conflict Management in
Organisations: A Framework for Analysis. Working Paper retrieved from
aspheramedia.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/5000214.pdf, accessed on
December, 2013.
Dalton, M. (1950). Conflict between staff and line managerial
officers. American Sociological Review, 15 (1), 342-351.
Fisher, R. (2000). Sources of Conflict and Methods of Conflict
Resolution. Working Paper
retrievedfrom,"http://www.aupeace.org/files/Fisher_SourcesofConflictandMethodsofResolution.pdf, accessed on December, 2013.
Galinsky, A.D. (2002). Creating and reducing intergroup conflict:
The role of perspective-Taking in affecting Outgroup evaluations.
Towards Phenomenology of Groups and Group Membership, 4 (1), 85-113.
Ghaffar, A. (2010). Conflict in schools: Its causes &
management strategies. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 3 (2), 212-227.
Gupta, S.L., & Gupta, H. (2011). SPSS 17.0 for Researchers. New
Delhi: International Book Publishing House Pvt. Ltd..
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tathan, R. L., & Black W.C.
(2003). Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th Edition. U.S.A: Prentice Hall
International, Inc.
Hotepo, O. M., Asokere, A. S. S., Azeez, I. A. A., &
Ajemunigbohun, S. S. A. (2010). Empirical study of the effect of
conflict on organisational performance in Nigeria. Business and
Economics Journal, 3 (2), 1-9.
Kaur H. (2012). Conflict in organisations causes and management.
E-Publication in Biz and Bytes, July, Vol-2 retrieved from,
http://cbsmohali.org/e- percentE2 percent80
percent93-journal-biz-n-bytes/volume-ii-year2012.html. (accessed on Dec,
2014).
Kothari, C. R. (2006). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques
(2nd edition). New Delhi: New Age International Publishers.
Lkeda, A. A., Oliveira T. M., & Campomar, M. C. (2005).
Organizational conflict perceived by marketing executives. Electronic
Journal of Business Ethics and Organisation Studies, 10 (1), 22-28.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New
Delhi: McGraw Hill, 251-261.
Obasan, K. A. (2011, August). Impact of conflict management on
corporate productivity: An evaluative study. Australian Journal of
Business and Management Research, 1 (5), 44-49.
Ongori, H. (2009). Organizational conflict and its effect on
organisational performance. Research Journal of Business Management, 2
(1), 16-24.
Pathak, M. (2010). Managing organisational conflict. Oeconomics of
Knowledge, 2 (4), 2-12.
Riaz, M. K., & Junaid, F. A. (2011). Types, sources , costs and
consequences of workplace conflict. Asian Journal of Management
Research, 2 (1), 600-611.
Tonder, C. V., Havenga, W., & Visagie, J. (2008). The causes of
conflict in public and private sector organisations in South Africa.
Managing Global Transitions, 6 (4), 373-401.
Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its
management. Journal of Management, 21 (3), 515-558.
Shivani Nischal
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Commerce and Business
Management, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab.
G.S. Bhalla
Professor, Department of Commerce and Business Management, Guru
Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab.
