Managing conflicts among non academic staff at Universiti Teknologi Mara Jengka, Pahang / Tuan Zamilah Tuan Husain and Zawin Najwa Rohmat

Individuals who are facing conflicts at workplace might have reacted differently as a result from having different situational variables and personality. Conflict is defined as an event that was expressed through communication when individuals or groups at workplace behave in ways which indicated that they had incompatible positions or goals. The study conducted has discovered the significant types of conflict, causes of conflict, the effects of conflict and styles of handling conflict taken to manage conflicts among non academic staff at Universiti Teknologi Mara Jengka, Pahang. The total population was 313, however, only 30 respondents or (10%) were involved in the study which comprised of male (63.3%) and female (36.7%). The five types of conflicts described were pseudo conflict, fact conflict, value conflict, policy conflict and ego conflict. The findings showed that respondents with the average mean of 2.2000 faced the value conflict. As said by Verderber (2004), the types of value conflicts occurs in two situations which is when people differ on what they believe is good or bad and when people differ in priority they assign to a value they agree on. It is proven that the respondents did not have any conflict in the organization. With the mean of 2.4500, the main factor that leads to conflict was differences in personal or professional goals and objective. It was followed by miscommunication with the mean of 2.58. Referring to the effect of conflicts in the study, there was an increase in not creative solve problems with the mean of 2.4000. The other effect was not improving motivation among the respondents when they were solving problems. Finally, the respondents prefer to accommodating in order to resolve conflicts among them with the mean score of 4.1167. It is the cooperative but assertive method of problem solving. Verderber (2004) stated that accommodating preserves friendly relationships but fails to protect personal right. People learn and understand each other better and could work closely when they accommodate.