1

The Differences in Conflict Management Style in relation to

Superior-Subordinate Interaction involving Gender Diversity

Much of the work done related to decision-making and

communication has focused on the organizational context

Within this context there is a natural "pull and tug" for

control of decisions between those at higher and lower

levels of the organization-supervisors and their

subordinates. Within this context decision making often is

viewed as the prerogative of those at higher levels and may

involve those at lower levels only if the "higher-ups"

choose to delegate such authority to them. Various managers

have different styles of decision-making. These styles fall

on a continuum. At one end are those who chose to make most

or all of the decisions themselves, and those at the

opposite end are those who choose to delegate all or most

of the decisions to those below them. The nature of the

communication in these different decision-making contexts

is highly varied. This led Richmond and McCroskey (1979) to

advance the construct of "Management Communication Style"

(MCS). This construct recognizes that people vary in their

general approach to decision making and that the

individual's approach has important, observable impact on

their communication behavior. Cavenagh, T. D. (1994).

 2

"Alternative Dispute Resolution on Campus: Moving Beyond

the Traditional Judicial Affairs Model." Legal Issues in

Higher Education Conference, University of Vermont, North

Central College Dispute Resolution Center.

While the construct was originally advanced within the

organizational context, and we will begin by discussing it

in that context, we believe it may be applied in other

contexts as well, including the very different type of

context represented by the marital dyad. While the analogy

between the superior/ subordinate relationships and marital

relationships is far from perfect, since married people do

need to "manage" or influence one another from time to

time, there are some similarities. We will address

application to this context directly later.

The dictionary defines conflict in several ways that may

explain why many people are ambivalent toward dealing with

it. In order of importance, conflict is:

a state of open fighting, warfare

a state of disagreement or disharmony, a clash

 3

(from psychology) the opposition or simultaneous

functioning of mutually exclusive desires, impulses or

tendencies

collision

Discomfort, threat and possible loss are implicit in the

word. Given people's imagination and experience, negative

outcomes may seem to go with the territory.

Yet, consider actual conflicts in your own life, those you

have observed that have been worked out or examples that

have the potential to be settled in fair ways. Is the risk

worth the effort? Brickman, W. and S. Lehrer, Eds. (1970).

Conflict and Change on Campus: The Response to Student

Hyperactivism. New York, School and Society Books.

When you address significant conflicts in your professional

and personal life, you'll probably never be able to assess

in advance, with exactitude, whether the risk will be worth

your effort. In fact, much depends on your expectations,

commitment and skills. To explore the value of conflict

resolution in a particular situation, list the potential

benefits and likely outcomes. Then list what could happen

if you don't deal with it.

 4

One of the conceptualizations of power which has I related

effectively to the organizational context is that advanced

by French and Rich (1968). Their conceptualization suggests

there are five primary bases of powers coercive, reward,

legitimate, referent, and expert. Each of these depends on

people see one another in relationships. How these

presumably operate in many dyads follows.

Coercive. This base of power rests on one spouses

perception that he/she will punished by her/his spouse if

he/she does not conform to that persons influence attempt.

Thus, when one spouse communicates messages of threat or

force inemploy attempt to influence the other spouse, the

coercive base of power is being employ While use or threat

of physical violence is one example of the use of coercive

power is the most extreme form. More commonly, coercion of

a more subtle sort will in marital dyads. Threats or

inferences that something desired by one spouse will

withheld or taken away by the other as punishment for

nonconformance to influence attempts are far more common.

Reward. This base of power rests on one spouse's perception

that he/she will be rewarded by her/his spouse if he/she

 5

conforms to that Person's influence attempt. Thus, when one

spouse communicates messages of promise of reward, reward

power is being employed. Direct promises of tangible

reward, like "I win give you $100 if you will do this for

me," is an obvious and extreme example of the use of reward

power. More commonly, more subtle or implied rewards are

employed in marital dyads.

Coercive and reward power are essentially two sides to the

same coin. One is the carrot the other the stick.

Legitimate. Within organizations people are assigned

presumably legitimate power by higher-ups in the

organization. Thus, a person's rank or title in the

organization is taken as an indicator to most people that

the person has the right to expect certain kinds of

conformance to their "legitimate" influence attempts.

