Management of Differences Inventory

Abstract

The Management of Differences Inventory (MODI) is a 36-item psychological scale developed by H. S. Kindler in 1981. It is designed to assess and analyze an individual’s preferred style for managing differences, disagreements, and workplace conflict management. By asking respondents to divide points between paired statements describing reactions to work-related disagreements, the MODI maps individual behavior onto two critical dimensions: Viewpoint flexibility and Interaction intensity. These dimensions collectively define nine distinct approaches or strategies utilized in organizational settings for resolving differences. The inventory provides a detailed profile of the respondent’s conflict resolution style.

Keywords

Management of Differences Inventory, MODI, Conflict Resolution, Organizational Behavior, Viewpoint Flexibility, Interaction Intensity, Managerial Assessment, Disagreement Style, Workplace Conflict, Collaboration.

Authors

H. S. Kindler

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Management of Differences Inventory (MODI) is to provide employees, particularly managers, with an insightful analysis of their typical style when confronted with disagreements on work-related issues. The scale helps individuals understand their reactive patterns and strategic choices when their views diverge from those of colleagues or stakeholders.

By quantifying responses across 36 paired items, the MODI aims to illuminate the underlying mechanisms that drive an individual’s approach to managing differences. This self-assessment is intended to enhance self-awareness, improve interpersonal effectiveness, and facilitate the development of more constructive organizational behavior and conflict resolution skills.

Construct

The MODI measures the construct of Conflict Management Style as defined by two orthogonal dimensions: Viewpoint flexibility and Interaction intensity. These dimensions form the basis for classifying nine specific approaches to conflict resolution.

• Viewpoint Flexibility: This dimension reflects how open an individual is to changing or adjusting their initial position. It captures the perceived importance and attainability of the person’s own position, alongside their willingness to learn and incorporate other points of view into the resolution process. A high score suggests an openness to adaptation and learning.
• Interaction Intensity: This dimension measures the degree of personal involvement and the desired type of relationship outcome during the conflict resolution process. It reflects how actively and assertively the individual engages in the interaction and whether the desired outcome is collaborative, dominant, or accommodative.

These two dimensions define nine specific approaches for managing differences. For each approach, the inventory provides explanations concerning intents, processes, practical applications, and examples. The nine approaches identified are:

• maintain
• smooth
• dominate
• decide by rule
• coexist
• bargain
• yield
• release
• collaborate

Validity

While specific statistical validity coefficients (e.g., criterion or predictive validity) are not detailed in the available abstract, the scale’s construct validity is grounded in the empirical derivation of its core dimensions. The structure of the MODI emerged from the systematic analysis of how managers report preparing to deal with work-related disagreements.

The two resulting dimensions, Viewpoint flexibility and Interaction intensity, provide a theoretically robust framework consistent with established models of conflict management styles, such as those focusing on assertiveness versus cooperativeness. The subsequent definition of nine distinct behavioral approaches further supports the scale’s ability to differentiate between various conflict handling strategies in a work context.

Reliability

Specific data regarding the internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) or test-retest reliability of the Management of Differences Inventory were not provided in the source entry. Reliable application of the instrument depends on the clarity of the items and the consistent interpretation of the frequency scoring system by respondents.

Factor Analysis

The development of the MODI utilized the responses of the initial sample group to identify the foundational structure of conflict management behavior. Based on the responses of over 200 managers detailing their preparation for dealing with divergent views on work-related issues, an exploratory analysis revealed the emergence of two primary factors: Viewpoint flexibility and Interaction intensity. These two factors serve as the organizing dimensions for the entire inventory and its nine behavioral approaches.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report behavioral inventory; Forced-choice/Paired comparison assessment

Format: 36 items, each consisting of two alternative statements (A and B). Respondents divide 3 points between the two alternatives based on frequency of use.

Language Available: English (Original Publication)

Population Group: Employees, specifically managers and professionals dealing with organizational differences.

Age Group: Adult (Working professionals)

Population Details: Initial sample based on over 200 managers.

Test Methodology: The scale uses a distribution scoring method where respondents allocate three points between two options (A and B) to indicate the relative frequency of each behavior. Scoring options are: Very often = 3; Moderately often = 2; Occasionally = 1; and Rarely or Never = 0. The total score for A plus B must equal 3 for each item pair. The output includes a profile indicating the management style, scoring for the two dimensions (Viewpoint flexibility and Interaction intensity), and an explanation for each of the nine approaches.

Keywords

H. S. Kindler, Organizational Behavior, Conflict Style Assessment, Management Effectiveness, Bargain, Collaborate, Compromise, Viewpoint Flexibility, Interaction Intensity.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Center for Management Effectiveness, Pacific Palisades, CA.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1981

Publisher: Center for Management Effectiveness, Pacific Palisades, CA.

