Relationships Among School-Based Agriculture Educators in Multi-Teacher Departments: Managing Conflict and Competition

Abstract

This research aimed to identify situational factors causing conflict among multiple School-Based Agriculture Education (SBAE) teachers. This research explores non-traditional variables, such as attribution, which affect teacher longevity and success. While many SBAE programs have a single teacher managing various responsibilities within the agricultural education model, larger school systems often feature multi-teacher departments and workgroups. Boone and Boone (2009) highlighted critical challenges for SBAE teachers, including opportunities to improve relationships with faculty and peers. It investigated whether conflict management and resolution skills are taught in educator preparation programs, SBAE teacher associations, and the school systems where SBAE teachers work. SBAE teachers were surveyed on several topics, including the professional duties outlined in the 3-Circle model, positive and negative perspectives on teaching partners, interworking measures, and potential causes of dysfunction in multi-teacher settings. The survey also included questions from the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. The findings indicated that SBAE teachers primarily employed avoiding and compromising conflict management modes in their professional interactions.

Full text

Relationships Among School-Based Agriculture Educators in Multi-Teacher Departments:
Managing Conflict and Competition
by
Andra Collins
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
Auburn University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Auburn, Alabama
December 14, 2024
Keywords: attribution theory, conflict management assessment,
conflict modes, organizational psychology, organizational health
Copyright 2024 by Andra Collins
Approved by
Jason McKibben, Chair, Assistant Professor, Agriscience Education
James Lindner, Alumni Professor, Agriscience Education
Christopher Clemmons, Associate Professor, Agriscience Education
David Chapman, Instructor, Agriscience Education

2
Abstract
This research aimed to identify situational factors causing conflict among multiple
School-Based Agriculture Education (SBAE) teachers. It explores non-traditional variables, such
as conflict management through the lens of attribution theory, which affect teacher longevity and
success. The dynamics of teacher relationships in multi-teacher departments are complex and can
lead to elevated levels of efficacy and notable ineffectiveness (Vallone et al., 2022). While many
SBAE programs have a single teacher managing various responsibilities within the agricultural
education model, larger school systems often feature multi-teacher departments and workgroups.
Boone and Boone (2009) highlighted critical challenges for SBAE teachers, including
opportunities to improve relationships with faculty and peers. This research investigates the
factors contributing to conflict in multi-teacher departments. It investigated whether conflict
management and resolution skills are taught in educator preparation programs, SBAE teacher
associations, and the school systems where SBAE teachers work. SBAE teachers were surveyed
on several topics, including the professional duties outlined in the 3-Circle model, positive and
negative perspectives on teaching partners, interworking measures, and potential causes of
dysfunction in multi-teacher settings. The survey instrument also included questions from the
Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. The findings indicated that SBAE teachers
primarily employed avoiding and compromising conflict management modes in their
professional interactions.

3
Acknowledgments
I want first to testify as the older adults did in my church growing up… giving honor to
God, who is the head of my life… I want to say thank you! This all seems surreal. Surveys, data
collection, number analysis, editing, and reading… a lot! I never would have imagined that a
little girl from third ward Houston, who struggles with math concepts (algebra and I now get
along), would have made it to the end of her doctoral program, but I DID! And for that, God, I
thank you. I never envisioned how planting a seed in a pot on my patio would have germinated
years later into a supervised agriculture experience in the form of a lamb named Waylin after the
country-western singer, propelled me into a 20-year career in agriculture education. Agriculture,
I love you deeply. I want to thank my mom, Laura, for purchasing that lamb for me in the 11th
grade. I wish you and Daddy were here to be part of this physical journey, but you two watch
over me daily. I hope that I am making you proud and honoring your legacy. Thank you to Aunt
Mary and Uncle William for always praying for and rooting for me.
To my son, Jeremiah Johnson, I love and adore you more than anything earthly. Being a
parent is not the easiest role, but it is the most rewarding. Earning this degree shows that your
gift will make room for you if you find your passion and work within it. Jeremiah, you are God’s
goodness and mercy, which shall follow you throughout your life. Jeremiah 29:11 is your
namesake; stand on that. To my dog, Chase, thank you for being the most loyal study
companion.
To my sister Mia, niece Kemia, and nephew Holden, I love you. Thanks for always
supporting me and manifesting that I would be a “professor” 20 years ago. Thank you for
allowing me to impart wisdom from my experiences into your life. Thank you for always making

4
me feel like I am the best since they invented the telephone; you all make me feel invincible. Our
unit is small, but we are mighty.
To my besties…
Michele Simon, you introduced me to country music, Garth Brooks, and Brooks & Dunn,
unknowingly preparing me to quickly assimilate into the agriculture industry through my love
for music. Thanks for being that sister-friend and momma-daughter and for a unique set of skills
that intertwine friendship and soulmates. Since the eighth grade, we have been rocking; we are
going to the last day on this earth, and I am grateful. Lyssa Burrell Harris, big sister, OG. This
relationship is rare. I do not know anyone who gets to have a non-related person ride so hard for
them for 40+ years. You have been there for every stage of development in my life. Everyone
should be blessed to have a sister-friend like you, the most accurate philosopher of life. Everyone
should find them, Michele and Lyssa, quickly; your world will be much better with one of these
friends walking beside you. I love you deeply to the OG baddies brunching crew- Krystal,
Ashley, and Kristin. Kiska, welcome to the crew. Thank you for always supporting me and
embracing me.
To my partner, Montrell, I thank you! I did not end this doctoral journey the way I started
it. I am so grateful for you and the balance you bring to my life. You lead us with integrity and
are always so thoughtful in your actions. I want to spend the next 50 years with you. You have
brought everything in my life into alignment under your leadership, and I love that for us. I thank
God for you daily. I appreciate your caring for me and your support as we walked into the
unknown. I look forward to spas, lodging, blueberries, flower farms, and lots of wine with you. I
love you. Another thank you to Mrs. Julia Tyler; that time around the table and working in your
kitchen meant more to me than you will ever know.

5
To my people on my Ag Ed journey, I have been blessed to have you walk alongside me,
pushing me and helping to create a safe place for me. From undergrad at Prairie View A&M:
Demond Spiller, Mr. Horace Hodge, Dr. Alfred Parks, Dr. Cecil Strickland, Dr. Wash Jones, Dr.
Freddie Richards, Kelvin Neal, Dr. Dalton McWhinney, Dexter Arkadie, Dennis Thomas, Angie
Richardson, Lawrence Phillips, Dr. Jaki Sanders, Dr. TeKedra Pierre, Dr. Gerard D’Souza,
Jacorey Burnett, Dr. Tenelnger Abrom-Johnson, BruKendra Fillmore, Dwight Rhodes, and the
entire PVAMU family, I love you. You made me an agriculturalist by letting me find the joy in
agriculture. Sam Houston State: Dr. Doug Ullrich, Joanna Crumpton, Cole Young, Lindsey
Marek, and Edwina Martin, thank you for helping me during that next stage of growth. SHSU
made me an AG teacher. I have been stationed by the Owl for 20 years, and this is the most
rewarding career that God blessed me to operate in. Auburn University: Clare Hancock, Garret
Hancock, LaDonna Withrow; since that first summer we connected, we always helped each other
“figure it out.” I am so grateful for each of you and your role in this doctoral process.
To my “black man can” ag teacher coalition, Derrick Coffee, Kevin Parker, Jerome
Jones, and Marcus Walker, I was ok with being the first because I always had all of you. To the
ag teachers in Aldine ISD, collaborating with you for over 15 years has been an honor.
To my library chronicles crew: Jackie Steward, Michelle Bowman-Harper, and Rukia
Scott-Perry, I know I could not have mentally survived as long as I did at BOD HS without you
sharing every business day with me. This circle we have is strong, and we will stay connected
forever.
To Texas FFA and the Texas FFA Foundation…
God created agriculture, and then he fashioned a farmer. A thought was sparked to create
a science for this practice of growing food. Then, we extended the practice when we realized we

6
must teach all people the science and practice of producing agricultural commodities, including
youth, and vocational agriculture was created. Where would I be if I had not experienced the
power of FFA in the 11th grade? That lamb, that one poster, and that one meeting in an extension
master gardener research plot changed my life. I will forever be stationed by the Owl. A special
thank you to Aaron Alejandro and Austin Large for always seeing the best in me and giving me
unwavering support. To my ag teachers Melissa (Denner) Wiesepape, Nikki (Calloway) Reed,
and Bubba Schultz, thank you for letting a young lady join the blue jacket crew. You are
advisors who can see the greatness in students, which is a unique gift; I am grateful for each of
you.
To those people who have given me a smile, a hug, a word of encouragement, and just
flat-out kind to me on this journey, I thank you. Jessica Gray, Ashlee Lawson, Wacey Lane
Horton, Adam Graham, Kyle Gilbert, Vanessa Kelsey, Gerald Young, Dr. Kirk Edney, Dr. Gary
Briers, Dr. Julie Harlin, Chanda Elbert, Kassie Crow, Kelly White, Les Harris, Liz Treptow,
Bonnie Beard, Rashayla McIntosh, Jeff Klose, Vanessa Brossman-Collier, Barney McClure,
Christy Capps; Hunter & Rhonda Morgan, Brittany Wilson, Becky DeShazo, Dr. Alvin Larke,
Chansi Coleman, Toshiba Traynham, Dr. John Denson and Dr. Ashley Yopp Meros. If I missed
anyone, it was not intentional.
To my research buddy from across the states at another university, Kendrick Spencer,
you were the most unexpected connection I needed. Thank you!
To my students, I have had the honor of teaching thousands of students for 20 years. I
have not taken the responsibility and spiritual calling lightly. If I could jump into a time machine
and start my life all over again, I would come back and be each one of your teachers again.
While you were learning from me, I grew with you, and no words can truly describe what it feels

7
like to be an ag teacher. Thanks to Denise Edmondson, Karina Quezada, Daniela Sanchez, Jabari
Mackey, and Juan Vasquez for becoming more like family; our bond is strong. Thank you to the
Gonzalez, Sanchez, Jordan, Luna, and LaGrone families for trusting my leadership style. I am
endeared to the Benjamin O. Davis Jr. HS FFA Class of 2015. I love each of you deeply. This
group of young people was completely sold out for me; this was the first time I had experienced
synergy like ours.
To my committee chair and committee…
Thank you, Dr. Clemons, for brainstorming with me during those summer hybrid courses.
To Dr. Lindner, an ag education godfather, thank you for educating me and helping me to realize
the importance of agriculture literacy. Dr. Chapman, your course that covered the history of
agriculture education has better prepared me for any career path I may take in our profession. Dr.
Cletzer, thank you for exposing me to the discourse of adaptive leadership; I can now describe
and detail my personality and leadership approach. To my friend, fellow Owl, and colleague,
thank you! Dr. McKibben, you are a part of my circle. We all forge a path that leads us to
various places where we meet different people. I am so glad that a Louisiana boy went to Texas
to teach Ag and landed a job in sweet home Alabama, unknowingly preparing a place for me.
War Eagle!
In memory of my parents, Robert and Laura Collins,
Cindy Swanner-Johnson, Jade Youngblood, and Melanie Henderson.