Within marital dyads legitimate power rests on the

perception of one spouse that the other spouse has certain

rights as a function of "being married." These rights

generally are culturally determined and vary widely from

culture to culture. In more traditional marriages in the

U.S., for example, it generally would be seen as

 6

appropriate for the husband to speak outside the house for

both members of the dyad, make certain decisions about

spending the couple's resources, and generally direct the

wife's behavior outside the home. In more contemporary

marriages in the U.S., however, none of these "legitimate"

behaviors likely would be considered "legitimate." In

contrast, members of this type of dyad would be likely to

work out specific rights for both dyad members

cooperatively, and in some cases prior to the actual

marriage through a pre-nuptial agreement.

Referent. This base of power rests on the strength of the

personal relationship between the two dyad members. In

supervisory relationships, "referent power is influence

based on care and trust developed in a relationship, it is

earned through trustworthy relating" (Nelson, 1991, p.

364). In the context of a marriage, the more affection and

respect one has for the other, the more that person will by

to please the other. When one person is strongly attracted

on in love with the other person, it is likely they will

identify their own well-being with the other's well-being.

Under circumstances of such positive identification, one

person is likely to conform to their spouse's influence

attempts simply because they want to be close to that other

 7

person. Boyer, E. (1990). Campus Life: In Search of

Community. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

Expert. The final power base defined by French and Raven

(1968) focuses on the knowledge or special abilities of an

individual making an influence attempt In supervisory

relationships, "expert power is influence based on the

knowledge and expertise of the supervisor, it is earned

through education, training, experience, and the

communication of those to trainees" (Nelson, 1991, p. 364-

365). Within the marital dyad, expert power is based on one

spouse's perception of the other's competence and knowledge

in the specific area in which an influence attempt is made

as well as a general perception of expertise. When one

spouse considers the other to be considerably more expert

on a given issue, it is likely he/she will simply conform

because he/she thinks the other person must be correct.

Central to the MCS construct was the theoretical work of

Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958), the film Styles of

Leadership (1962) based on this earlier work, and the

research of Sadler (1970). Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958)

postulated a continuum of leadership orientations within an

organization from the extreme "boss centered" to the

 8

extreme "subordinate centered." As one moves from the first

extreme toward the latter, the use of authority by the

manager decreases and the involvement of subordinates in

decision making increases. Based on the later work of

Tannenbaum and Schmidt and the research of Sadler, the MCS

construct was advanced as a continuum with the labels of

Tell, Sell, Consult, and Join identifying varying points on

that continuum. Each of these labels represents a specific

style of decision making which may be employed by a manager.

Before a theory can be developed, two issues must be

addressed. First, cross-cultural differences in conflict

management behavior must be identified. It is important to

study cross-cultural differences, because conflict is a

culturally defined and regulated event (Sillars & Weisberg,

1987). That is, each culture defines what constitutes

conflict and the appropriate behaviors for dealing with it

(Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). Second, the distinction between

inter-cultural and intra-cultural conflict management must

be explored. Cross-cultural studies focus on intra-cultural

conflict management (members of the same culture are

involved), whereas inter-cultural conflict involves members

of different cultures. As Adler and Graham (1989) point

out, theories of cross-cultural differences should not be

 9

applied to inter-cultural interaction without testing the

assumption that people behave similarly with domestic and

foreign colleagues.

An understanding of these two issues will contribute to a

theory of inter-cultural conflict management that considers

cross-cultural differences in conflict management behavior

and differences between inter-cultural and intra-cultural

conflict. In the next section, we review existing theory

and research focusing on cross-cultural differences in

conflict management, and explain why this work provides

little useful information about these differences.

Following this discussion, the distinction between intra-

cultural conflict management behavior and inter-cultural

behavior is discussed. After these two issues are

addressed, a study of intra-cultural and inter- cultural

conflict in US-Chinese joint ventures is described.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Conflict Management

Existing theory and research focusing on cross-cultural

differences in conflict management behavior examine the

links between dimensions of cultural variability and

conflict management. Jehn and Weldon (1992), Trubisky,

 10

Ting-Toomey, and Lin (1991) and Lee and Rogan (1991) have

described the impact of individualism-collectivism on

conflict management behavior. Ting- Toomey (1988) and Ting-

Toomey, Gao, Trubisky, Yang, Kim, Lin, & Nishida (1991)

describe the impact of face work, and Weldon (in press) and

Ting-Toomey (1985) consider communication style.