Table I
Descriptive Statistics, Item-Total Statistics and
Cronbach's alpha (a) (Final) of Sources of Conflict
in Selected Public and Private Sector Banks
Var. Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Variance Item Total ([alpha]) if Item
Deleted if Item Correlation Deleted
Deleted
c1 133.40 341.617 0.294 0.870
c2 132.94 355.613 0.075 0.873
c3 133.26 332.526 0.530 0.863
c4 134.23 343.561 0.331 0.868
c5 132.35 360.810 0.015 0.874
c6 131.95 358.442 0.167 0.870
c7 132.53 360.383 0.060 0.872
c8 132.65 355.406 0.097 0.874
e11 132.39 341.946 0.466 0.865
c12 132.92 323.951 0.664 0.860
c13 132.70 329.576 0.590 0.862
c14 132.22 350.985 0.300 0.868
c17 132.75 347.041 0.328 0.868
c18 134.31 350.850 0.246 0.870
c19 132.05 359.723 0.073 0.872
c20 132.25 358.330 0.126 0.871
c22 133.61 345.056 0.269 0.870
c23 132.72 326.863 0.621 0.861
c25 132.39 349.263 0.386 0.867
c26 134.26 348.651 0.227 0.871
c27 133.10 320.909 0.744 0.858
c28 133.12 312.648 0.870 0.854
c29 132.17 353.496 0.355 0.868
c30 132.22 349.050 0.396 0.867
c31 132.77 356.717 0.101 0.873
c32 132.47 347.772 0.305 0.868
c33 132.23 331.765 0.670 0.861
c34 132.66 354.215 0.645 0.860
c35 132.38 354.448 0.242 0.869
c36 132.45 349.512 0.374 0.862
c37 132.77 331.935 0.694 0.861
c38 132.70 329.521 0.711 0.860
c39 133.13 331.114 0.574 0.862
c40 133.05 356.273 0.089 0.874
c43 132.50 351.506 0.310 0.868
c44 133.36 341.194 0.331 0.868
c45 132.46 349.604 0.374 0.867
c47 132.14 347.159 0.578 0.865
c48 132.47 349.350 0.376 0.867
Overall Cronbach's alpha ([alpha]) = 0.875, n=39
Table II
Summary of Mean Importance, Factor Loading, percent of Variance
Explained; Eigen Values and Cronbach's alpha of Extracted Factors
Factor Coding Factor Statements Mean Factor
Importance Loading
CF-1 Defective 3.7656
administrative,
structural &
behavioural issues
C37-Misuse of power & status 3.70 0.933
C38-Unclear authority structures 3.77 0.922
C33-Defective administrative 4.23 0.912
procedures
C12-Open Criticism 3.55 0.885
C23-Desire for autonomy 3.75 0.850
C11-General & conduct issues 4.08 0.708
C47-Attitude problems 4.33 0.641
C13-Blocking other party's goals 3.77 0.640
C27-Unrealistic expectations 3.37 0.506
of employees
C39-Low Job satisfaction 3.34 0.490
C2-Snubbing done amongst employees 3.53 0.470
CF-2 Lack of synchrony 3.6786
and individual
differences
C45-Interpersonal disagreements 4.01 0.936
C48-Different idea logic 4.00 0.924
& Philosophic basis
C17-Personality clashes 3.72 0.831
C18-Value discrepancies 2.16 0.623
C28-Personal likes & dislikes 3.35 0.582
C19- Cultural & racial differences 4.42 0.524
C35-Role clashes 4.09 0.509
CF-3 Conflict generation 4.0795
through emotional
escalations
C32-Professional Jealousies 4.00 0.888
C5-Anger & Stress among employees 4.12 0.847
C43-Frustration 3.97 0.776
C20-Bullying & harassment 4.22 0.554
CF-4 Inadequate 2.5867
resources
and performance
issues
C22-Limited resources 2.86 0.740
C4-Insufficient bonus & reward policy 2.24 0.726
C26-Promotional failures 2.21 0.689
C25-Salary differences 4.08 0.661
C40-Performance issues 1.54 0.480
CF-5 Lack of adoption 4.1030
to work and
related
problems
C31-Resistance to use new technology 3.70 0.908
C7-Task interdependence 3.94 0.592
C6-No proper division of work 4.52 0.572
C14-Work overload 4.25 0.552
CF-6 Preferential 3.1580
treatments
C44- One Side preferential treatment 3.11 0.826
C3-Favouritism 3.21 0.570
CF-7 Interactional 4.2726
issues
C29-Improper & insufficient 4.30 0.719
communication
C30-Lack of cooperation 4.25 0.522
CF-8 Domestic 3.4473
impacts/Issues
C8-Family background 3.82 0.549
C1-Domestic life's impact 3.07 0.534
CF-9 C34 Job insecurity 2.8121 0.551
CF-10 C36 Impact of 3.7211 0.529
strong bank
unions
Factor Coding Factor Statements percent Eigen