8
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….…....…..2
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….…............3
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………..……...........13
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………….…….......15
List of Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………...….15
Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………...........16
The Abstraction of Conflict……………………………………………………………….….….17
Individualistic Cultures versus Collective Cultures………………………………………....…...19
Relationship Conflict versus Task Conflict………………………………………………..….....21
Emergent States versus Process Conflict…………………………………………….…….….....22
Emergent States……………………………………………………………………….……..…..23
Processes of Conflict……………………………………………………………….……….…...23
Team Collaboration………………………………………………………….….…..….. 25
Team Competition……………………………………………………………….…...… 26
Team Avoidance……………………………………………………………….…..…… 27
Team Openness………………………………………………………………….…...…. 28
Interpersonal Conflict……………………………………………………………………..…..…30
Is Conflict Functional or Dysfunctional?......................................................................................31
How is Conflict Managed?............................................................................................................32
Psychological Safety………………………………………………………………….….…....…33
Consequences of Unmanaged Conflict…………………………………………………….....….34
The Impact of Conflict Management Training on Teacher Interactions……………..….….…...36

9
Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………….….…...36
Defining the Duties of a SBAE Teacher…………………………………………………....…...37
Interworking…………………………………………………………………………….........….39
Conflict and the SBAE Teacher…………………………………………………………....…....40
Limitations of this Study……………………………………………………………....................42
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………..……….....43
Chapter Summary……………………………………………………………..……...................47
Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………………………………..…...........48
The SBAE Teachers’ Association’s Psychology………………………………….…….........…50
Organizational Psychology…………………………………………………………….…......…50
Attribution Theory ………………………………………..….…………………….….…...........53
Theories and Models of Attribution ………………………………………………..……....…...54
The 3-Dimensional Model …………………………………………………………..,……...…..56
Three-Stage Process to Make Attributions …………………………………………...…............57
Controllability ……………………………………………………...……….....…...........57
Stable versus Unstable…………………………………………………………….......…58
X Marks the Spot…………………………………………………………….....……......59
Covariation………………………………………………………..........................................…..62
Interpretations, Explanations, and Blame………………………………………..…..…..............63
Attributions that may be Triggering Conflict ……………………………..……….….….….….64
Causal Motivations………………………………………………………………..…....…....…..64
Interpretations and Attitudes…………………………………………………….……..…..........65
Inherited Traits that Influence Attribution ………………………………………..…..…….......67

10
Attribution in SBAE Teachers’ Tasks and Roles……………………….……….…..….……...69
Conflict Management Modes and Attribution…………………………………….…...............70
Examining the Relationship between Conflict Management Modes Training and
SBAE Teachers' Experiences…………………………………………………………..…..….73
Chapter Summary……………………………………………………………………...............77
Chapter 3 Methods…………………………………………………………………….….…....79
Research Approach and Design…………………………………………………..……............79
Population and Sample………………………………………………………….……..…..…...79
Contact and Distribution……………………………………………………..……...…….…....80
Instrumentation………………………………………………………….……….………….….81
Reliability and Validity……………………………………………………………..…..…........83
Content & Face Validity………………………………………………………….……….…....85
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………….…...……………85
Chapter Summary……………………………………………………………….…….………...87
Chapter 4 Findings…………………………………………………………………….....…...…89
Overview…………………………………………………………………………...….…...........89
Research Objective 1……………………………………………………………..………...…...89
Research Objective 2………………………………………………………………..……..……92
Research Objective 3……………………………………………………………...........….……93
Problem Solver…………………………………………………………….......…..……98
Compromiser…………..…………………………………………………...……...……98
Accommodator…………………………………………………………….…..……..…99
Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………………….......100

11
Chapter 5 Discussions and Conclusion………………………………………………….……..101
Connection to Research Objective 1………………………………………………………...…101
Demographic Insights and Implications……………………………………………….…….…102
Connection to Research Objective 2……………………………………………….……..……105
Connection to the Profession…………………………………………………………………..106
Efficacy and Accessibility of Conflict Management Training…………………………….…..109
Connection to Research Objective 3…………………………………………………….……..111
Utilization and Effectiveness of Conflict Management Modes…………………………….….112
Relationships and Conflict Management Styles…………………………………….................113
Reasons to Use the Avoider and Compromiser Mode……………………………..…….....….113
Reasons to use Competitor Mode…………………………………………………………...…115
Would SBAE teachers admit that they are Competitive?..........................................................116
Impact on Professional Relationships and Environment…………………………....…….…...121
Connection to Attribution Theory………………………………………………....………..…122
Connection to Efficacy……………………………………………………………....……..….123
Connection to Attribution Styles………………………………………………….………......124
Strategies to Manage Conflict………………………………………………….…..….…...….127
Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………….….....…...…127
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….….…...........130
Chapter Summary…………………………………………………………………...………...133
References………………………………………………………………………..……..…….134
Appendix 1 Exempt Review IRB Application………………………………………….….…159
Appendix 2 Instrument………………………………………………………………….….…171
Appendix 3 Citi Training………………………………………………………………..…….177

12
Appendix 4 Solicitation Letters………………………………………………………….……192
Appendix 5 Informed Consent ……………………………………...…………………….…..200

13
List of Tables
Table 1……………………………………………………………………………………….…90
Table 2………………………………………………………………………………………….93
Table 3……………………………………………………………………………….…………93
Table 4………………………………………………………………………………………….94
Table 5………………………………………………………………………………………….96
Table 6………………………………………………………………………………………….97
Table 7……………………………………………………………………………………….…97
Table 8……………………………………………………………………………….………....98
Table 9………………………………………………………………………………...………116
Table 10……………………………………………………………………………….………118

14
List of Figures
Figure 1 The SBAE Teacher 3-Circle Model Diagram…………………….………….……....52
Figure 2 The Attribution Process………………………………….………..……………….…56
Figure 3 Weiner’s Attribution Theory ……………………………………….…………….….58
Figure 4 Internal and External Causes of Attributions……..………………….…………...…..61
Figure 5 Kelly’s Covariation Model…………………………………………….………….….65
Figure 6 Thomas & Kilmann Conflict Modes Model…………………………….……….…...73

15
List of Abbreviations
ATAT Agriculture Teachers Association of Texas
SBAE School-Based Agriculture Education
TKI Thomas & Kilmann Conflict Modes Assessment Instrument

16
Chapter 1
Introduction
Teacher relationships in multi-teacher departments have many dynamics that can lead to
varying levels of efficacy and ineffectiveness (Vallone et al., 2022). The synergistic effect of
accomplishing an FFA advisor’s goal, such as the advancement of a leadership development
event (LDE) team, can feel euphoric and give feelings of task attainment; in contrast, when there
is conflict in a school-based, multi-teacher department, training an LDE team can create issues of
competing and division between advisors (Solomonson et al., 2019). Numerous school-based
agriculture education (SBAE) programs have one teacher who balances the duties of the
agriculture education model. However, larger school systems have higher occurrences of multi-
teacher departments and work groups (Eck & Edwards, 2019). While SBAE teachers have the
potential to transform their communities and produce life-changing student outcomes, SBAE
teams also face the inevitability of conflict (DeChurch et al., 2013). There is a need for research
that explains how an SBAE teacher can support themselves within a multi-person group dynamic
(Newburgh, 2019). Research addressing the intersection of personal coaching and professional
training, including conflict resolution, within multi-teacher departments for SBAE teachers is
minimal.

17
The Abstraction of Conflict
Conflict is an amorphous term whose definition has as much to do with the culture of the
person defining it as it does with the person experiencing it (Himes, 2008). De Drue and Gelfand
(2008) described conflict as a natural process that arises when an individual or group perceives
differences and opposition between themselves and others regarding interests, resources, beliefs,
values, or practices that are important to them. Many times, at its core, an individual's values,
purposes, missions, passions, beliefs, etc., can lead to conflict or strife (Himes, 2008). Conflict
consistently arises in the workplace due to goal incompatibility or unification in planning and
implementing goals (Cornille,1999). Emerging conflict in a multi-teacher department can appear
throughout the workday in many variations. However, some limited interpretations can be seen
as a lack of motivation, task incompletion, and verbal discord between group members (Larson
et al., 2022).
The term "conflict" is commonly used in everyday language to describe various human
experiences, from uncertainty to disagreements (Savio, 2015). Some scholars suggest four main
types of conflict, while others propose variations within human conflict (Pondy, 1967). Rahim
(2003) identifies four primary types of conflict: interpersonal, intrapersonal, intergroup, and
intragroup. Conflict can be classified into three types: task conflict, relationship conflict, and
value conflict (Sunkanmi, 2013). Simons and Peterson's (2000) study focused on task conflict,
revealing that it is often mistaken for personal conflict, which can lead to relationship conflict.
Both relationship and task conflict will be further discussed in this introduction and subsequent
literature review. Value conflict arises when individuals or groups fundamentally oppose beliefs,
values, or principles (Kouzakova et al., 2012). These conflicts emerge when individuals or

18
groups prioritize different issues or have varying perceptions of what is proper, necessary, or
ethical. Value conflicts can be more challenging than conflicts over resources or tasks because
they are connected to fundamental aspects of a person’s identity and worldview (Arooj, 2024).
Workplace conflict can stem from various sources, including incompatible goals and task
differentiation. Conflict occurs when parties have incompatible goals, especially when these
goals are perceived as opposing, and one party believes the other is hindering their ability to
achieve their objectives. This perception of obstruction distinguishes conflict from mere
competition (DeChurch et al., 2013). Goal incompatibility occurs when the objectives or desired
outcomes of two or more parties are at odds with each other (Böhm et al., 2020). When two or
more parties have goals that cannot be achieved simultaneously or are mutually exclusive, it
creates tension and disagreement, leading to conflict. There are three types of goal
incompatibility. Goals that cannot be achieved simultaneously are labeled as mutually exclusive
goals. When different parties prioritize opposing outcomes, this is labeled as conflicting
interests. If goals are based on differing values or beliefs—such as one teacher prioritizing
preparation for officer elections while another focuses on attending livestock shows at the first
teacher's expense—this is termed value-based incompatibility. According to Böhm et al. (2020),
a leading cause of goal incompatibility could be organizational structures, limited resources such
as time, or the weight of different SBAE duties. Conflicting goals can manifest in conflicts
through challenges in meeting deadlines, managing team projects, negotiating delegated duties
among SBAE teachers, and impacting personal relationships. These goals can lead to increased
polarization, with SBAE teachers becoming more entrenched in their positions and viewing the
goals of their colleagues as direct threats to their own (Böhm et al., 2020). The conflict over
incompatible goals can lead to misunderstandings, as each SBAE teacher may focus more on

19
defending their position rather than understanding the other teacher’s perspective. Conflict can
lead to inefficiency, as time and resources are spent on resolving disputes rather than achieving
productive outcomes (Haun, 2001). Open communication, compromising, and mediation are all
key tactics to solving and reducing goal incompatibility.
Individualistic Cultures versus Collective Cultures
It is essential to distinguish what SBAE teams disagree about and how they interact to
resolve their differences (DeChurch et al., 2013). While attempting to manage the frequency and
nature of conflict, we may discover how SABE educators interact to address differences
significantly influencing their performance and emotional outcomes (DeChurch et al., 2013).
SBAE teachers in multi-teacher departments can collaborate to utilize their diverse strengths,
improving team performance while minimizing perceived conflicts that can hinder emotional
well-being (DeChurch et al., 2013). Collectivism and individualism are two significant cultural
orientations that profoundly impact how conflicts are perceived, managed, and resolved
(Appelbaum, 1998). These orientations influence individuals' behaviors, values, and decision-
making processes and play a crucial role in shaping the dynamics of conflicts. Collectivism
emphasizes group goals, social harmony, and interdependence (Appelbaum, 1998) and has been
associated with improved performance, heightened concern for team members, and decreased
withdrawal behaviors (Jackson et al., 2006). According to DeChurch et al. (2013), teams that
adopt a collectivistic conflict process prioritize concern for and reliance on others, fostering a
preference for teamwork, cooperation, and achieving shared goals. In contrast, teams with an
individualistic conflict process tend to prioritize individual or sub-team efforts, focusing more on
personal or small-group objectives.