Permissions and Fees: Information regarding current licensing and fees must be obtained directly from the publisher or copyright holder.

Reference’s

Kindler, H. S. (1981). Management of Differences Inventory. Pacific Palisades, CA: Center for Management Effectiveness.

Filley, A. C. (1978). Some normative issues in conflict management. California Management Review 63.

Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly 296–320.

Schmidt, W. H., and Tannenbaum, R. (1960). Management of differences. Harvard Business Review 107.

Items of the Management of Differences Inventory

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

1. A. I let emotions and tensions cool before taking decisive action.
B. We find some formula or other criteria we both agree on.

2. A. I assert myself to gain what I’m after.
B. We jointly develop a mutually agreeable plan that merges both views.
3. A. I follow my view, and the other person follows his or her view.
B. I give in on some points to get my way on others.
4. A. I place more emphasis on similarities and less emphasis on differences.
B. We find logical rules we both agree on as the basis for our decision.
5. A. We take action that lets both parties retain their positions, at least on an interim basis.
B. Within agreed-upon limits, I give control to the other person.
6. A. I gain agreement for my position by avoiding detail on which we may disagree.
B. I try solutions proposed by the other person.
7. A. I push to have my approach or my ideas prevail.
B. I go along with the other person’s view.
8. A. We work out a fair combination of gains and losses for both of us.
B. I get both our concerns out in the open, and we problem solve together.
9. A. I wait until I feel better prepared to take action.
B. I let the other person come up with the plan.
10. A. I avoid unnecessary problems by delaying action.
B. We agree to disagree, at least for a while or on an experimental basis.
11. A. I sell the person who disagrees with me on accepting my view by emphasizing its positive features.
B. I fully express my ideas and feelings, and urge the other person to do the same.
12. A. We find some formula to resolve our differences.
B. We find solutions in which gains balance out losses for both parties.
13. A. I do what it takes to get my ideas accepted.
B. I allow the other person, within limits, to resolve our issue.
14. A. We mutually agree on rules or procedures to resolve our differences.
B. I accommodate myself to the other person’s view.
15. A. I gain compliance to my views.
B. We acknowledge and allow each other’s differences.
16. A. I go along with the views of the other person.
B. We work together to integrate ideas of both persons.
17. A. I minimize presenting information that makes my position less attractive.
B. Within a given framework, I let the other person handle the issue.
18. A. I wait until I have more information or emotions cool.
B. We find a mutually acceptable compromise by which to resolve our differences.
19. A. I delay suggesting changes until the timing feels right.
B. I don’t resist the views of the other person.
20. A. We find mutually agreeable procedures (such as taking a vote or an appropriate test).
B. We find ways to jointly reframe our differences to satisfy both our needs.
21. A. I give in on some points if I believe the other person will reciprocate.
B. I state my expectation and concerns and let the other person work out a solution.
22. A. I show the other person that in the final analysis our views aren’t very different.
B. I give the other person a turn or concession if I believe he or she will do the same for me.

23. A. We find ways that allow each of us to pursue our individual viewpoints.
B. We find solutions that take both our views into account.
24. A. I deal with differences only after waiting until I feel the time is right.
B. I act in ways that advance my position.
25. A. We mutually agree on a rule or procedure that will decide the issue.
B. We find ways in which we can both pursue our respective points of view.
26. A. I yield to the other person’s views.
B. Given acceptable boundaries, I am willing to have the other person handle the issue.
27. A. I prevail on the other person to change his or her mind.
B. I establish an objective basis with the other person for resolving our differences.
28. A. I put off dealing with our differences until I have enough information.
B. I resolve our differences by emphasizing where we are not so far apart in our thinking.
29. A. We settle our differences by working out a compromise solution.
B. I accommodate myself to the other person’s approach.
30. A. I point out that our differences aren’t substantial enough to argue over.
B. I oppose the other person’s view.
31. A. I defer making changes until I have adequate support.
B. We find new perspectives that satisfy both our needs.
32. A. I express some, but not all the negative aspects of my position.
B. I get agreement from the other person to live with our differences, at least for a period of time.
33. A. We jointly agree to accept a criterion or the decision of a third party as the basis for resolving our differences.
B. Within stated bounds, I encourage the other person to take the initiative.
34. A. I play to win.
B. I make adjustments when the other person is willing to do the same.
35. A. I urge the other person to take the initiative within defined limits.
B. We integrate the ideas expressed by both individuals.
36. A. We agree to follow our separate paths until joint action seems feasible.
B. I go along with the other person’s ideas.