of Value
Variance
Explained
CF-1 Defective 23.587 8.727
administrative,
structural &
behavioural issues
C37-Misuse of power & status
C38-Unclear authority structures
C33-Defective administrative
procedures
C12-Open Criticism
C23-Desire for autonomy
C11-General & conduct issues
C47-Attitude problems
C13-Blocking other party's goals
C27-Unrealistic expectations
of employees
C39-Low Job satisfaction
C2-Snubbing done amongst employees
CF-2 Lack of synchrony 15.616 5.778
and individual
differences
C45-Interpersonal disagreements
C48-Different idea logic
& Philosophic basis
C17-Personality clashes
C18-Value discrepancies
C28-Personal likes & dislikes
C19-Cultural & racial differences
C35-Role clashes
CF-3 Conflict generation 14.811 5.480
through emotional
escalations
C32-Professional Jealousies
C5-Anger & Stress among employees
C4 3-Frustration
C20-Bullying & harassment
CF-4 Inadequate 6.938 2.567
resources
and performance
issues
C22-Limited resources
C4-Insufficient bonus & reward policy
C26-Promotional failures
C25-Salary differences
C40-Performance issues
CF-5 Lack of adoption 6.300 2.331
to work and
related
problems
C31-Resistance to use new technology
C7-Task interdependence
C6-No proper division of work
C14-Work overload
CF-6 Preferential 5.155 1.907
treatments
C44- One Side preferential treatment
C3-Favouritism
CF-7 Interactional 3.447 1.275
issues
C29-Improper & insufficient
communication
C30-Lack of cooperation
CF-8 Domestic 2.880 1.065
impacts/Issues
C8-Family background
C1-Domestic life's impact
CF-9 C34 Job insecurity 1.768 1.042
CF-10 C36 Impact of 1.652 1.020
strong bank
unions
Factor Coding Factor Statements Construct
Reliability
([alpha])
CF-1 Defective 0.909
administrative,
structural &
behavioural issues
C37-Misuse of power & status
C38-Unclear authority structures
C33-Defective administrative
procedures
C12-Open Criticism
C23-Desire for autonomy
C11-General & conduct issues
C47-Attitude problems
C13-Blocking other party's goals
C27-Unrealistic expectations
of employees
C39-Low Job satisfaction
C2-Snubbing done amongst employees
CF-2 Lack of synchrony 0.846
and individual
differences
C45-Interpersonal disagreements
C48-Different idea logic
& Philosophic basis
C17-Personality clashes
C18-Value discrepancies
C28-Personal likes & dislikes
C19-Cultural & racial differences
C35-Role clashes
CF-3 Conflict generation 0.821
through emotional
escalations
C32-Professional Jealousies
C5-Anger & Stress among employees
C43-Frustration
C20-Bullying & harassment
CF-4 Inadequate 0.767
resources
and performance
issues
C22-Limited resources
C4-Insufficient bonus & reward policy
C26-Promotional failures
C25-Salary differences
C40-Performance issues
CF-5 Lack of adoption 0.725
to work and
related
problems
C31-Resistance to use new technology
C7-Task interdependence
C6-No proper division of work
C14-Work overload
CF-6 Preferential 0.735
treatments
C44-One Side preferential treatment
C3-Favouritism
CF-7 Interactional 0.677
issues
C29-Improper & insufficient
communication
C30-Lack of cooperation
CF-8 Domestic 0.671
impacts/Issues
C8-Family background
C1-Domestic life's impact
CF-9 C34 Job insecurity
CF-10 C36 Impact of
strong bank
unions
CF-Factor's coding concerning sources of perceived
conflict at workplace; (KMO: 0.675; Barlett's Test
of Sphericity([chi square])= 27424.012; df=666;
p= 0.000 *); Overall mean score= 3.56245, [Note:
Variables selected from Literature Survey: Bercovitch,
J. (1982), Wall, J.A. & Callistor
(1995), Ikeda, A.A., Oliviera & Campomar (2005),
Tonder, C.V., Havenga, W. & Jan Visagie (2008),
Riaz, M.K., Junaid , Ghaffar, Hotepo,O.M.,
Asokere. A.S.S., & I.A.A. Azzez (2010), Obasam
Kehinde (2011), Ede Osun State, Olukayode et al.