20
In collectivist cultures, people prioritize the needs and interests of the multi-teacher
group or organization. Contrarily, individualism emphasizes personal autonomy, individual
rights, and self-expression (Chirkov, 2008). In individualistic cultures, SBAE teachers may
prioritize their goals, achievements, and personal fulfillment over the multi-teacher groups’
interests. In a collectivist culture, conflict often threatens group harmony and social cohesion.
According to Milch et al. (2009), the perception of conflict is framed in terms of how it affects
the group rather than the individual. A conflict that disrupts group unity is viewed negatively. In
an individualist culture, conflict is often seen as natural and sometimes necessary to meet
organizational goals. It is a way to assert individual rights, clarify differences, and achieve
personal goals. A conflict that impedes personal goals or autonomy is viewed negatively.
The collectivist and the individualistic SBAE teachers manage conflict differently.
Collectivist cultures often prefer to avoid conflict or accommodate the other party to preserve
group harmony. The SBAE teacher may suppress their desires or opinions to maintain peace.
Individualist cultures are more likely to address conflicts directly, with open expression of
differences and focus on individual needs and goals. Individuals may use competitive or
assertive strategies to pursue their interests, sometimes at the expense of others. These two
archetypes also resolve conflict differently. In the collectivist culture, the goal is to restore
harmony and maintain relationships within the group. Solutions are often crafted to ensure that
no one loses face and that social bonds remain intact. In the individualist culture, the goal is to
achieve a fair and just outcome, even if it means the conflict is openly discussed or debated. In a
collectivist workplace, a conflict between SBAE teachers might be managed through group
discussions to find a consensus, emphasizing team unity. In contrast, in an individualist multi-
teacher department, the conflict might be addressed directly between the SBAE teachers

21
involved, with each teacher openly expressing their viewpoints and working towards a solution
that benefits them individually. Challenges to these cultural operating systems can include the
role of power dynamics, balancing individual and group needs, and adaptability. In individualist
cultures, power may be more evenly distributed, with everyone’s voice being considered equally
in conflict resolution. SBAE teachers in their multi-teacher departments need to be adaptable,
recognizing when to adopt a collectivist approach and when an individualist approach is more
appropriate.
Relationship Conflict versus Task Conflict
It is essential to distinguish between relationship and task conflict for successful conflict
management and organizational achievement (Giebels & Janssen, 2005). Jehn (1995) explained
that relationship conflict arises from interpersonal incompatibilities among group members, often
leading to tension, hostility, and frustration. In contrast, task conflict occurs when group
members disagree about the content of tasks, resulting in differing perspectives, ideas, and
opinions (Chernetsky et al., 2024). Task conflict involves disagreements over work-related tasks,
goals, processes, or strategies. DeChurch and Marks (2006) state that task conflict can encourage
diverse perspectives, problem-solving, innovation, and improved team performance. It pushes
team members to think critically and consider alternative solutions. Task conflict can be
addressed through open communication, goal clarification, and collaborative problem-solving.
The emphasis should be on aligning the team around shared objectives and finding mutually
agreeable solutions. When managed effectively, task conflict can enhance creativity and foster a
culture of constructive debate (Simons & Peterson, 2009). Relationship conflict centers on
personal differences, emotions, or interpersonal tensions (Lim & Yazdanifard, 2012). It is more

22
likely to become destructive, resulting in negative emotions, reduced cooperation, and lower
productivity. SBAE teacher relationship conflict can often harm team cohesion, communication,
and morale. It can distract from the task at hand and create an environment of hostility or
mistrust, lowering overall performance (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). It requires addressing
underlying interpersonal issues, improving emotional intelligence, and fostering respect among
team members (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). It may involve mediation, counseling, or team-
building activities to rebuild trust and collaboration (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). According to
Hede (2007), if left unresolved, it can lead to long-term resentment, reduced engagement, and
high turnover. It undermines the team's social fabric and can have lasting adverse effects on both
individual and collective well-being. Distinguishing between task conflict and relationship
conflict helps organizations apply the right strategies for resolution, maximizing the benefits of
task conflict and minimizing the detrimental effects of relationship conflict (De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003).
Emergent States versus Process Conflict
Team conflict states and processes arise from actual or perceived differences in members'
values, working styles, and ideas (DeChurch et al., 2013). In conflict theory and management,
distinguishing between emergent states and processes is essential for effectively analyzing and
addressing conflicts (Rahim, 2023). Emergent states and processes refer to how conflicts develop
and change. The conflict state-process distinction is defined as shared perceptions among SBAE
team members about the intensity of disagreement over either task (such as goals, ideas, and
performance strategies) or relationships (such as personality clashes and interpersonal styles).
Team conflict is classified as processes (commonly labeled “conflict management” in conflict

23
literature) that occur while members are working through task and interpersonal disagreements
during their interactions (Marks et al., 2001, p.368).
Understanding SBAE teacher conflict processes is critical because they characterize the
interactions among team members that give rise to emergent states (DeChurch et al., 2013).
DeChurch et al. (2013) discussed how team members’ interactions about conflict (i.e., conflict
process) determine their perceptions of differences (i.e., conflict states); likewise, members’
conflict states shape their behavioral repertoires in response to perceived differences (i.e.,
conflict processes).
Emergent States
Emergent conflict states are evolving properties or conditions that develop within a team,
group, or organization (Jehn et al., 2008) due to interactions among SBAE teachers. This state
can also be described as the “what” of conflict. These states are not static but evolve as the
conflict progresses, influencing how the conflict is experienced and addressed. The emerging
states of conflict are cohesion, trust, team climate, psychological safety, commitment, team
learning and adaptability, role clarity, one’s emotional state, group norms, and performance
outcomes (De Dreu & Triki, 2022).
Process of Conflict
Processes of conflict refer to the sequence of actions, behaviors, and interactions that
occur during a conflict. These processes involve how the conflict begins, escalates, is managed,
and is resolved (Ding et al., 2024). These processes can be characterized as the methods by
which conflict unfolds. The dynamics of team conflict can be categorized into several

24
components: antecedents (triggers and context), perceptions (attributions and awareness),
manifested conflict, conflict management and resolution, outcomes, and post-conflict
(Hoogenboom et al., 2024).
The interplay between emergent states and conflict processes can be expressed through
feedback loops. For example, a hostile emotional climate (emergent state) can lead to more
aggressive behaviors (process), which in turn can further deteriorate trust (emergent state) (De
Dreu & Triki, 2022). These two ideas can also impact outcomes. Classifying which emergent
states and conflict processes the conflict can determine whether a conflict is resolved
constructively or destructively (Wurzel et al., 2024). Effective processes can mitigate negative
emergent states, while poor processes exacerbate them. How a conflict is managed (processes)
can reinforce or alter an emergent state within the group. For example, successful mediation can
restore trust and improve group cohesion. I will concentrate on elucidating conflict processes for
this research, as they are deemed more explanatory than emergent states for managing conflict
(Schouten et al., 2024). Several studies have investigated the constructs of team conflict
processes. This encompasses research on team collaboration, competition, avoidance, and
openness (DeChurch et al., 2013). Conflict dynamics refers to the sequence of actions and
interactions during a conflict. These include how the conflict begins, escalates, manages, and
resolves. The team's level of collaboration can heavily influence these processes' effectiveness.
Team Collaboration. According to Adegbola et al. (2024), team collaboration refers to
the way members of a team work together towards a common goal, sharing knowledge,
resources, and responsibilities. In conflict, collaboration involves team members collectively
engaging in open communication, problem-solving, and decision-making to address and resolve

25
disagreements (Adegbola et al., 2024). Elevated levels of team collaboration can prevent conflict
escalation by fostering early identification and discussion of issues before they intensify. SBAE
teachers who collaborate effectively are likelier to actively listen, clarify misunderstandings, and
share information transparently during conflicts (McLaney et al., 2022). According to Lam and
Xu (2019), power imbalances within the team can hinder collaboration, as those with more
power may dominate the conflict process, leading to resentment or disengagement among other
team members. However, when SBAE teacher teams are collaborative, they are better equipped
to engage in effective negotiation and problem-solving during conflict.
Collaboration encourages a problem-solving mindset, where team members work
together to find solutions that satisfy the needs of all parties involved rather than competing for
individual interests (Wheelan et al., 2024). Team collaboration enhances the likelihood of
achieving a successful resolution to conflict. When team members work together to resolve a
conflict, they are more likely to reach a consensus acceptable to everyone (Thompson, 2023),
leading to a more sustainable and positive outcome. After resolving conflict, ongoing
collaboration helps rebuild trust, reinforce relationships, and integrate the lessons learned into
future interactions (Barker & Manning, 2024). Collaborative teams are more likely to reflect on
the conflict, address any lingering issues, and use the experience to strengthen their working
relationships (Barker & Manning, 2024).
Team Competition. Team competition is the dynamic where team members or
subgroups compete to achieve their individual goals, gain recognition, or outperform one another
(Park et al., 2024). This competition can manifest in several ways, including striving for
leadership roles, competing for resources, or seeking to have one's ideas or strategies adopted by

26
others. Healthy competition within a team can significantly influence team dynamics and
decision-making processes. It can lead to heightened collaboration and innovation as team
members strive to outperform one another. However, if not managed effectively, competition can
also escalate conflicts and create divisions within the team. When channeled constructively,
competition can motivate team members to resolve conflicts that benefit the entire group,
improving performance and outcomes. Team competition can rapidly escalate conflicts as
members become firmly entrenched in their positions, perceiving the conflict as a scenario where
one side must prevail while the other must lose. This competitive mindset can fuel aggressive
behaviors, increase tension, and make it difficult to find common ground (Benard et al., 2024). In
a highly competitive environment, communication can become less open and more strategic,
with SBAE teachers withholding information, misrepresenting facts, or using persuasive tactics
to gain an advantage. This can hinder the free flow of information and make it challenging to
address the underlying issues of the conflict. Competition can complicate negotiation and
problem-solving, as an SBAE teacher may prioritize personal goals over the team's collective
objectives. Conflict resolution might involve compromises that leave some team members
dissatisfied, leading to lingering resentment and the potential for future conflicts. After a conflict,
a competitive environment can hinder the reintegration of the team, especially if the conflict
resolution leaves some members feeling defeated or marginalized (Benard et al., 2024).
Competitive attitudes may persist, preventing the team from moving on and rebuilding trust.
Healthy competition can motivate team members to perform at their best, think
creatively, and push for excellence. This can lead to better outcomes if the competition is
channeled constructively. Conversely, competition can increase tension and stress within the
team, leading to a more adversarial atmosphere. This can make conflict processes more difficult

27
and reduce overall team effectiveness. Dysfunctional conflict processes include excessive
competition that can create division within SBAE teachers, leading to rivalry and undermining
multi-teacher group cohesion (Kwofie et al., 2024). Managing team competition during the
conflict processes can include promoting healthy competition, facilitating open communication,
establishing fair practices, addressing power imbalances, and fostering a practice of reflection
(Heinze & Soderstrom, 2024).
Team Avoidance. Team avoidance is a conflict management strategy where team
members or the entire team choose to ignore, sidestep, or delay addressing a conflict (Brown &
Jarldorn, 2024). This approach can significantly impact conflict dynamics, influencing how
conflicts evolve, are managed, and resolved. Team avoidance plays a complex role in conflict
dynamics (DeChurch et al., 2013), as it can either temporarily defuse tensions or exacerbate
long-term issues. While avoidance can be a functional strategy in certain situations, it often leads
to unresolved conflicts, decreased trust, and long-term dysfunction if overused (Tabassi et al.,
2024). Team avoidance occurs when SBAE teachers, either individually or collectively, choose
not to engage directly in a conflict. This might involve avoiding discussions about the conflict,
postponing decisions, or failing to address underlying issues. According to Brown and Jarldorn
(2024), avoidance can be a deliberate choice driven by fear of confrontation, a belief that conflict
is unimportant, or the hope that it will resolve itself over time. Avoidance can influence each
stage of the conflict process, often in ways that delay resolution or allow conflicts to fester.
Avoidance reduces open communication, as team members are reluctant to discuss conflict or
address issues. The absence of communication can result in misunderstandings (Korkut et al.,
2018), misinterpretations, and assumptions, further complicating the conflict. When teams avoid
addressing issues, it can lead to a lack of progress in resolving the conflict, causing frustration

