A study of intrablack conflict and work attitudes within an African American organization

The present research evidences a field setting studying attitudinal and behavioral results of five Black group contacts. The research was designed, in part, to determine the demographic, cultural, social, and psychological factors associated with intrablack perceptions of conflict and work attitudes in an African American organization. Two organizational groups, African Americans and Caribbean/West Indians totaling 112 participants were studied. The objective of the research was to gain information about attitudinal levels perceived by each of the two groups. Each group rated the other group on items dealing with conflict and work attitudes. One-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were employed to test the overall differences on scale means among the groups. The findings in this study buttress some of the major themes in the impressionistic literature on cultural/multicultural diversity in organizations and Caribbean/West Indian literature. The data are reported and examined, and theoretical implications are discussed. ^

The conflict resolution behaviors of occupational therapy students as a function of the personality types, demographic characteristics and contextual factors

Interpersonal conflicts have the potential for detrimental consequences if not managed successfully. Understanding the factors that contribute to conflict resolution has implications for interpersonal relationships and the workplace. Researchers have suggested that personality plays an important and predictable role in conflict resolution behaviors (Chanin & Schneer, 1984; Kilmann & Thomas, 1975; Mills, Robey & Smith, 1985). However, other investigators have contended that contextual factors are important contributors in triggering the behavioral responses (Shoda & Mischel, 2000; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among personality types, demographic characteristics and contextual factors on the conflict resolution behaviors reported by graduate occupational therapy students (n = 125). ^ The study design was correlational. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Thomas-Kilmann (MODE) Instrument were used to establish the personality types and the context independent conflict resolution behaviors respectively. The effects of contextual factors of task vs. relationship and power were measured with the Conflict Case Scenarios Questionnaire (CCSQ). One-way ANOVA and linear regression procedures were used to test the relationships between personality types and demographic characteristics with the context independent conflict behaviors. Chi-Square procedures of the personality types by contextual conditions ascertained the effects of contexts in modifying the resolution modes. Descriptive statistics established a profile of the sample. ^ The results of the hypotheses tests revealed significant relationships between the personality types of feeling-thinking and sensing-intuition with the conflict resolution behaviors. The contextual attributes of task vs. relationship orientation and of peer vs. supervisor relationships were shown to modify the conflict behaviors. Furthermore, demographic characteristics of age, gender, GPA and educational background were shown to have an effect on the conflict resolution behaviors. The knowledge gained has implications for students' training, specifically understanding their styles and use of effective conflict resolution strategies. It also contributes to the knowledge on management approaches and interpersonal competencies and how this might facilitate the students' transition to the clinical role. ^

Conceptualizing American power and security in a post -9/11 security context: Conflict, resistance, and global security, 2001–present

In a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, the advent of US global supremacy resulted in the installation, perpetuation, and dissemination of an Absolutist Security Agenda (hereinafter, ASA). The US ASA explicitly and aggressively articulates and equates US national security interests with the security of all states in the international system, and replaced the bipolar, Cold War framework that defined international affairs from 1945-1992. Since the collapse of the USSR and the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, the US has unilaterally defined, implemented, and managed systemic security policy. The US ASA is indicative of a systemic category of knowledge (security) anchored in variegated conceptual and material components, such as morality, philosophy, and political rubrics. The US ASA is based on a logic that involves the following security components: (1) hyper militarization, (2) intimidation,(3) coercion, (4) criminalization, (5) panoptic surveillance, (6) plenary security measures, and (7) unabashed US interference in the domestic affairs of select states. Such interference has produced destabilizing tensions and conflicts that have, in turn, produced resistance, revolutions, proliferation, cults of personality, and militarization. This is the case because the US ASA rests on the notion that the international system of states is an extension, instrument of US power, rather than a system and/or society of states comprised of functionally sovereign entities. To analyze the US ASA, this study utilizes: (1) official government statements, legal doctrines, treaties, and policies pertaining to US foreign policy; (2) militarization rationales, budgets, and expenditures; and (3) case studies of rogue states. The data used in this study are drawn from information that is publicly available (academic journals, think-tank publications, government publications, and information provided by international organizations). The data supports the contention that global security is effectuated via a discrete set of hegemonic/imperialistic US values and interests, finding empirical expression in legal acts (USA Patriot ACT 2001) and the concept of rogue states. Rogue states, therefore, provide test cases to clarify the breadth, depth, and consequentialness of the US ASA in world affairs vis-à-vis the relationship between US security and global security.

Conceptualizing American power and security in a post-9/11 security context : conflict, resistance, and global security, 2001-present

In a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, the advent of US global supremacy resulted in the installation, perpetuation, and dissemination of an Absolutist Security Agenda (hereinafter, ASA). The US ASA explicitly and aggressively articulates and equates US national security interests with the security of all states in the international system, and replaced the bipolar, Cold War framework that defined international affairs from 1945-1992. Since the collapse of the USSR and the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, the US has unilaterally defined, implemented, and managed systemic security policy. The US ASA is indicative of a systemic category of knowledge (security) anchored in variegated conceptual and material components, such as morality, philosophy, and political rubrics. The US ASA is based on a logic that involves the following security components: 1., hyper militarization, 2., intimidation, 3., coercion, 4., criminalization, 5., panoptic surveillance, 6., plenary security measures, and 7., unabashed US interference in the domestic affairs of select states. Such interference has produced destabilizing tensions and conflicts that have, in turn, produced resistance, revolutions, proliferation, cults of personality, and militarization. This is the case because the US ASA rests on the notion that the international system of states is an extension, instrument of US power, rather than a system and/or society of states comprised of functionally sovereign entities. To analyze the US ASA, this study utilizes: 1., official government statements, legal doctrines, treaties, and policies pertaining to US foreign policy; 2., militarization rationales, budgets, and expenditures; and 3., case studies of rogue states. The data used in this study are drawn from information that is publicly available (academic journals, think-tank publications, government publications, and information provided by international organizations). The data supports the contention that global security is effectuated via a discrete set of hegemonic/imperialistic US values and interests, finding empirical expression in legal acts (USA Patriot ACT 2001) and the concept of rogue states. Rogue states, therefore, provide test cases to clarify the breadth, depth, and consequentialness of the US ASA in world affairs vis-a-vis the relationship between US security and global security.