Individualism-collectivism is an important dimension of

cultural variability (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck 1961; Parsons

& Shils, 1951; Triandis, 1986), because it provides a key

to understanding the norms and values that govern social

relationships and social exchange (Triandis, Bontempo,

Villareal, Asai & Lucca, 1988). In a collectivist society,

social relationships and group welfare dominate individual

needs and desires. As a result, behavior is influenced more

by social norms and social obligations than by personal

desires (Triandis, 1986); cooperation and social harmony

are emphasized (Waterman, 1984) and individual effort and

achievement are expected to contribute to the collective

good (Laaksonen, 1988). In contrast, in an individualistic

society, people value autonomy, assertiveness, competition,

and individual achievement, and for personal satisfaction

and growth are important (Triandis, 1986). These

differences in cultural values are believed to influence

attitudes toward conflict and conflict management behavior

 11

(Jehn & Weldon, 1992; Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, & Lin, 1991;

Lee & Rogan, 1991).

Face is "the public self-image that every member of a

society wants to claim for himself/herself" (Brown &

Levinson, 1978, p. 66). Face work is the social behavior

used to create and support one's face (Goffman, 1967).

Because the relative importance of self and group differ in

individualistic and collectivistic cultures, the

characteristics of an appropriate face and the nature of

face work also differ. In a collectivistic culture, face

work is used to present the self as an appropriate member

of the social network, and people are expected to help

others maintain a similarly appropriate face (Ting-Toomey,

1988). In contrast, in an individualistic society, face

work focuses more on maintaining one's personal identity

with little concern about helping others maintain theirs

(Ting-Toomey, 1988). Ting-Toomey (1988) and Ting-Toomey, et

al. (1991) suggest that differences in face work have

important implications for conflict management behavior.

Communication style can be described along a dimension

called high- vs low- context (Hall, 1976). In a high-

context culture, "most of the information [to be

 12

communicated] is either in the physical context or

internalized in the person, while very little is in the

coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message" (Hall,

1976, p. 79). In contrast, in a low-context society, "the

mass of the [communicated] information is vested in the

explicit code" (Hall, 1976, p. 79).

Communication in high-context and low-context cultures

differs in four important ways. First, communication in a

low-context culture is explicit and direct (Gudykunst &

Ting-Toomey, 1988). In contrast, in a high-context culture,

communication is implicit, and the receiver must invoke the

context to interpret the message (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey,

1988). Second, communication in a low-context culture is

sender-oriented (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988), whereas

communication in a high-context culture is process-

oriented. In sender-oriented communication, the speaker and

listener are assigned distinct roles and the burden of

communication is placed on the sender. It is the speaker's

responsibility to make the listener understand. In process-

oriented communication, the roles of the speaker and the

listener are highly interdependent, and the burden of

communication is shared.
 13

Third, in high-context cultures people are more tolerant

of silence during conversation, they use silence

strategically, and they place more emphasis on nonverbal

cues (Gudykunst & Ting- Toomey, 1988). In a low-context

culture, talk is more important than nonverbal information

and silence is avoided. Fourth, people in high-context

cultures adopt a role-oriented style. Role- oriented

communication emphasizes the social roles that the

participants hold and different scripts are invoked

depending on role relationships. As a result, interaction

is formal and ritualistic. In contrast, people in low-

context cultures, use a personal style. A personal style

emphasizes personal identity over social position. Because

role relationships and status differences are less

important, and communication is less formal and often more

intimate (Okabe, 1983). Weldon (in press) and Ting-Toomey

(1985) link conflict management behavior to low- vs high-

context communication style. Barbara Wien recommended that

good workshop organizers and facilitators rely on a range

of different techniques to encourage participation, to draw

on the experiences of participants, and to get across

information. The old-fashioned workshop, in which a

presenter lectures and answers the occasional question, is

only one approach and appeals to only one type of student.

 14

Workshop organizers should try a mix of techniques to

ensure that they reach all the different capabilities and

intelligences of the participants.

The beginning of a workshop is critical for establishing

the tenor of the process. Workshop organizers should

consider using different kinds of icebreakers. The

icebreaker can accomplish different tasks - to introduce

participants to each other, to get everyone participating

from the very beginning, to demonstrate to the group that

the workshop will be interactive, and to show that the

participants will draw on different talents during the

workshop experience.

In this workshop, the participants practiced various ice

breakers. They played a "name toss," where they tossed a

hat around the circle, identifying themselves and the

person from whom they'd received the hat. Still in the

circle, they sang a song and followed a dance routine that

one participant demonstrated. They played "bad telephone"

in which a message was whispered from ear to ear, losing

some of its coherence as it made its way around the circle.