28
and the feeling that problems are being ignored or dismissed. Avoidance can prevent timely
conflict resolution, as underlying issues remain unresolved. This can lead to unresolved conflicts
resurfacing later, potentially in a more severe form. In some cases, avoidance can lead to
dysfunctional outcomes, resulting in dissatisfaction and disruption. Unresolved issues may
continue to affect team dynamics, making it difficult for the team to rebuild trust and cohesion
(Kilag et al., 2024).
While avoidance is often seen as a negative approach to conflict, there are situations
where it can be functional or appropriate (Kwofie et al., 2024). If the conflict over a minor issue
does not significantly impact the team's goals or functioning, avoidance can be a practical
strategy. This prevents wasting time and energy on issues that do not matter overall and can be
used as a temporary strategy to allow emotions to cool down before addressing the conflict
(Tabassi et al., 2024). This can prevent escalation and allow for more rational discussion later. If
a conflict involves significant power imbalances where addressing the conflict could lead to
negative repercussions for some team members, avoidance might be used to protect those
members until a safer context for resolution can be established (Tabassi et al., 2024). When team
avoidance is dysfunctional, SBAE teachers may experience escalated conflict outcomes. When
conflicts are avoided, team members may feel their concerns are not valued (Hall, 2023), leading
to lower morale and reduced overall team effectiveness (Kwofie et al., 2024). Understanding the
role of avoidance in conflict processes is crucial for recognizing when this strategy may be
appropriate and when it could lead to negative consequences.
Team Openness. Team openness is a critical factor in managing conflict processes
within a team (Bradley et al., 2013). It refers to the extent to which team members are willing to

29
share their thoughts, feelings, concerns, and feedback, particularly when disagreements or
conflicts arise (Eleftherakis et al., 2024). In conflict, team openness means that team members
are open to discussing issues, listening to each other’s viewpoints, and working together to find
mutually beneficial solutions (Murray, 2006). Conflicts are more likely to be identified early
when a group of SBAE teachers is open. SBAE teachers in a multi-teacher department may feel
comfortable bringing up concerns or disagreements, allowing the team to address potential issues
before they escalate. Openness can prevent the unnecessary escalation of conflicts by fostering
an environment where team members can discuss issues calmly and constructively. By
addressing conflicts openly, teams can manage emotions and misunderstandings that might
otherwise lead to escalation (Han et al., 2024). Open communication can lead to a more thorough
understanding of conflict and more effective problem-solving (Neiman, 2011). Openness
facilitates effective negotiation and problem-solving by promoting transparency and a
willingness to explore different options. Sacramento et al. (2024) highlighted that when team
members feel valued and the process is fair, they are enthusiastic about engaging in collaborative
problem-solving, leading to positive outcomes. Successful conflict resolution is achieved by
ensuring that all voices are heard and that the resolution is accepted by all SBAE teachers
involved. This can lead to more sustainable and positive outcomes, as teachers may feel their
concerns have been addressed. After a conflict is resolved, openness helps the team to integrate
the lessons learned, rebuild any trust that may have been damaged, and improve their approach
to future conflicts.
Team openness can foster trust and psychological safety within a multi-teacher
department (Sacramento et al., 2024). The challenges to facilitating and implementing team
openness can deter SBAE teachers from practicing this conflict management and resolution

30
process. Cultural differences can affect transparency, as some team members may come from
backgrounds where direct communication is not the norm (Han et al., 2024). This can lead to
varying levels of comfort with open conflict discussions. Team members may fear negative
consequences for speaking openly, such as damaging relationships, losing face, or facing
retaliation (Eleftherakis et al., 2024). Power dynamics within the team can hinder openness, as
individuals with less power may feel that their opinions are not valued or that speaking up could
lead to negative consequences. Emotions can create barriers to openness, as individuals may feel
too angry, hurt, or stressed to communicate openly. This can lead to defensive behaviors or
withdrawal from the conflict process. Promoting constructive feedback, where SBAE teachers
focus on providing specific, actionable, and positive feedback during conflict processes, is
paramount in effectively managing and resolving conflicts (Sacramento et al., 2024).).
Interpersonal Conflict
According to Engbers and Khapova (2024), interpersonal conflict can be categorized into
two distinct types. Substantive conflict focuses on disagreements over tasks, decisions, or
processes. When managed effectively, this conflict fosters growth, encourages open
communication, and leads to creative solutions. Affective conflict involves emotional clashes
from personal issues like dislike, jealousy, or rivalry. This type of conflict is often destructive
and can harm relationships.
Van de Vliert and Euwema (1994) found that interpersonal conflict related to team
collaboration, competition, and avoidance was used to describe interaction patterns within the
team (DeChurch et al., 2013) as they resolved and integrated their differences. Applying these
processes determines if a multi-teacher group is moving towards collaborating, competing, or

31
avoiding conflict modes (DeChurch et al., 2013). The fourth construct, openness, refers to open
discussions meant to reach mutually beneficial solutions and is like the collaborating process
(DeChurch et al., 2013). Teams have been found to develop behavioral norms that vary based on
their concern for group members, preference to work within the group, reliance on group
members, acceptance of group norms, and prioritization of group goals (DeChurch et al., 2013).
Is Conflict Functional or Dysfunctional?
Conflict can be seen as dysfunctional (Collins et al., 2024), but in many cases, if it is
effectively managed, it can be practical and help peers create a better outcome (Wienclaw,
2021). Through appropriate conflict management techniques, individuals inside and outside of
the conflict can alter the severity and the type of conflict to maximize benefits and minimize
consequences (Wienclaw, 2021). It is crucial for the success of a multi-teacher department to
differentiate between functional and dysfunctional team conflict processes (DeChurch et al.,
2013). Determining whether the thought process of SBAE teachers is collective or individualistic
will help assess if the conflict can be considered functional. Fair conflict resolution will improve
process effectiveness, repair working relationships, and increase positive outcomes for SBAE
teachers (Thomas, 1992).
Functional or constructive conflict occurs when disagreement or tension between parties
leads to positive outcomes (Badriyah et al., 2024). Fostering open communication and
collaboration can enhance performance, stimulate creativity, improve problem-solving, and
strengthen relationships. Dysfunctional or destructive conflict occurs when disagreement or
tension between parties leads to adverse outcomes (Pletzer et al., 2024). This type of conflict can

32
harm relationships, reduce performance, create stress, and undermine organizational
effectiveness.
Factors that can determine whether a conflict is functional or dysfunctional can include
the management and resolution of the conflict, the communication style of the teachers involved,
the power dynamics of the multi-teacher group, the intent and attitude of those involved, and the
anticipated outcomes and consequences (Liao et al., 2021). Conflict between groups can
sometimes enhance team dynamics, cohesiveness, and task focus (Braun et al., 2020). However,
if the conflict becomes overly emotional, it can lead to a win-lose mindset, resulting in adverse
outcomes like groupthink, job dissatisfaction, frustration, and increased stress (Al Maita et al.,
2015). Team dynamics refers to the behavioral relationships and interactions among teachers in a
multi-teacher department of SBAE. These dynamics are influenced by team members'
personalities, communication styles, roles, and relationships, as well as the team’s structure,
goals, and leadership (Nguyen et al., 2024). Team cohesiveness refers to the extent to which
members feel a sense of attraction and commitment to the team, motivating them to remain a part
of it. A cohesive, collaborative team works effectively to achieve shared goals (Forstyh, 2021).
Some critical aspects of team cohesion are solid interpersonal bonds, shared goals and
vision, high morale and motivation, effective communication, conflict resolution skills,
commitment and accountability, positive group norms, team stability, and psychological safety
(Maman et al., 2024). Task orientation focuses on completing tasks efficiently and effectively
within a team or organizational setting. It involves prioritizing achieving specific goals,
objectives, or outcomes, often emphasizing productivity, quality of work, and meeting deadlines.
Task orientation is one of the critical components of how individuals and teams approach their

33
work, and it contrasts with relationship orientation, which emphasizes interpersonal relationships
and team cohesion (Ahmed et al., 2024).
How is Conflict Managed?
Conflict management encompasses various strategies and approaches to address and
resolve disputes constructively (Keashly et al., 2020). According to Stein and Zechner (2020),
the primary goal of effective conflict management is to mitigate the adverse effects of conflict
while capitalizing on potential benefits, such as promoting creativity and enhancing interpersonal
relationships. The initial step in managing conflict involves understanding its underlying causes
(August, 2024). Conflicts may emerge from various sources, including disparities in values,
objectives, communication styles, or personality traits. Accurately pinpointing the origin of
conflict facilitates the selection of an appropriate strategy for resolution while assessing the
conflict's intensity, duration, and overall impact (August, 2024). Recognizing whether the
conflict is personal, structural, or task-related serves as a critical guide in determining the
approach to managing the conflict effectively (Hoogenboom et al., 2024).
Psychological Safety
Psychological safety in the workplace, particularly within teams, refers to an environment
where employees feel safe to take risks, express their thoughts, and make mistakes without fear
of negative consequences (O’Donovan & McAuliffe, 2020), such as ridicule, punishment, or
rejection (Dong & Li, 2024). Creating a psychologically safe environment where team members
feel confident they can speak up without fear of negative consequences is critical to a healthy
and productive work environment (O’Donovan & McAuliffe, 2020). According to Moffet et al.
(2024), psychological safety enables teams to collaborate more effectively, innovate, and

34
perform at their best; this includes addressing any power imbalances and ensuring that all voices
are heard and respected (Shafaei et al., 2024). Critical characteristics of psychological safety
include but are not limited to open communication, acceptance of mistakes, inclusivity,
supportive leadership, trust, and respect (Dong & Li, 2024).
Psychological safety is foundational for effective teamwork and a positive workplace
culture. The benefits of a psychologically safe workplace far outweigh the work of incorporating
these conflict management practices into multi-teacher teams. Enhanced innovation and
creativity, improved development, higher performance, and reduced turnover are some outcomes
of a psychologically safe workgroup (Sacramento et al., 2024). Addressing negative behavior,
providing training, and fostering inclusivity can build and maintain psychological safety.
Creating psychological safety can be challenging in organizations where a blame culture or
hierarchical structures are deeply ingrained (Bransby et al., 2024). It requires a cultural shift that
starts with leadership. Employees might be hesitant to speak up if they have experienced or
witnessed negative consequences for doing so in the past (Moffet et al., 2024). Maintaining lofty
standards and accountability while ensuring team members feel safe meeting those standards is
essential. Psychological safety does not mean avoiding challenges or difficult conversations.
Elevated levels of unmanaged conflict can lead to increased turnover as SBAE teachers,
particularly those highly skilled or in high demand, choose to leave rather than continue working
in a contentious environment. When experienced SBAE teachers go due to conflict, the
profession loses valuable institutional knowledge, which can negatively impact continuity,
efficiency, and the overall functioning of the profession (Maslach & Leiter, 2022).

35
Consequences of Unmanaged Conflict
According to Ågotnes et al. (2024), when conflicts in large groups are not managed, they
can have far-reaching and often harmful effects. This affects the people involved and the group's
overall functioning, productivity, and morale. The larger the group, the more complex and
pervasive these consequences can be, as conflicts tend to escalate and spread more efficiently
within a larger context. The potential outcomes of unmanaged conflict can include agitations that
often distract group members from their primary tasks. Instead of focusing on their work, they
become preoccupied with the conflict (Maryani & Gazali, 2024). This distraction can lead to
missed deadlines, reduced quality of work, and overall inefficiency (Maslach & Leiter, 2022).
Additionally, unmanaged conflict can result in duplication of effort within a multi-teacher
department, where different SBAE teachers work on similar tasks separately due to a lack of
coordination and avoidance, leading to wasted resources (Ågotnes et al., 2024). Conflict that is
not managed can erode trust among group members, leading to a breakdown in collaboration and
communication (Hussein, 2021). In the case of the teacher association or other large SBAE
teacher groups, teachers may become divided into cliques or factions because of unmanaged
conflict. These subgroups often work against each other rather than together, further weakening
group cohesion (Yafei, 2024).
Persistent conflict without resolution can lead to frustration, dissatisfaction, and a general
decline in morale (Omene, 2021). Group members may feel unsupported, undervalued, or
unfairly treated, leading to disengagement and a lack of commitment to group goals (Maryani &
Gazali, 2024). Unresolved conflicts can lead to significant stress and anxiety for group members,
especially if the conflict is intense or involves personal issues. This stress can result in burnout,

36
absenteeism, and turnover (Kilag et al., 2024). Unmanaged conflict often results in poor
communication, as individuals may avoid interacting with those they conflict with or
communicate in a hostile or passive-aggressive manner. SBAE teachers may sometimes need to
be more active and avoid discussing critical issues, leading to a lack of transparency and
perpetuating unresolved problems (Varma & Gupta, 2023). When left unmanaged, conflict can
result in decision-making paralysis, where important decisions are postponed or avoided due to
disagreements and lack of consensus (Sharma et al., 2024). Over time, unmanaged conflict may
lead to resistance to change as group members become entrenched in their positions and
unwilling to compromise or adapt, making it challenging to implement new strategies or
initiatives (Kilag et al., 2024). If conflicts are consistently left unmanaged, the group may
develop a culture of dysfunction where conflict becomes the norm rather than the exception
(Shaibu & Njoku, 2024).
The Impact of Conflict Management Training on Teacher Interactions
Conflict management training significantly impacts teacher work groups (Myer et al.,
2022) by enhancing their ability to manage disputes constructively and improving overall team
dynamics (Kilag et al., 2024). Research indicates that such training can increase teachers'
confidence in managing conflicts, fostering a more collaborative environment. Conflict
management training in educational settings reduces the frequency and intensity of conflicts and
helps build a more cohesive and supportive work environment (Watanabe et al., 2024). Teachers
trained in conflict management are better equipped to interact positively with colleagues,
students, and parents, leading to a more harmonious school environment and improved student
outcomes.

