The author assessed the culture of their quality department using tools to analyze leadership style, conflict management style, and organizational culture. The results showed the author had a compromising conflict style and a balanced task-oriented and people-oriented leadership style. Both the author and staff's responses identified the department's culture as communal, with high solidarity and sociability. This communal culture was created intentionally by the author and has had a positive impact on the department.

1. Could The Leadership and Conflict Management Styles
Be Translated into A Consistent Organisational Culture?
Hossam Elamir
Department of Quality and Accreditation, Mubarak Al-Kabeer Hospital, MOH
MSc in Healthcare Management, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland A
Q&
m
II. Case Summary
The author’s conflict handling modes –by answering Conflict Mode Instrument- were compromising 90% and accommodating 75% (Fig. 4). Answering the Leadership Style Questionnaire by the author
resulted in a task-oriented score=20 and people-oriented score=16 (Fig. 5). The author and the eight department’s staff answered G&J tool. Staff’s main response for the first part was Communal
(Fig. 6). Their second part’s responses were communal. The author’s responses for both parts were Communal. Author and staff’s answers of the third and fourth parts identified nine +ve versus five
-ve aspects (Fig 7). In other words, the author’s leadership and conflict management styles were aligning with the perceived Communal culture and fit in perfectly as they solve the conflict between
“the heart” of sociability and “the mind” of solidarity. The staff responses for the analysis of their previous departments were not Communal, which means a new culture was established and maintained.
III. Conclusions
The department’s founder (author) had a vision of what the department should be, and its small size made it easy to impose that vision on
all staff (Fig. 8) and embed his personality in the culture[1]
. The high sociability and solidarity Communal strong culture was created by the
founder's balanced task and people-oriented leadership together with the medium assertive and cooperative compromising and low
assertive high cooperative accommodating conflict handling modes. This strong culture has a positive net impact.
IV. References
1. Robbins SP, Judge TA. Organizational behavior. 15th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson; 2013.
2. Goffee R, Jones G. The character of a corporation: how your company’s culture can make or break your business. 1st ed. UK; 1998.
3. Thomas KL, Kilman RH. Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument. Mountain View, CA, USA: CPP, Inc.; 1974.
4. Pfeiffer JW, Jones JE. A Handbook of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training. Revised. CA, USA: ; 1974.
V. Acknowledgement and Contacts
I would like to acknowledge the help provided by Dearbhla Casey, Former Programme Director at RCSI Institute of Leadership
For further information contact: Dr. Hossam Elamir, Head of Quality & Accreditation Department, MKH, MOH, Kuwait
Mobile: 00965-65198442 - E mail: dr_hossam_elamir@hotmail.com
Linkedin URL: kw.linkedin.com/pub/hossam-elamir/b2/97b/296
I. Background
Culture is a group personality resulted from people’s interactions over time and planted by the organisation founder’s effect.[1]
A 2ry care hospital’s Quality department culture was assessed using Goffee
& Jones’ tool. Depending on levels of solidarity (task-based) and sociability (people-based), G&J present Double S Model that identify 4 cultures: Networked (high sociability, low solidarity), Communal
(high sociability & solidarity), Fragmented (low sociability & solidarity) and Mercenary (low sociability, high solidarity) (Fig. 1). The tool is composed of 4 analysis parts, the first two look at Physical
space, Time, Communication and Identity, while the second two assess the culture impact. Plotting person’s behaviour along 2 dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness identifies 5 conflict
handling modes: compromising, accommodating, competing, avoiding and collaborating (Fig. 2). A 3rd tool assessing the leadership style gives scores for task and people-oriented dimensions (Fig. 3).
UNASSERTIVEASSERTIVE
UNCOOPERATIVE COOPERATIVE
COLLABORATINGCOMPETING
COMPROMISING
AVOIDING ACCOMODATING
COOPERATIVENESS
ASSERTIVENESS
Fig. 2: Conflict-Handling Modes[3]
Author
Response
Staff
Response
ThePositiveImpact
1. We challenge each other, this keeps them aroused
2. We talk and share ideas, this keeps them informed and
creative
3. We share gains and celebrate success
4. We have “learning from error” environment
5. We have “prove it to me” environment
6. The work discussion doesn’t conquest the social life
7. Our friendship doesn’t force us to accept low
performance
8. We believe in our values
9. We share pains equitably
TheNegativeImpact
1. Staff are very loyal to the director, this affects their
ability to work with any substitute
2. We help each other regardless the benefit to the work
3. We value our credo to the extent that we don’t want to
change it under any circumstances
4. We are not flexible with external changes
5. Staff are feeling insecure regarding their job
Fig. 7: The Culture Impact Analysis
Two Dimensions, Four Cultures
low
low high
high
Sociability
Solidarity
Networked Communal
MercenaryFragmented
Fig. 1: G&J Double S Model[2]
Fig. 3: T-P Leadership-Style Profile[4]
Autocratic
Leadership
Shared
Leadership
High Morale
Laissez-Faire
Leadership
High Morale
10
15
10
15
20
5
5
Low
Medium
High
High Productivity
Task-Oriented People-Oriented
100%75%
LOW
25%0%
M EDIUM HIGH
PERCENTILE SCOREMODE RAW
SCORE
ACCOMMODATING 6 75%
COMPETING 5 45%
COMPROMISING 10 90%
AVOIDING 4 22%
COLLABORATING 5 17%
Fig. 4: Author’s Preferred Conflict-handling Modes
Fig. 5: Author’s Leadership-Style
10
15
10
15
20
5
5
Low
Medium
High
Task-Oriented People-Oriented
+
Physical Space Communication Time Identity
low
low high
high
Sociability
Solidarity
Networked Communal
MercenaryFragmented
Fig. 6: Author & Staff Responses To Culture Analysis
=
Fig. 8: The Staff Celebrating Their Win