Journal of
Management
Development
14,4
56
Business values, management
and conflict handling: issues
in contemporary Singapore
Stephen McKenna and Julia Richardson
Stansfield School of Business, Singapore
Introduction
This article reports the results of work being undertaken in Singapore with
some 300 managers and future managers in the public and private sector. As
well as conflict handling the research has investigated the concepts of power,
needs, assertiveness, personal and leadership styles and influencing styles in
order to paint a picture of the Singaporean manager of the future in the context
of a society at the crossroads of development from an industrial to post-
industrial one.
Singaporean society and economy
The picture of Singapore often seen by the outside world is of a structured and
well-ordered society, theoretically and politically democratic and economically
extremely successful, with anticipated economic growth in 1994 of 6 to 8 per
cent. In many respects, however, Singapore is a society of considerable
contradiction. A recent book highlights these contradictions in persuasive
detail[1].
Regardless of the political context of Dr Chee’s book a crucial theme within it
is the need for Singapore to develop socially in order to maintain its important
position economically in Asia-Pacific. As well as this need to become a more
sophisticated and cultured society, there is the need to develop the psyche of the
individuals who comprise it. For example, Chee points to the need for
“contentious debate” rather than “forced consensus”. He argues that in

power structures within organizations as well as the societal context in which
those organizations operate. Consequently, it is possible that, while the
government promotes consensus or compromise, individuals may reject it.
The organizational context
The economy in Singapore is dominated by two types of business organization:
the multinational corporation (MNC), of which there are some 7,000 in
Singapore, and the government-linked companies (GLC). This organizational
infrastructure may have some important consequences for the organizational
experience of most individuals; in short, it is likely to be bureaucratic. This is
important because of the manner in which bureaucratic structures typically
operate; creating conformity to rules and regulations, policies and procedures
leading to rigidity and inflexibility; employee alienation; concentration of power
and external user frustration. Employee alienation and strict adherence to roles
often mean avoiding conflict by resorting to intransigence[3,4].
It might be suggested, then, that for the majority of Singaporeans work in
such organizations may restrict, structurally, the opportunity for debate, and,
therefore, the potential for creativity and innovation. This situation may be
compounded by the nature of local management[5] and society itself which
emphasizes the maintenance of harmony or the appearance of value consensus.
It is important to note, however, that this phenomenon is not peculiar to
Singaporean society or indeed the work environment, but may be found in other
Asian countries; for example, Japanese society with its concept of tate mai –
keeping up the appearance of socially approved behaviour and consensus – and
Indonesian society with its emphasis on avoiding conflict or making others feel
malu (shame/anger), and the concept of mai pen rai in Thailand, the desire to
keep things on an even keel. In terms of organizational and economic activity,
then, the following data may also be relevant outside of Singaporean society.
How are Singaporeans, particularly young future managers, inclined in
handling conflict? We might expect, if we are to believe the prevailing
stereotypes of Asians, that they seek to avoid all open conflict. The rest of this

(2) Suppression: here the individual deals with conflict as if nothing is
wrong, carries on regardless, puts up with a difficult conflict situation for
the sake of peace, uses charm to get his or her own way, says nothing at
the time but is devious later on, keeps all bad feelings inside.
(3) Compromise: an individual who compromises in dealing with conflict
attempts to maintain the friendship, tries to discover what is fair, divides
the prize equally, avoids pulling rank or being authoritarian, gives
something to preserve the relationship.
(4) Win/lose: a person who seeks to win in conflict and not lose will set out
to show that the other person is wrong, get moody and sulk until they
change their mind, shout them down, turn physically violent, refuse to
take “no” for an answer.
(5) Win/win: the individual who seeks win/win solutions to conflict will find
out what others need, find out where differences come together, design
new options where people get more of what they need and work in
partnership with others to find solutions.
The Thomas-Kilmann approach
A well-known and widely-used approach to understanding the different ways in
which people deal with conflict is the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode
instrument[11]. Unlike the work of Cornelius and Faire[12], Thomas and
Kilmann do not suggest that all conflict is best resolved by searching for a
Business values,
management
and conflict
59
win/win situation. Indeed, there are a number of different ways to deal with
conflict and each of these modes of conflict handling can be useful under
different sets of circumstances. For example, following the five conflict-
handling modes identified by Thomas and Kilmann, each of the following may
be appropriate under divergent circumstances:

Avoiding
(neglect)
Accommodating
(appeasement)
Compromising
(sharing)
Assertive
Non-assertive
Unco-operative Co-operative
Figure 1.
Modes of handling
conflict
Journal of
Management
Development
14,4
60
The Singapore survey
The survey of managers and future managers in Singapore involved 303
respondents. Some 51 per cent were male, 49 per cent female. These figures are
representative of the total population of Singapore, 50.6 per cent male and 49.3
per cent female (Census, 1992). The ethnic make-up of the group was 79 per
cent Chinese, 8 per cent Indian, 5 per cent Malay and 3 per cent Eurasian. The
figures for Chinese, Indian, Eurasian/others are representative of figures for the
Singaporean population as a whole – 77.61 per cent Chinese, 7.08 per cent
Indian and 1.2 per cent Eurasian/other. For Malays our sample of 5 per cent is
not representative of the Malay population of Singapore (14.17 per cent ) but
taking into account that all respondents were full-time or part-time students
enrolled in an institute of higher education, the under-representation of Malays
should be taken in the light of the fact that the average number of years of

“biogrammar” are seen to be more suited to, and capable of, achievement
Business values,
management
and conflict
61
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Collaborating
Compromising
Avoiding
Accommodating
Competing
Key
:
Male Female
Figure 2.
Modes of handling
conflict in relation to
gender
10
9
8
7