37
Problem Statement
There is limited research on the relationship between conflict management and conflict
resolution and their impact on teacher work output and student outcomes in multi-teacher SBAE
programs (Tippens et al., 2013). Tippens's (2013) research categorized working conditions as
including administrative support, school conditions, and additional expectations, but it did not
address interworking in multi-teacher departments, such as conflict management. There is a need
to develop, conduct, and publish conclusive research to determine whether the interactions of
two or more SBAE teachers impact (Collins et al., 2024) measurable student outcomes related to
task conflict and conflict management in multi-teacher departments. This quantitative study
examined the interactions among SBAE teachers and the conflict management styles they
employ within their programs.
The Research Objectives Were:
1. Describe the occupational characteristics of SBAE teachers in Texas;
2. Determine if SBAE teachers are being taught to participate in conflict management
during pre-service training, through professional organizations, school districts, or other
organizations;
3. Determine whether there is a relationship between SBAE teachers’ conflict management
modes and the SBAE teachers and their interworking.
Defining the Duties of a SBAE Teacher
The course of action in developing an individual into a school-based agriculture educator
is a purposive process (Collins et al., 2024) that requires training, certifications, and enrichment
(DiBenedetto, 2024). The traditional SBAE teacher training process entails enrolling in,
completing a teacher preparation program, and earning a passing score on a state or national-

38
based exam (Collins et al., 2024) and an additional agriculture knowledge content exam (Rice &
Kitchel, 2015; Swortzel, 1999). Developing SBAE teachers involves pre-service and practicing
teachers (DiBenedetto et al., 2018). Pre-service teacher programs prepare future SBAE teachers
through teaching observations, program planning, and teaching methods courses (McKibben et
al., 2022b; Samoei, 2020; Smith et al., 2015). A practicing teacher has classroom experience
(Haddad et al., 2023). In-career teachers who teach school-based agriculture education have
distinct experience stages and specific needs.
Teacher preparation programs are broad (Collins et al., 2024) and cover many topics to
prepare future educators for lesson planning, student leadership development, community
outreach, and the management of supervised agricultural experiences (Hainline et al., 2019). In
educator preparation programs, students were entrenched in a block of courses that pre-service
teachers experience just before heading out to their student teaching location (Swortzel, 1999);
more common now, the training plan covers many semesters with clusters of courses to prepare
the pre-service teacher (Eck et al., 2021). The practicing teacher receives training and staff
development from the school district (Cheng, 2001) and the professional teacher organizations
(Smalley et al., 2019) that integrate current education initiatives with educational-derived data to
create continuing education standards for professional SBAE teachers (Tobin, 2012). Although
this pre-service practice can be an exhilarating experience, it does lack some domains (Collins et
al., 2024) that are assumed to come naturally for future educators (Smalley et al., 2019), one of
them being conflict management (Boone & Boone, 2009).
To understand what is fully needed to cultivate secondary agriscience students' academic
and leadership needs, we must first understand the complexities and nuances of the SBAE
teacher (Cheng, 2001). The SBAE teacher must perform various duties and activities that

39
promote positive and measurable student outcomes (Eck et al., 2021; Frovola et al., 2019). The
Agriculture Teachers Association of Texas defines the SBAE teacher as someone responsible for
conducting an instructional program that educates students about career pathways in agriculture,
enhancing youth leadership through FFA, providing students with the knowledge and skills
necessary to compete in a global economy, informing students about agriculture, initiating
classroom discussions, creating lesson plans, overseeing agricultural experience programs,
supervising and maintaining the school laboratory, and preparing and submitting FFA rosters,
entries, and registrations(ATAT, 2024) . When you review the career description, there are many
responsibilities and objectives to meet. To aid in developing the skills needed by SBAE teachers,
pre-service programs will prepare future SBAE teachers for lesson planning, supervised
agriculture experience, program management, and leadership development (Eck et al., 2021).
The SBAE teachers will gain information in their pre-service programs that will equip them to
effectively increase the rate of agriculture literacy while being a stakeholder in their community
in leadership development and career advancement (Collins et al., 2024).
Some SBAE programs offer many pathways for secondary students to matriculate and
earn industry-based certifications; SBAE teachers must know about operating systems that
manage those certifications. During the SBAE pre-service program, they will learn creative ways
to make student learning innovative and exciting around leadership development while using
agriculture to cultivate transferable life skills in each student enrolled in their program (Eck et
al., 2019; Hancock et al., 2024).
Interworking
The work duties of an SBAE teacher can be found in the description of several
professional web pages and on many school systems' career pages that solicit application

40
submissions for vacant positions. The position criteria, job requirements, expectations, salary,
and stipends are listed. However, explicit addresses need to be provided on whether the SBAE
teacher will work alone or alongside one or more SBAE teachers in an established cohort.
During the interview, the applying teacher will discover whether the program is a multi-teacher
department by asking other SBAE teachers about the demographics of teachers in respective
programs.
The number of teachers involved in a program depends on its scope and size. These
teachers cover various courses, from animal science to turf management (Lemons et al., 2015).
The descriptions of SBAE courses are diverse and can lead to differences in teaching methods,
classroom management, and student outcomes (Duncan et al., 2006; Hancock et al., 2024). In
addition to classroom and laboratory instruction, components such as SAE and FFA are
considered intra-curricular as they are crucial to a comprehensive SBAE program (Eck et al.,
2023). I have defined interworking as SBAE teachers working together on all components of the
3-Ring Model.
Interworking refers to the daily operations of being a school-based agriculture education
teacher and the collaborative practices of fulfilling those responsibilities with two or more SBAE
teachers. According to Doss et al. (2023), the relationships between SBAE teachers, classroom
teaching activities, supervision of agriculture experiences, professional development and
advancement activities, and other unspecified factors can be defined as interworking in the
context of research studies. When SBAE teachers collaborate on duties such as budgeting,
fundraising, parent relationships, managing competitive livestock SAEs, training LDE and CDE
teams, and overseeing school farms or facilities, these activities are considered interworking
(Doss et al., 2023). Doss (2023) explored the impact of challenges faced by SBAE teachers on

41
their perceived ability to perform their jobs. For instance, within the construct of miscellaneous
activities and factors, teacher burnout was identified as an element that significantly and
unfavorably influences SBAE teachers’ perceived ability to do their jobs, highlighting an
ongoing issue identified in previous research (Clark et al., 2014; Touchstone, 2015; Walker et
al., 2004). Burnout may indicate negative interworking, leading to dysfunction as a symptom of
unmanaged conflict.
Conflict and the SBAE Teacher
In multi-teacher departments, teachers can observe their teaching partners' outcomes,
work ethic, and relationships (Collins et al., 2024), which may evoke feelings of admiration or
envy (Chernyak & Rabenu, 2018). Employee envy arises from a loss of self-esteem when
another individual achieves outcomes that one personally desires. This emotion stems from a
desire to possess another's attributes or achievements to benefit oneself (Weiner, 2021). In
contrast, jealousy is an emotional state triggered by a perceived threat to a valued relationship,
motivating behavior aimed at countering the threat (Dogan & Vecchio, 2001). Doss (2023)
recommended that agricultural education teacher preparation programs provide additional
training for preservice teachers and teachers already in the field on managing the miscellaneous
activities related to teaching. Some of those activities, like time management, organization, and
conflict resolution, are skills that can be learned through professional development or other
means.
Conflict management is an issue that affects SBAE teachers in multi-teacher departments
and could be a reason for high turnover in the profession, recruitment and retention concerns,
and a decrease in career viability (Cano & Miller, 1992). Boone and Boone (2009) indicated a
difference in the nature and degree of problems teachers face in West Virginia when comparing

42
the size of the single-teacher versus multi-teacher departments. They further report that there
may be a relationship between multi-teacher department teachers and their relationships with
faculty and peers. Tippens et al. (2013) examined four factors that may increase attrition. They
stated compensation, family and personal factors, employment factors, and working conditions
as factors that increase attrition; the working conditions factor did not address how conflict could
impact job satisfaction. Beck and Betz (1975) argue that as organizations grow and the number
of individuals working together increases, the likelihood of disputes also escalates.
Training, recruitment, and retention are strategic goals for The National Council of
Agricultural Education (The Council) (AAAE et al., 2018). The Council aims to increase teacher
recruitment efforts to meet the demand for new and expanding programs and to enhance
agriculture teacher retention efforts (AAAE et al., 2018). This goal to attract and maintain new
and experienced teachers will remain a priority until 2025 when stakeholders will revise the
current strategic goals. An objective of the Council has been to develop models of preparation
for agriculture educators (Duncan et al., 2006) that include coursework, collaborative
experiences, and professional outcome alignment among all teacher preparation programs. The
strategic goal of ensuring a supply of future leaders for the agricultural education profession will
expand and enhance professional development programs for agricultural educators (Coleman et
al., 2020). Standard six of the Standards for SBAE Teacher Preparation Programs (SSTPP)
addresses professionalism and teacher preparers to develop pre-service teachers, modeling
personal leadership traits involving investment and empowerment (Lawver, 2022) while
collaborating with other educators. Standard seven of the SSTPP asks teacher preparers to cover
the topic of personal dispositions with pre-service teachers, directly concerning and
demonstrating professional communication skills (speaking, listening, and writing) (Standards

43
for School-Based Agricultural Education Teacher Preparation Programs, 2017). The requests for
training related to personal dispositions are specifically addressed and include areas of attention
such as inclusiveness, adaptability, and having prominent levels of professional communication.
Limitations of this Study
This study investigated whether a teacher's preferred conflict resolution mode affected
their attitudes towards teaching and their relationships with their teaching partners. The study
was limited to a sample of teachers from the state of Texas, so the findings can only be
generalized to this specific group.
Definition of Terms
Agriculture educator – an instructor who educates students on topics related to agriculture, food,
and natural resources; by covering these areas, agriculture educators help students develop a
broad range of skills, including science, mathematics, communication, leadership, management,
and technology (National Association of Agricultural Educators, 2024).
Attribution theory- Attribution theory is a psychological framework that explores how
individuals interpret and assign causes to events and behaviors. It focuses on the cognitive
processes individuals use to determine whether the cause of an event or behavior is internal
(stemming from personal factors such as ability, effort, or personality) or external (resulting from
situational factors such as luck, other people, or environmental conditions). Attribution theory is
crucial in understanding how people perceive responsibility, control, and predict outcomes,
which can influence emotions, motivation, and social interactions. By analyzing how individuals

44
attribute causes, the theory helps explain variations in behavior, judgments, and responses to
success, failure, or conflict (Science Direct, 2024).
Groupthink- a psychological phenomenon where the desire for harmony or conformity in a
group leads to irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. In this environment, group members
suppress dissenting opinions, overlook alternative solutions, and prioritize consensus over
critical analysis. This often results in poor decisions because the group needs to consider all
possibilities and risks. Groupthink can be triggered by high group cohesiveness, isolation from
outside opinions, and strong leadership that discourages diverse perspectives (Britannica, 2024).
Interworking- the day-to-day operations of being a school-based agriculture education teacher
and the cooperative practices to implement those duties with two or more SBAE teachers.
Organizational psychology- a subfield of industrial-organizational (I/O) psychology, focuses on
understanding human behavior within organizational settings, aiming to enhance workplace
productivity, employee well-being, and organizational effectiveness. It involves the application
of psychological principles to issues such as employee motivation, performance, leadership, team
dynamics, job satisfaction, and organizational development. Researchers and practitioners in this
field examine individual and group behaviors, using scientific methods to develop strategies for
improving recruitment, training, organizational culture, and conflict management. Critical topics
in organizational psychology include job analysis, work-life balance, employee engagement,
decision-making processes, and the impact of organizational structures and leadership styles on
employee outcomes. Additionally, this field applies various psychological assessments and
interventions to promote a healthy and efficient work environment (American Psychological
Association, 2024).