Later, they wrote down their greatest stress on a slip of

paper, deposited the paper in the hat, and then Barbara

 15

took the hat outside the room, saying, "We can look at them

after the workshop and see if the stresses still feel as

serious as they do now."

On fluorescent Post-its, participants wrote down the

greatest barriers in their work and put them on the wall.

The answers were varied: lack of financial resources;

organizational conflict; worsening health after car

accident; family economy and raising children; adjustment

to a changing society; lack of confidence; Confucianism and

patriarchy; the system. Then they wrote down their greatest

strength or accomplishment, and the list was equally

diverse: visiting North Korea; the enactment of a special

law on sexual harassment and domestic violence; organizing

a summer peace camp; organizing media action programs;

putting together a peace-building action plan; quitting a

job; being told that she was someone's role model. The

participants eagerly scanned the wall to read the notes.

Then Barbara asked the group to divide up according to

their own conflict styles (the participants had taken the

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument and the Alexander

Hiam Negotiating Style Assessment at the September

workshop). She asked them to explain why their approach to

 16

conflict was the best. The conflict avoiders, for instance,

argued that their approach gave them time to think about

negotiating strategies. The competitive types maintained

that every group needed people like them to get the agenda

off the ground. The accommodators made the case that their

approach was ideal for a democratic society.

One participant suggested an interesting icebreaker. The

participants divided into two teams. The purpose of the

game was to see who could make the most interesting relief

sculpture on the wall using only the bodies of the team

members. The resulting "wall pictures" amused everyone.

Before practicing different icebreakers, of course, Barbara

began the workshop with an icebreaker of her own. She asked

the participants to identify themselves and describe the

reasons why they were drawn to activism. The participants

talked about the many paths that brought them into social

movements. Some became active in school, others were

influenced by books that they'd read or by older siblings.

Key events such as the Kwangju Uprising (1980) inspired

some to get involved in political action. One participant

responded pithily, "the world," and went on to explain that

her observation of discrimination in society motivated her

 17

activism. Birnbaum, R. (1980). "Constructive Conflict in

Academic Bargaining." New Directions in Higher Education

32: 69-79.

"If we remember our first steps, we can realize the lessons

for the next generation," Barbara explained. This kind of

story-telling ice breaker, which explains the origins of

social courage, can also remind participants of the

principles that motivate their work. "It is important not

to lose sight of our own principles when we do conflict

resolution work," she continued. The problem with this

literature is not the choice of these dimensions for

consideration. All have been recognized as important

dimensions of cultural variability that explain how values

and behavior differ across cultures (Brown & Levinson,

1978; Goffman, 1967; Hofstede, 1980; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck

1961; Triandis, 1986). And, as these descriptions suggest,

it seems that these dimensions of cultural variability

would influence conflict management behavior.

Instead, the problem centers on the way that conflict

management behavior is conceptualized, and the way it is

measured in studies of cross-cultural differences. In each

 18

case, a theory of conflict management behavior developed in

the West is adopted. These theories focus on dimensions

that differentiate strategies of conflict management, using

these dimensions: the extent to which the style (1) shows

concern for self; (2) shows concern for others; (3) focuses

on getting the problem resolved quickly (issue oriented) or

maintaining social harmony (relationship- oriented); (4)

reflects a willingness to deal with conflict or a desire to

avoid conflict; and (5) reflects a direct approach to

managing conflict or an indirect approach. These dimensions

of conflict management behavior are then linked to

dimensions of cultural variability. Individualism, low-

context communication and self-oriented face work are

believed to produce a direct, solution- oriented conflict

management style reflecting concern for self, whereas

collectivism, other-oriented face work and high-context

communication are believed to motivate avoidance and

produce indirect, relationship-oriented styles reflecting

concern for others.

Researchers test these predictions by linking dimensions

of conflict management behavior to specific conflict

management styles (or strategies), selecting samples from

cultures that differ on dimensions of cultural variability,

 19

and administering questionnaires designed to measure these

styles. Jehn and Weldon (1992) administered the Thomas-

Kilmann questionnaire (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977), which

measures five styles, and predicted that people in

collectivistic cultures would use accommodating and

avoiding more often than those from individualistic

societies, and individualists would use competing,

compromising and collaborating more than collectivists,

because the former are attempts to avoid conflict and the

latter are direct, confrontational styles. Bradshaw, D.