(2012) and Kaur, H. (2012)]
Table III
Overall Status of Extracted Factors Concerning Sources of Conflict
in Selected Public and Private Sector Banks
Var. Factor Statements Public Private
Sector Sector
WAS Rank WAS Rank
CF-1 Defective Administrative, 3.7 5 3.7 6
Structural &
Behavioural Issues
CF-2 Lack of Synchrony and 3.6 6 3.6 7
Individual Differences
CF-3 Conflict Generation 4.0 2 4.1 4
through Emotional
Escalations
CF-4 Inadequate Resources 2.6 9 2.5 10
and Performance Issues
CF-5 Lack of Adoption to Work 3.9 3. 5 4.2 3
and Related Problems
CF-6 Preferential Treatments 2.7 8 3.6 8
CF-7 Interactional Issues 4.2 1 4.3 1.5
CF-8 Domestic Impacts/Issues 2.8 7 4.0 5
CF-9 Job Insecurity 1.2 10 4.3 1.5
CF-10 Role of Strong Bank Unions 3.9 3.5 3.5 9
Var. Factor Statements Pooled
Sample
WAS Rank
CF-1 Defective Administrative, 3.7 4.5
Structural &
Behavioural Issues
CF-2 Lack of Synchrony and 3.6 6
Individual Differences
CF-3 Conflict Generation 4.0 3
through Emotional
Escalations
CF-4 Inadequate Resources 2.5 10
and Performance Issues
CF-5 Lack of Adoption to Work 4.1 2
and Related Problems
CF-6 Preferential Treatments 3.1 8
CF-7 Interactional Issues 4.2 1
CF-8 Domestic Impacts/Issues 3.4 7
CF-9 Job Insecurity 2.8 9
CF-10 Role of Strong Bank Unions 3.7 4.5
(Source: Primary Data; CF-Factor's coding
concerning sources of conflict at workplace.)
Table IV
Summary of Mean Scores and Independent
Sample t-test for Group Differences
Concerning Various Sources of Conflict
Variables Public Private
Sector (270) Sector (271)
WAS S.D. WAS S.D.
CF-1 3.7484 .96299 3.7828 .97784
CF-2 3.6853 .74959 3.6720 .81123
CF-3 4.0120 .86313 4.1472 .80302
CF-4 2.6155 .56508 2.5578 .54027
CF-5 3.9742 .80004 4.2324 .52927
CF-6 2.7011 1.3148 3.6167 1.21648
CF-7 4.2841 .65013 4.2611 .61530
CF-8 2.8081 .62516 4.0889 .93540
CF-9 1.2012 .51520 4.2561 .62210
CF-10 3.9810 .98215 3.5121 .45216
OF-11 3.2611 .45312 3.7810 .44860
Variables t-values
CF-1 -0.413 (INS, p>0.-05)
CF-2 0.199 (INS, p>0.05)
CF-3 -1.886 (INS, p>0.05)
CF-4 1.214 (INS, p>0.05)
CF-5 -4.429 * (p<0.05)
CF-6 -8.407 * (p<0.05)
CF-7 0.423 (INS, p>0.05)
CF-8 -18.716 * (p<0.05)
CF-9 -25.251 * (p<0.05)
CF-10 6.215 * (p<0.05)
OF-11 -6.158 * (p<0.05)
* Significant at 0.05 level, INS= Insignificant
at 0.05 level; OF-11= Overall Status of various
sources or causes of conflict at workplace. [Note:
Public Sector Banks under sample: State Bank of
India, Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank, Bank
of Baroda, Bank of India, Central Bank of
India, Union Bank of India, Syndicate Bank and
Indian Overseas Bank; Private Sector Banks under
sample: ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, AXIS Bank,
Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank, ING
Vysya Bank, Indusind Bank, Karnataka Bank,
South Indian Bank and Karur Vysya Bank]