45
Pre-service educator preparation- The time spent and curriculum typically taught in a university
setting in undergraduate or master’s programs that prepare students for secondary agricultural
education teaching, extension, and non-profit outreach. It includes coursework, observation
hours, and student teaching experiences with a mentor before working in the school system.
Professional association- A professional association is an organization or group formed to
represent the interests and promote the growth of individuals within a specific profession or
industry. These associations often provide members with resources such as networking
opportunities, professional development, educational resources, certification programs, and
advocacy on policy issues relevant to the profession. They may also establish ethical standards,
best practices, and guidelines to enhance professionalism and accountability within the field
(Cambridge Dictionary, 2024).
Work Organization- refers to the structure and processes by which tasks, roles, and
responsibilities are arranged and managed in a company or institution to achieve its goals
efficiently. It encompasses designing jobs, coordinating and motivating people, and allocating
resources to maximize productivity. Work organization includes hierarchy, team dynamics,
communication channels, leadership, and decision-making processes (Cambridge Dictionary,
2024).
School-based agriculture education- the system or organization that provides instruction that
covers a myriad of agriculture subjects in K-12 educational settings. The focus is classroom
instruction, agriculture demonstrations, leadership development, supervised agricultural
experiences outside the classroom, and community stakeholder engagement.
School-based agriculture education program- an educational system in which students, grades
K-12, learn about agriculture science through hands-on applications and demonstrations. The

46
capstone of the secondary programs is student reflections and practical demonstrations to
validate their learning.
School district- a geographical unit for the local administration of schools.
Teacher educator is used here as an inclusive term to encompass all professionals engaged in the
initial and ongoing education of teachers, including those who work in schools, colleges, and
universities.
Workplace- A workplace is any location where employees perform tasks related to their job. It
can range from traditional office environments to remote or field locations, depending on the
nature of the work. The concept of workplace safety is vital, with various organizations and
government agencies, like the U.S. Department of Labor and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), focusing on maintaining environments that are free
from hazards, ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of employees (National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, 2020).

47
Chapter Summary:
This study explores teacher relationships in multi-teacher departments within School-
Based Agricultural Education (SBAE), focusing on how collaboration and conflict affect
program efficacy (Vallone et al., 2022). In larger SBAE departments, where multiple teachers
collaborate, conflicts arise more frequently due to goal incompatibility or limited resources (Eck
& Edwards, 2019; Böhm et al., 2020). These conflicts can lead to task incompletion, lack of
motivation, or interpersonal discord, manifesting in ways that impact the entire team (Larson et
al., 2022). De Drue and Gelfand (2008) define conflict as a process in which perceived
opposition regarding interests, resources, beliefs, values, or practices creates discord.
Understanding the different forms of goal incompatibility—mutually exclusive goals, conflicting
interests, and value-based incompatibility—illustrates how competing priorities can escalate
conflicts within SBAE teams, impacting personal relationships and team cohesion (Böhm et al.,
2020). This goal incompatibility is further complicated by SBAE organizational structures,
competing time demands, and the unique weight of various duties (Böhm et al., 2020). Task
conflict can be constructive, encouraging growth and creativity when managed effectively
(Engbers & Khapova, 2024), while relationship conflict is often destructive. Effective conflict
management—including communication, compromise, and mediation—enables SBAE teams to
navigate conflicts, frequently transforming them into growth opportunities (Haun, 2001;
Wienclaw, 2021). Professional development programs for SBAE teachers should emphasize
these conflict management techniques and skills in time management and organization to prepare
teachers for the demands of multi-teacher environments (Doss, 2023). Equipping teachers with
these tools enhances the potential for both practical and transformative outcomes in SBAE
programs.

48
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The existing literature needs to conclusively establish whether the interactions among
two or more SBAE educators impact the level of work output within multi-teacher departments.
Additionally, there is a need to research the effects of conflict among SBAE teachers on attrition
rates, job placement, and the intensity of work output. Boone and Boone (2009) found severe
problems for SBAE teachers, including relationships with faculty/peers at their school. They also
found that issues emanated from the previous teacher's influence on their past program. The
lingering impact of the old teacher caused issues and damaged student and colleague
relationships. Boone’s research also found that differences existed for SBAE in a single-teacher
department versus a multi-teacher department (Boone et al., 2009).
The role of the SBAE teacher is varied and multi-dimensional (Collins et al., 2024). The
one dimension and dynamic that could affect success as an SBAE teacher is the impact of
conflict, especially within a multi-teacher department. There are numerous reasons why the
SBAE teacher will change schools (Lemons et al., 2015) or leave the profession altogether
(Ingersoll, 2001). Exiting and migration reasons for SBAE teachers leaving the profession
include work-life balance, time commitment, lack of administrative support, administrative
support, and compensation (Clemons et al., 2021; Haddad et al., 2019). Boone and Boone (2009)
found that attrition is linked to the number and types of problems teachers face in many
situations. A teacher's success or failure in their profession depends on their ability to solve
problems effectively (Sancar et al., 2021). Boone and Boone’s (2009) research centered on four
questions, with the most relevant objective being whether there is a difference in the nature and

49
extent of problems faced by teachers in West Virginia based on department size (single teacher
vs. multi-teacher departments).
Newburgh (2019) found that teaching is unlike any other profession, where personal and
public life intersect at a potentially precarious juncture. However, the organizations that define
standards for teacher development focus on the public or outward aspects of teaching (Traini et
al., 2023). Many accreditation standards for teachers emphasize students achieving measurable
outcomes in the classroom through state-based data. Pre-service or teacher induction standards
prioritize the public facets of teacher education over intrinsic factors (Bartell, 1995). Teachers
and administrators can measure the public elements of lesson development, assessment creation,
and career development event team training (Doss et al., 2023). Conversely, intrinsic factors,
which are intangible and cannot be easily measured, include personal beliefs, personal life,
personality styles, and conflict management modes (Keilwitz, 2014)
Wienclaw (2021) stated that conflict frequently arises in the workplace and that goal
incompatibility between groups or individuals, differentiation, task interdependence, scarce
resources, ambiguity, and communication problems can all promote conflict. Role confusion,
task conflict, and role salience can interfere with SBAE outcomes in multi-teacher departments
(Greer & Egan, 2012). The lack of effort to identify the issues affecting SBAE instructors in
multi-teacher departments contributes to high turnover, recruitment and retention challenges, and
reduced career visibility.
Boone and Boone (2009) indicated a difference in the nature and degree of problems
teachers face in West Virginia when comparing the single-teacher versus multi-teacher
department size. Boone and Boone (2009) further reported that there could be a correlation
between multi-teacher department teachers' problems that relate to relationships with faculty and

50
peers. Their study employed a t-test statistical analysis to assess differences in problem severity
based on department size (Boone & Boone, 2009). Statistically significant differences were
found between single-teacher and multi-teacher departments in SBAE programs (Boone &
Boone, 2009). The relationships among faculty and peers could be hypothesized to include
interactions within multi-teacher departments as an external factor.
The SBAE Teachers’ Association’s Psychology
High school agriculture educators face the current scenario of collaborating with peers
and faculty. Gallo (2022) reported that 94% of respondents said they worked with a “toxic”
person in the previous five years. Workers have reported that their primary source of workplace
tension is relationships with peers (Giebels & Janssen, 2020). A peer can be described as one at
equal standing as their counterpart in an organization. The school is an organization, and the
collection of agriculture educators, as a profession, is an organization. There is a research gap in
evaluating the organizational psychology of agriculture educators' leadership, particularly
concerning conflict management in multi-teacher departments (Yang et al., 2024). A distinct
organizational culture exists between for-profit and nonprofit workplaces (Shier et al., 2019).
Although public schools function as nonprofit entities, they often display a for-profit
organizational disposition. Most agriculture educators work in nonprofit environments that
occasionally adopt corporate practices, such as role delegation and performance reviews, which
can affect contract days and stipends.
Organizational Psychology
Organizational psychology, also known as industrial-organizational psychology, is a field
of psychology (Conte, 2024) that applies psychological principles and research methods to the
workplace (Schein, 2015). Industrial-organizational psychology enhances organizational

51
efficiency and employee well-being (Guest, 2017). This discipline combines various
psychological concepts, including motivation, leadership, team dynamics, and individual
behavior, to enhance the functioning of organizations. Key competencies of organizational
psychology include employee selection and recruitment, training and development, performance
management, workplace well-being (psychological safety), organizational development and
change management, leadership and team dynamics, organizational behavior, and diversity and
inclusion (Pandey & John, 2023).
Understanding that school-based agriculture programs face workplace safety issues
enables us to view conflict management and resolution as essential for enhancing productivity
and career longevity. Workplace safety encompasses the climate of peer interactions, including
threats, verbal abuse, and bullying (Shier et al., 2019). Addressing workplace safety is integral to
sustainable leadership and personal growth in these educational settings. Organizational
psychology is essential in today’s complex and dynamic SBAE teacher work environments. By
applying psychological principles to SBAE teachers’ organizational challenges, research will
help to improve SBAE teachers’ effectiveness, enhance workplace satisfaction, and create a
healthier, more productive multi-teacher workgroup. Incorporating the practices of
organizational psychology is crucial for navigating changes, managing a diverse workforce, and
maintaining a fully trained collective of SBAE teachers.
The pre-service program allocates more time to preparing future teachers for daily
facilitation of the Three Ring Model (Figure 1) but not for navigating the workplace culture
regarding faculty and peer interactions. Quantitative data and lesson plan development cannot
solely predict an SBAE teacher's personal growth; instead, secondary agricultural educators

52
should be assessed and nurtured through pre-service and in-service training
processes (Gegenfurtner et al., 2020).
Figure 1
The SBAE Program 3-Circle Model
Boone and Boone (2009) argued that the study should be expanded due to its significant
implications for agriculture education teacher preparation programs and SBAE teacher
outcomes. Their literature review could—and should—impact the content of teacher education
programs, in-service opportunities for current and induction teachers, and coordination between
state departments of education and teacher preparation programs. The workplace health safety
culture's narrative regarding multi-teacher dynamics and interworking with faculty and peers
should be assessed and addressed by teacher educators and agriculture teacher associations. A
descriptive analysis of the workplace climate between faculty and peers could account for
unknown variables contributing to SBAE teacher attrition. McKibben et al. (2022a) cited
Blustein’s relational theory between working and relationships domains that can affect peer and
faculty relationships. Blustein’s (2011) propositions are consistent with the analysis of

53
interpersonal relationships, but McKibben et al. (2022a) synthesis and interpretation of the
interworking of relationships provide processed insight for simplification and understanding.
Agriculture education researchers have addressed mental and emotional exhaustion in
length due to external factors but have not addressed interworking relationships with faculty and
peers (Theiman et al., 2012). Exhaustion can lead to burnout, described as occupational stress
caused by job dissatisfaction, personal strain, and those individuals who may not use personal
coping strategies (Chenevy et al., 2008). Symptoms of burnout can be seen in agriculture
teachers when they exhibit emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Teachers experiencing
higher levels of emotional exhaustion are more susceptible to burnout due to occupational stress
(Agyapong et al., 2022), often resulting in their leaving the profession (Tippens et al., 2013).
Prolonged stress can lead to significant conflict among SBAE teachers, consequently affecting
the dynamics of working groups. Emerging conflicts can be managed quickly by adequately
identifying the issues and mitigating a professional conflict management plan. Conversely, a
more calcified conflict can do irreversible damage if not correctly identified and managed.
Theoretically, Hakvoort (2020) argues that minor distractions and disturbances constitute
conflicts because the actions of one person (the lead teacher) can prevent, block, or interfere with
another teacher's ability to achieve their goals (Hakvoort et al., 2020). Since these conflicts are
emerging, they are referred to as emerging conflicts (Hakvoort et al., 2020).
Attribution Theory
Perceived attributions could influence conflict processes. Attribution theories examine
how people interpret their own and others' emotions, motives, and events and how these
interpretations affect behavior (Belosevic et al., 2019). This theory attempts to explain how
humans understand and explain behavior, such as conflict. Recognizing that others' behaviors