(1993). Report: Implementation of the University Mediation

Service at the University of Manitoba, University of

Manitoba.

Such an icebreaker also demonstrates how formative

experiences shape our current perspectives. "In struggle,

we may be fighting with people who have had different

experiences," Barbara explained. "They haven't been exposed

to the same information, they haven't had brothers or

sisters or friends as mentors." Workshop organizers,

facilitators, negotiators, mediators all should remember

that people have different life histories that shape their

perspectives. Two of the participants had conducted a

 20

workshop on conflict resolution at a peace education

retreat. "We didn't have enough time to prepare the session

and we didn't have enough time to explain cases and

relevant examples. We need a training on how to explain the

concepts, and we need practical examples that we can share.

My plan is to collect these case studies."

Another participant tried to write a report on labor-

management negotiations, focusing on conflict resolution

techniques. It was a valuable experience to apply some of

the skills - establishing ground rules; separating emotions

- to a real-life situation. It was also an opportunity to

think about how to promote a different kind of negotiation

process in Korea.

One participant tried to suggest mediation in a case

involving striking nurses and hospital management. But she

couldn't make her voice heard, and there was a general lack

of understanding of what mediation was or could do.

Several participants confessed that they understood the

concepts on paper, but it was still difficult to apply this

learning. They lacked self-confidence. They felt that they

were not yet ready to put their skills into practice. They
 21

haven't seen enough real-world examples. They felt that

they needed constant practice for the skills to sink in.

Still, the average Korean was not interested in conflict

resolution. "After these workshops, I was so excited, but

my colleagues were not excited to hear about my

experiences," one participant commented.

Another participant talked about the need to learn more

about which cases can be handled by mediation and which can

be resolved more effectively in other ways. Barbara agreed,

pointing out that Korean reconciliation was proceeding

without outside mediation while the U.S.-mediated Middle

East talks were not yielding anything.

Several participants mentioned the effect of the workshops

on their own personal lives. One talked about trying to

listen to others more carefully, how it was important to

change herself in order to listen to others. Another talked

about how she has begun to question her own tendency to be

argumentative. A third had begun to reflect more on the

process of building trust. A fourth found that after

learning about bringing different perspectives together at

the negotiation table, she has developed more patience in

dealing with people.

 22

The second evaluation took place halfway through the

workshop. Barbara asked the participants to pick out one

thing about the workshop they found useful and one thing

that they would have done differently. The descriptions of

five negotiating styles below are adapted from the Thomas-

Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Please use your own

experience and insight to modify and/or add to the list of

styles. Identify your own as well as those of the people

with whom you negotiate, on your own side and the other.

Then consider appropriate strategies to improve

communication and meet your objectives.

Competing I'm going to win this one. (And you'll lose.)

Avoiding I don't want to talk about it. (Delay at all

costs.)

Compromising I'm going to give in order to get. (We'll find

some middle ground.)

Accommodating Whatever you want.... (I yield.)

Collaborating Let's work together to find a mutually

beneficial outcome.
 23

In some instances, styles may be at such loggerheads that

negotiation will be extremely difficult (e.g. competing and

avoiding). If you come to this conclusion, you may want to

consider alternatives to negotiating on your own, such as

leaving the situation or third-party intervention. In

actual situations, you rarely have the luxury of following

the step-by-step process outlined below. Information is

likely to be developed more informally, perhaps in a

different sequence. Time will be limited. Nevertheless,

enrich, adapt and use the following suggestions as a

checklist to expand your thinking, develop priorities and

strategies, determine use of resources and plan action. Be

clear about your own objectives, perceptions, emotions,

interests and concerns. Learn as much about the situation

as possible through analysis and conversation with others.

Discuss the situation and options with people to whom you

report and other interested parties in order to clarify

their expectations. Put the understanding in writing, as

appropriate. Do research on the other side. Investigate

written sources such as budgets and financial plans,

publications, reports, speeches, public statements, Who's

Who, biographies and other data in the public realm. Speak

to credible sources to learn relevant facts and develop

ideas about the other side's goals, strategies and values.

 24

Compare information from these secondary sources with what

the other negotiators have actually said and done.

Try to anticipate what the other side wants, their style of

negotiating and sensitive buttons. Consider how your

preferences and style will mesh and what you can do to

create better fits. Develop a negotiating approach,

including a range of options. Visualize yourself in the

process, imagining how you would handle various

contingencies. Identify common interests or, at least,

overlapping concerns and underlying issues, needs, concerns

and fears. Think about options for mutual gain.In terms of

doing things differently, participants wanted more cultural

context and ways of conceptualizing their experiences.

