The influence of the need for closure on managerial third‐party dispute intervention

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate how third‐party managers' cognitive need (motivational tendency) for closure influences their decisions on how to intervene in conflict.Design/methodology/approachThe data were collected from 61 undergraduate business students. All participants had managerial experience and may represent future managers. Participants read a scenario describing a hypothetical conflict between members of a project team and evaluated the likelihood of choosing different strategies to intervene in the conflict.FindingsResults showed that individuals with a high need for closure were more likely to choose an autocratic procedure and less likely to choose mediation than individuals with a low need for closure. The option of letting disputants resolve the conflict themselves was somewhat unattractive to those with a high need for closure.Research limitations/implicationsThe use of a scenario approach may limit the generalizability of the results. Future studies should examine the need for closure in field settings. The results of this study extend the theory of managerial dispute resolution by showing how individual difference factors influence the choice of conflict intervention strategies.Practical implicationsThe ability to manage conflict effectively is critical for third‐party managers. Managers need to understand how their need (or motivation) for closure influences how they choose to intervene in conflict. These choices influence managerial effectiveness.Originality/valueThis is one of the first papers to examine the influence of individual difference factors, such as the cognitive need for closure, on the choice of managerial conflict intervention strategies.