54
can be influenced by external, uncontrollable factors can foster empathy and reduce unnecessary
blame or conflict (Kelly & Michela, 1980).
Some may perceive the lead agriculture teacher as a manager rather than a leader, an
important distinction (Dumitru et al., 2015). The interactions among SBAE teachers in a multi-
teacher department appear transactional (Haddad et al., 2023; Queen, 2024). However, these
interactions become clearer when examined through the lens of Attribution Theory. The
relationship between SBAE teachers and their peers is an adaptive process, where workload
responsibilities should shift from transactional to relationship-based, fostering solutions rooted in
trust and mutual understanding (Heifetz et al., 2009). Trust moderates the connection between
task and relationship conflict, while the interpretive process significantly influences the
transformation of one type of conflict into another, potentially severing their link (Haddad et al.,
2023). In the framework of attribution theory, SBAE educators can collaborate and navigate
functional conflict. Yet, persistent conflict can prompt the group to delve into methods for
achieving improved results and pinpointing underlying factors. Disagreements may surface over
specific matters, such as deciding who will train competitive teams, mentor state officer
candidates, or act as the district's representative in organizational affairs. Furthermore, the
individual experiences and interpretations of SBAE teacher behaviors can significantly influence
teacher retention.
Theories and Models of Attribution
Attribution Theory, developed by Fritz Heider in 1958, is a psychological framework
explaining how individuals infer the causes of events and behaviors (Harvey & Weary, 1984).
Heider proposed that people attribute behavior either to internal dispositions (personal traits,
motives, or intentions) or to external situations (environmental factors or pressures) (Malle,

55
2022). His theory laid the groundwork for later models, such as those by Harold Kelley (1967)
and Bernard Weiner (1985), which further explored the complexities of attribution. Kelley's
(1973) covariation model, for instance, introduced the concepts of consensus, consistency, and
distinctiveness to help determine whether attribution is more likely to be internal or external
(Hewstone & Jaspars, 1983).
Figure 2
The Attribution Process
There are notable differences, comparisons, and extensions between attribution theories
and frameworks. Heider and Weiner focus on how people make sense of the causes behind
events and behaviors, recognizing the distinction between internal (dispositional) and external
(situational) attributions. Heider's research laid the groundwork for Weiner to develop a more
nuanced understanding of how attribution affects motivation and emotions, particularly in
achievement contexts (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014). Weiner introduced additional
dimensions: stability (whether the cause is permanent or temporary) and controllability (whether
the cause is controllable or uncontrollable by the person) (Forsyth & McMillan, 1981). Weiner's

56
work specifically focused on attributions in achievement-related contexts and their implications
for motivation and emotions (Martinko, 1995).
The 3-Dimensional Model
Bernard Weiner expanded on Heider's framework to explore how attributions influence
motivation in academic and achievement contexts. He identified three extensions of attribution
theory: achievement motivation, emotional reactions, and attributional retraining (Weiner, 2010,
p. 95). Weiner posited that the type of attribution—internal vs. external, stable vs. unstable, and
controllable vs. uncontrollable—affects future expectations, emotional responses, and task
persistence (Forsyth & McMillan, 1981).
Figure 3
Weiner’s Attribution Theory Model

57
Three-Stage Process to Make Attributions
Weiner’s Attribution Theory (1972) serves as the conceptual framework for this study,
emphasizing a three-stage process for understanding connectivity and clarity. This process
involves observing or perceiving behavior, determining its intentionality, and attributing it to
internal or external causes. Observation in the attribution process occurs when an individual
perceives an action or behavior in themselves or another person. The next phase leads the person
to interpret if the behavior is intentional or unintentional. The last phase involves categorizing
this behavior as either internal or external. Each stage can correlate to SBAE habits and
classroom longevity, providing context for teacher choices and experiences.
Controllability. Weiner's model showed how different attributions lead to distinct
emotional responses. For example, attributing failure to a lack of ability (internal, stable,
uncontrollable) might lead to feelings of helplessness, while attributing it to a lack of effort
(internal, unstable, controllable) (Weiner, 2012) might lead to feelings of guilt and motivation to
try harder (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Attributional retraining, based on Weiner's extended
theory, proposes that interventions can assist individuals in changing maladaptive attributional
styles (Perry et al., 1993). For instance, teaching SBAE teachers to attribute failures to lack of
effort (a controllable factor) rather than lack of ability (an uncontrollable factor) can enhance
motivation and improve performance (Weiner, 2012).
Attributions can significantly influence an SBAE teacher's beliefs about their teaching
partners and organization. For instance, if a teacher attributes success to their effort (internal,
controllable, unstable), they are likely to expect future success with continued effort (Weiner,
2012). Conversely, if they attribute failure to a lack of ability (internal, uncontrollable, stable),
their expectancy for future success may decrease (Weiner, 1990). Positive attributions (e.g.,

58
success due to effort) enhance expectancy, while negative attributions (e.g., failure due to lack of
ability) lower expectancy (Weiner 1990). Attributions also influence the value a person places on
a task. When individuals attribute their successes to internal factors such as effort or ability, they
may perceive the task as more valuable because of the direct link between their actions and
outcomes (Weiner, 1985). Conversely, if outcomes are attributed to external, uncontrollable
factors (Hurt & Wellbourne, 2018), the perceived value of the task may diminish as individuals
feel less agency over the results (Weiner, 1985).
External behaviors are those either performed or observed (Martinko & Mackey, 2019).
When a behavior is deemed external, individuals are less inclined to alter it. Determining
intentionality is also known as causation (Quillien & German, 2021). Determining causes is
complex in practice (Anderson, 1991). This is particularly relevant in scenarios involving SBAE
teacher group work, where appreciating different perspectives is essential, and the success or
failure of actions may be judged based on the teachers' motivations (Lagnado & Channon, 2008).
Individuals make distinctions between internal and external causes of attribution. An SBAE
teacher’s success can help determine whether events are positive or negative based on the
outcomes (Kelly & Michela, 1980).
Stable versus Unstable. Attributing failures to unstable but internal factors like lack of
effort or poor strategy (such as not ordering scantrons in time for a contest) can lead to
frustration and anxiety. The SBAE teacher might feel they must try harder or find a better
approach but may also be uncertain about the outcome. When attributing others' misfortunes to
external, unstable, and uncontrollable factors, individuals are more likely to feel empathy and
compassion (Zeigler-Hill & Shackelford, 2020), recognizing that the other person was subjected
to unfair or difficult circumstances beyond their control (Shaver & Drown, 1986). Positive

59
events attributed to internal, stable, and controllable factors can foster feelings of contentment
and confidence. These emotions help build a powerful sense of self-efficacy and resilience
(McKibben et al, 2024). When people attribute adverse outcomes to their controllable actions
(e.g., a lack of effort or poor decision-making), they may experience regret and remorse, which
can motivate corrective action but also lead to self-reproach (McKay et al., 1991)
The ability to differentiate stability enables people to determine whether the causes of
events are stable or unstable (Buchanan et al., 2013). By understanding the causes of past events,
individuals can make predictions about future behaviors and outcomes; for example (McCarthy
et al., 2017), attributing success to stable internal factors (likeability) suggests future successes,
whereas attributing it to unstable factors (lack of professional development) may not.
X Marks the Spot. Loci or locus refers to the point of origin and can also describe the
location where a gene undergoes a chromosomal mutation. Causal locus and causal stability are
two key dimensions in Bernard Weiner's attribution theory that help explain how people interpret
the sources of events and behaviors. The causal locus dimension refers to whether the cause of
an event is perceived as internal or external to the person (Brun et al., 2021). Internal locus refers
to causes originating within the person, such as personal traits, abilities, or efforts (Annisa &
Ginarti, 2023; McKibben et al, 2023). External locus refers to causes originating outside the
person, such as situational factors, luck, or the actions of others (Hamilton & Lardon, 2023). The
causal stability dimension refers to whether the cause of an event is perceived as stable
(unchanging over time) or unstable (changeable over time) (Körner et al., 2020).

60
Figure 4
Internal and External Causes of Attributions
A stable cause is consistent and unlikely to change (Bleidorn et al., 2022), such as a person's
innate ability or personality traits. An unstable cause can vary from one situation to another, such
as effort, mood, or temporary circumstances. Stability attributions for conflict can determine the
magnitude of emotions, as conflicts perceived as stable elicit stronger emotional responses (Hurt
& Wellbourne, 2018). Emotional reactions to conflict vary due to different attributions formed
by team members, which in turn affect the emotional response of the team as a whole and can
generate negative or high energy (Hurt & Wellbourne, 2018).
Internal attributions are positively predicted by perceived consistency and negatively by
perceptions of distinctiveness and consensus (Tamborni et al., 2018). Perceived consistency
involves determining whether someone acts the same in each situation every time it occurs
(Graham, 2020) and whether the same person would act similarly over time in response to
similar cues, stimuli, or scenarios (Kelley, 1973). Distinctiveness requires analyzing what

61
contributes to situational triggers (Hilton & Slugoski, 1986), examining if the individual
consistently behaves in similar situations (Guest et al., 2021), or if others in similar situations
would act the same way (Weiner, 1990). When reaching a consensus, we must examine how
many SBAE teachers demonstrate the same behavior in similar scenarios and deduce if the
contextual consensus is environmentally external or internal.
Internal attributions are shaped by effort, ability, and personality traits. For instance, an
SBAE teacher in a multi-teacher department might attribute the success or failure of an initiative
to their own or their colleagues' efforts (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014). Teachers may
attribute successful outcomes to their partners’ stable personality traits in these settings.
However, external attributions involve concerns such as task difficulty, external resources,
external support, group dynamics, and external circumstances. In group work, attributional loci
significantly impact group dynamics, performance, and individual satisfaction (Ashford &
Fugate, 2006). This literature review on attribution theory aims to discover where the mutation
occurs in the work environment with multiple SBAE teachers before, during, and after conflict.
Understanding and addressing attributions related to group dynamics can help resolve conflicts.
A practical application of attribution theory in work groups involves discussing and
mediating perceptions of effort and contributions to prevent misunderstandings and improve
cooperation. By recognizing and managing these attributions effectively, groups can enhance
their functioning, address challenges constructively, and foster a supportive and productive
environment (Gorton, 2005). A clearer understanding of attributions can improve communication
by helping individuals express their perceptions and understand others' perspectives better.
Attribution theory aids in identifying and challenging maladaptive attributions, such as blaming

62
oneself excessively for failures, which can contribute to depression and low self-esteem (Kelly &
Michela, 1980).
Understanding attribution helps individuals develop adaptive attributions, seeing setbacks
as temporary and changeable. The theory encourages individuals to reflect on their actions and
the factors influencing their outcomes, leading to greater self-awareness and personal growth. By
understanding the role of internal controllable factors, individuals can take greater responsibility
for their actions and outcomes (Foster & O’Mealey, 2022), fostering a proactive approach to
personal and professional development. In organizational settings, understanding attributions can
help preparers support SBAE teachers in learning to appropriately attribute their successes and
challenges, leading to better performance and job satisfaction.
Covariation
Attribution is categorized as either situational or dispositional. Three factors determine
whether attribution is dispositional or situational: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency
(Ployhart et al., 2005). Consensus considers whether an individual's behavior aligns with what
others in a group would do in a comparable situation. Distinctiveness examines if the individual's
behavior varies across different situations (Goldman & Shapiro, 2012), indicating whether they
always behave similarly in similar contexts. Consistency examines whether an individual
behaves similarly in each situation every time it occurs (Graham, 2020). If a person consistently
responds similarly to familiar cues, stimuli, or conditions, they have developed consistent
attribution biases. Contributors to consistency are related to external stimuli and past
experiences. According to Stewart et al. (2010), situational attribution factors include social
influences, environmental conditions, task difficulty, unexpected events, and cultural norms.
External attribution causes can be connected to compensation, workplace disposition, and

63
broader external factors such as performing or observing situational scenarios (Weiner, 2010).
Dispositional attribution factors include personality traits, attitudes and beliefs, abilities and
skills, motivations, and emotional states. These internal factors construct the framework for
attribution theory. Understanding these factors provides insight into the underlying causes of
SBAE teacher behaviors and can inform strategies for improving teacher retention.
Figure 5
Kelly’s Covariation Model
Interpretation, Explanations, and Blame
Attribution helps us interpret others’ behaviors and actions (Kelley, 1973). It
encompasses two key aspects: behavior explanations and blame assignment. Malle (2011)
identified two common meanings in the attribution process: attribution as an explanation, where
a behavior is linked to its cause, and attribution as an inference, where an observed behavior
leads to assigning certain qualities or attributes to the person. SBAE teachers can exhibit varied
behaviors across different situations (Haddad et al., 2023).

