Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory II

Abstract

The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory II (ROCI II) is a widely utilized 35-item instrument designed to assess an individual’s preferred modes for managing interpersonal conflict within an organizational setting. Developed by M. A. Rahim, the scale specifically measures how executives and managers handle conflict across three distinct relational contexts: with superiors (boss), subordinates, and peers. The ROCI II operationalizes five fundamental conflict management styles, providing a comprehensive diagnostic tool for organizational behavior research.

Keywords

Conflict Management Styles, Organizational Conflict, ROCI II, Integrating, Obliging, Dominating, Avoiding, Compromising, Interpersonal Conflict, Organizational Behavior.

Authors

M. A. Rahim, C. Psenicka

Purpose

The primary purpose of the ROCI II is to measure the degree to which individuals utilize specific strategies when handling conflicts in the workplace. By structuring the instrument to target interactions with superiors, subordinates, and peers separately, the scale allows researchers and practitioners to identify variations in conflict handling styles based on hierarchical relationships.

This inventory is crucial for diagnosing individual tendencies toward different conflict resolution strategies, thereby facilitating training and intervention efforts aimed at improving organizational effectiveness and reducing destructive conflict.

Construct

The ROCI II measures five distinct modes of conflict management, derived from the two fundamental dimensions of concern for self and concern for others. These modes represent a behavioral typology for handling organizational conflict, reflecting where an individual positions themselves along these two dimensions:

• Integrating: High concern for self and others (problem-solving).
• Obliging: Low concern for self, high concern for others (accommodating).
• Dominating: High concern for self, low concern for others (forcing).
• Avoiding: Low concern for self and others (withdrawing).
• Compromising: Moderate concern for self and others (sharing/middle ground).

Validity

The scale’s validity was primarily investigated through statistical methods designed to test the discriminatory power of the five conflict scales across different relational groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and discriminant functions analysis were employed to determine if the executive’s conflict handling style varied significantly when interacting with a boss, subordinates, or peers.

A key finding involved the attempt to cross-validate the discriminant functions. This analysis revealed that the functions correctly classified 52 percent of the cases into the three managerial relationship groups, providing evidence that the ROCI II scales possess a degree of predictive and discriminative validity regarding relational context.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was established for the five constituent factors of the ROCI II. The five scales obtained satisfactory alpha coefficients ranging from 0.72 to 0.77. These values suggest that the items comprising each scale are internally homogeneous and consistently measure the intended conflict management style with acceptable precision for organizational research.

Factor Analysis

The underlying structure of the ROCI II was confirmed through factor analysis. Five distinct factors were extracted using a principal factoring method combined with a varimax rotation. This procedure successfully identified the five hypothesized scales, which collectively accounted for a substantial 89 percent of the total common variance observed in the data.

To ensure robust scale construction, only items exhibiting factor loadings greater than 0.40 were retained on their respective factors. The five resulting scales—integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising—align theoretically with the five conflict handling modes proposed by Rahim’s model.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Psychological Inventory

Format: 35 items presented as incomplete sentences, requiring the respondent to fill in the blank with “boss,” “subordinates,” or “peers” before responding, thus assessing behavior across specific relational contexts.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Executives and Managers

Age Group: Adult (Working Professionals)

Population Details: The validation sample included 1,219 executives representing 25 different industries. Respondents covered top, middle, and lower management levels. The sample was predominantly male, including only 50 women.

Test Methodology: Respondents evaluate their typical behavior based on the specific relational context defined by the prompt (e.g., “I try to investigate into an issue with my [boss/subordinates/peers]…”).

Keywords

ROCI II, Rahim, Organizational Conflict Inventory, Conflict Style, Integrating, Dominating, Avoiding, Obliging, Organizational Management, Executive Assessment.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1983 (Initial publication of the ROCI II instrument).

Permissions and Fee: The instrument was published by Consulting Psychologists Press (Palo Alto, CA), indicating that permissions and associated fees are typically required for official use and distribution.

Reference’s

• Askew, R. W. (2011). The hospital frontline nurses’ number of conflict styles as a predictor of self-reported perception of conflict. PhD dissertation, University of Mississippi Medical Center.
• Bartlett, M. E. (2009). Workplace incivility and conflict management styles of community college leaders in nine mega states. PhD dissertation, Clemson University.
• Kimencu. L. (2011). Leadership orientations and conflict management styles of academic deans in masters degree institutions. EdD dissertation, West Virginia University.
• Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory II. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Rahim, M. A., and Psenicka, C. (1984). Comparison of reliability and validity of unweighted and factor scales. Psychological Reports 55:439–45.
• Warren, K. B. (2005). Differences in conflict management styles of leaders in hierarchical and congregational organizational structures. PhD dissertation, Regent University.

Items of the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory II

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. I try to investigate into an issue with my to find a solution acceptable to us.
2. I generally try to satisfy the needs of my .
3. I attempt to avoid being “put on the spot” and try to keep my conflict with my to myself.
4. I try to integrate my ideas with those of my to come up with a decision jointly.
5. I give some to get some.
6. I try to work with my to find solutions to a problem which satisfy our expectations.
7. I usually avoid open discussion of my differences with my .
8. I usually hold on to my solution to a problem.
9. I try to find a middle course to resolve an impasse.
10. I use my influence to get my ideas accepted.
11. I use my authority to make a decision in my favor.
12. I usually accommodate the wishes of my .
13. I give in to the wishes of my .
14. I win some and I lose some.
15. I exchange accurate information with my to solve a problem together.
16. I sometimes help my to make a decision in his favor.
17. I usually allow concessions to my .
18. I argue my case with my to show the merits of my position.
19. I try to play down our differences to reach a compromise.
20. I usually propose a middle ground for breaking deadlocks.
21. I negotiate with my so that a compromise can be reached.
22. I try to stay away from disagreement with my .
23. I avoid an encounter with my .
24. I use my expertise to make a decision in my favor.
25. I often go along with the suggestions of my .
26. I use “give and take” so that a compromise can be made.
27. I am generally firm in pursuing my side of the issue.
28. I try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved in the best possible way.
29. I collaborate with my to come up with decisions acceptable to us.
30. I try to satisfy the expectations of my .
31. I sometimes use my power to win a competitive situation.
32. I try to keep my disagreement with my to myself in order to avoid hard feelings.
33. I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my .
34. I generally avoid an argument with my .
35. I try to work with my for a proper understanding of a problem.