Several participants wanted more concrete ways to practice

these approaches in everyday life. On the positive side,

participants were enthusiastic about the elicitive

approach, that it had a Confucian element to it (Confucius

was always trying to elicit wisdom from people). They were

delighted to focus on objectives, motivations, and methods

and not just content. They learned a lot about analytical

skills and about the importance of participants' approach

to conflict. They enjoyed the Aha method, the best/worst

workshop experience module, and the turning point

 25

icebreaker. They wanted more practice in handling large

groups.

"I used to think that a workshop was like a conference just

smaller," one participant said. "In a lecture, the trainer

imparts knowledge. But a workshop is a way of changing

people: that is why the trainer and participant should

share their experiences. Usually we're more interested in

big issues. But we talked about the details of our life,

and that was very important. I learned yesterday that

details are important in making a good workshop."

American and Chinese managers were asked to describe their

typical conflict management style. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict

MODE instrument (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977). Chinese use

compromising, accommodating, and avoiding more than

Americans. Americans use competing and collaborating more

than Chinese. Scale scores calculated according to

instructions showed that Americans used compromise more

than the Chinese. Scale scores based on factors from intra-

cultural factor analyses showed that Chinese managers

typically use accommodating strategies, whereas US managers

typically use collaborating and competing styles.

 26

Reference

Beeler, K. D. (1985). Institutions with Identified

Conflict-resolution (Mediation) programs. Charleston, IL,

Eastern Illinois University.

Beeler, K. D. (1986). "Campus Mediation: A Promising

Complement to Student Judicial Processes." SACSA Journal

7(1): 38-45.
 27

Bing, R. and L. Dye (1996). "Memo to the board of trustees:

please meddle." Academe 82(July/Aug): 44-45.

Birnbaum, R. (1980). "Constructive Conflict in Academic

Bargaining." New Directions in Higher Education 32: 69-79.

Birnbaum, R. (1980). Creative Academic Bargaining: Managing

Conflict in the Unionized College and University. New York,

Teachers College Press.

Birnbaum, R. (1990). Negotiating in an Anarchy: Faculty

Collective Bargaining and Organizational Cognition. Annual

Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher

Education, ASHE.

Black, D. (1994). "Outside the Court: Mediating Conflicts."

Perspective: The Campus Legal Monthly 9(10/October): 1-2.

Blimling, G. S. (1982). "The Context of Conflict in the

Academy: An Educational Dialectic on Faculty and Student

Affairs Educators." College Student Affairs Journal 13(1):

4-12.

Boice, R. (1996). "Classroom Incivilities." Research in

Higher Education 37(4): 453-487.

Bolding, J. T. and J. J. Van Patten (1982). "Creating a

Healthy Organizational Climate." Administrator's Update:

American Association of Univ. Administrators 3(3 (Win)): 1-

9.
 28

Borshuk, C. (1994). "Benefits of a Peer Mediation Service:

An Evaluation." Interaction 6(1): 3-6.

Borshuk, C. (1995). "Peer Mediation Changes Volunteers."

Interaction 7(1 Spring): p. 9.

Boskey, J. (1995). "Alternative Dispute Resolution in the

Law Schools." The Fourth R 55(Feb/March).

Boyer, E. (1990). Campus Life: In Search of Community.

Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

Bradshaw, D. (1993). Report: Implementation of the

University Mediation Service at the University of Manitoba,

University of Manitoba.

Brickman, W. and S. Lehrer, Eds. (1970). Conflict and

Change on Campus: The Response to Student Hyperactivism.

New York, School and Society Books.

Cameron, K. S. and D. A. Whetton (1985). "Administrative

Effectiveness in Higher Education." 9(1): 35-49.

Caraway, G. A. (1989). "Grievance Mediation: Is it worth

using?" Journal of Law and Education 18(4): 495-502.

Carlton, J. (1993). "Working It Out (Construction

Partnering Sessions)." Successful Meetings 42(12): 102-107.

 29

Casper, G. (1998). "State of University Address." Stanford

Report Online Update. Palo Alto, CA.

Cavenagh, T. D. (1994). "Alternative Dispute Resolution on

Campus: Moving Beyond the Traditional Judicial Affairs

Model." Legal Issues in Higher Education Conference,

University of Vermont, North Central College Dispute

Resolution Center.