64
Attributions that may be Triggering Conflict
Attributions significantly influence the feelings and emotions individuals experience in
response to events and behaviors. When an SBAE teacher attributes success to internal, stable,
and controllable factors (Schaumberg & Tracy, 2020), such as their ability and effort, they often
feel pride and satisfaction, reinforcing their self-worth and motivation. Conversely, attributing
failures to internal, stable, and uncontrollable factors, like a perceived lack of ability, can lead to
feelings of shame and guilt (Graham, 2020). This can negatively impact self-esteem and increase
vulnerability to depression. When individuals attribute negative outcomes to external,
controllable factors (like other people's actions), they may feel anger and resentment towards
those they hold responsible. Similarly, the SBAE teacher attributing one's failures to others or
external factors might result in blaming and anger rather than constructive self-reflection.
Attributing negative events to internal, stable, and uncontrollable factors (Graham & Chen,
2020) can lead to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness and may trigger anxiety (Taylor &
Wald, 2003). This is indicative of depressive thinking and can reduce motivation and
engagement in SBAE teacher activities. When negative outcomes are attributed to external,
unstable, and uncontrollable factors, such as a non-supportive administrator (Murphy-Sharp,
2023) or temporary circumstances like COVID, individuals may feel relief and gratitude that the
situation was not due to personal failings and is unlikely to reoccur.
Causal Motivations
Attribution theory can enhance motivation by encouraging individuals to attribute their
successes to internal, controllable factors such as effort and strategy (Bandhu et al., 2024), which
can be influenced and improved (Ariyanto, 2009). It provides insight into how different
attributions can lead to varying emotional and behavioral responses, enabling more effective

65
coping and improvement strategies. Additionally, we must consider the motivation behind
dispositional factors in attributing behavior, as motivation directs and sustains performance
(Weiner, 2010). Weiner's (2012) motivation sequence includes need, incentive, and force, which
represent the tendency to behave.
Kelly (1971), as cited by Weiner (1985), found that the attributor, in seeking knowledge,
aims to manage themselves and their environment effectively. Once a cause is assigned to a
situation, a treatment plan or guide can be devised for future attributions to manage potential
outcomes effectively. Causal motivations and emotions, such as laziness or tolerance, can be
considered non-volitional, but they do not stabilize internal attributions (Weiner, 1985). The
measurement of laziness or indifference can be interpreted differently through the lens of internal
and external attributions (Zeigler-Hill & Shackleford, 2020).
Interpretations and Attitudes
Attribution theory is linked to the attitudes individuals form based on their interpretations
of event causes and subsequent behaviors. SBAE teachers with an optimistic attributional style
tend to attribute positive events to internal, stable, and global factors (Gordeeva et al., 2020)
(e.g., "I succeeded because I am talented") and negative events to external, unstable, and specific
factors (e.g., "I failed because it is difficult to teach students from different backgrounds"). In
contrast, SBAE teachers with a pessimistic attributional style attribute positive events to external,
unstable, and specific factors (e.g., "My team advanced because I got lucky") and negative
events to internal or stable factors (Malle, 2022, p.101) (e.g., "I failed because my school district
does not support me"). Individuals who attribute their successes to internal and stable factors
tend to have higher self-esteem (Zogmaister & Maricutoiu, 2022), as they perceive themselves as
capable and effective (Forsyth & McMillan, 1981). Those attributing failures to internal and

66
stable factors may suffer from lower self-esteem, believing they lack the necessary traits or
abilities to succeed (Zeigler-Hill & Shackleford, 2020). High motivation is often associated with
attributing successes to internal, controllable factors like effort and strategy, which empower
individuals to pursue future success. Conversely, low motivation can stem from attributing
failures to internal, uncontrollable factors such as a lack of ability, leading to feelings of
helplessness (Weiner & Kukla, 1970). Resilient individuals typically attribute setbacks to
external, unstable, and specific factors, allowing them to maintain a positive outlook and persist
in facing challenges. Less resilient individuals may attribute setbacks to internal, stable, and
global factors, leading to discouragement and withdrawal. SBAE teachers who believe they have
control over the outcomes of their actions (attributing events to internal, controllable factors) are
more likely to take responsibility and engage in proactive behaviors (Hakavoort et al., 2017).
SBAE teachers who believe external forces determine their outcomes (attributing events to
external, uncontrollable factors) may feel powerless and exhibit more passive behaviors. When
attributing others' behaviors, the SBAE teacher might show a bias like the fundamental
attribution error, where they overemphasize internal traits and underestimate situational factors
(Davison & Smothers, 2015). This can lead to unjust blame or judgment. In contrast, self-serving
bias leads SBAE teachers to attribute their successes to internal factors and their failures to
external factors, protecting their self-esteem but potentially distorting accountability (Coutts et
al., 2020).
Traits, attitudes, feelings, genetics, and abilities are dispositional factors we can attribute
to behavior (Reeder & Brewer, 1979). Attribution traits refer to the characteristics or factors
individuals use to explain the causes of their and others' behaviors (McLaughlin et al., 1992).
These traits are crucial in attribution theory, which explores how people interpret and assign

67
causes to events (Malle, 2022). Attribution traits encompass several dimensions: internal versus
external, stable versus unstable, global versus specific, and controllable versus uncontrollable
(Malle, 2022). These attribution traits influence how people perceive successes and failures,
affecting their motivation, emotions, and behavior (Graham, 2020). For example, attributing
success to internal, stable, and controllable factors such as effort can enhance motivation
(Weiner, 2021), while attributing failure to external, unstable, and uncontrollable factors can help
preserve self-esteem (Pelz, 2014).
Inherited Traits that Influence Attribution
Genetics can indirectly influence attribution theory by affecting personality traits,
cognitive styles, and emotional responses. While attribution theory primarily focuses on how
individuals interpret the causes of behavior and events (Weiner, 2021), genetic factors can shape
the predispositions and tendencies that impact these interpretations (Weiner, 1990). Genetics
contributes to developing personality traits (Zeigler-Hill & Shackleford, 2020), such as
optimism, neuroticism, and conscientiousness (Ilies & Dimotakis, 2015). For instance,
individuals genetically predisposed to optimism might be more likely to attribute positive
outcomes to internal, stable factors and negative outcomes to external, unstable factors (Stolarski
et al., 2024). Traits like resilience and stress reactivity, which have genetic components,
influence how individuals cope with, and attribute causes to stressful or challenging situations.
Genetic factors can influence cognitive styles, such as how people process information and judge
(Ilies & Dimotakis, 2015). Specific individuals tend to think in either an analytical or holistic
manner, impacting how they attribute causality. Genetic predispositions can also shape
susceptibility to cognitive biases, such as the fundamental attribution error, which involves
overestimating personal factors and underestimating situational ones, and the self-serving bias,

68
which attributes successes to internal factors and failures to external ones (Hamilton & Lordon,
2023). Genetics also play a role in emotional regulation and temperament. Those with a genetic
predisposition to emotional stability are likely to demonstrate different attributional styles
compared to individuals genetically predisposed to anxiety or depression (Lebowitz, 2014).
Genetic variations can influence how individuals respond to stress, affecting their attributions.
For example, people with a heightened stress response may be more likely to attribute negative
outcomes to stable internal factors (Troy et al., 2023), potentially leading to feelings of
helplessness or depression. Genetic influences on brain structure and function can affect how
individuals perceive and interpret events (Bouchard, 2024). Differences in neural pathways
related to reward processing, threat detection, and executive function can shape attributional
tendencies. Genetic factors can influence levels of hormones like cortisol (associated with stress)
and serotonin (associated with mood regulation), which in turn can affect how people make
attributions (Epel et al., 1999) (Ford & Collins, 2010, p.414). If the behavior is distinctive, it is
deemed out of character. If it is out of character, then the cause for the SBAE behavior was
external.
How individuals attribute behavior influences how we react to it, particularly in conflict
situations with our peers. Attributions and reactions to conflict by those viewed as causing it can
create negative outcomes and workload deficiencies (Meier, 2013). Attribution theory can give
all parties involved some insight into each other's perspective and why we respond to situational
conflict the way we do (Hurt & Wellbourne, 2018). Individuals evaluate their behaviors
differently than others; attribution styles, errors, and bias help us assess if a person's behavior is
attributable to external or internal factors. During a conflict scenario, individuals often use
attributions (Hurt & Wellbourne, 2018), attempting to understand the cause of the conflict

69
(Weiner, 2021). Conflict causation can be attributed to two types: cognitive (task) and affective
(relationship) (Chung & Lee, 2021). A conflict's decisions, solutions, and outcomes are
influenced by numerous factors that determine whether its resolution is positive or negative.
Identifying these contributing factors is essential. Emotions consistently play a role in the
process, influencing which attributing factors generate different loci, biases, and causes.
Every emotion is associated with an expected outcome that can elicit a positive or
negative response. Subordinates targeted by their supervisor's anger report significant increases
in tension, fear, and distrust (Hurt & Wellbourne, 2018). Conversely, low-intensity expressions
of anger may result in positive outcomes, such as enhanced cooperation and effective execution
of chapter activities. The appraisal of the emotion can determine its attributed cause and detail if
it will be a controllable or uncontrollable event that caused the emotion (Hurt & Wellbourne,
2018). Conflicts attributed to internal, non-controllable causes can be seen as a lack of effort or
skill (Weiner, 2012). A stressful work environment brings frustration that focuses on the
outcome; professional growth standards and student outcomes can be affected by conflict
between SBAE (Frolova et al., 2019). We should investigate if the SBAE teacher processes
produce shame, guilt, or negative attributions from various situations.
Attribution in SBAE Teachers’ Tasks and Roles
Task attribution refers to how individuals attribute the causes of their actions or behaviors
related to specific tasks or activities (Clifford et al., 1988). Task attribution can influence how
individuals perceive and cope with conflicting roles in role conflict. For example, if someone
cannot fulfill a task due to conflicting role demands, they may attribute their failure to external
factors, such as the demands of those roles, rather than their abilities or effort (Bruening &
Hoover, 1991, p. 42). This attribution can affect their feelings of stress, guilt, or frustration

70
related to role conflict and their strategies for resolving or managing it. There is a relationship
between task and relationship conflict and their performance outcomes. Task conflict, or
cognitive conflict, refers to perceived disagreements among group members (Weingart & Jehn,
2023) regarding the content of their decisions, involving differing viewpoints, ideas, and
opinions (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Relationship conflict, or emotional conflict, refers to the
perception of interpersonal incompatibility (Bessolo, 2023) and often involves tension, irritation,
and animosity among group members (Simons & Peterson, 2000). The distinction between these
two types of conflict is fundamental as it provides deeper insight into managing conflict and
resolution among SBAE teachers. Groups that experience task conflict tend to make better
decisions than those that do not (Folger et al., 2021), as task conflict stimulates deeper thinking
and encourages adaptive problem-solving. It is beneficial because it fosters emotional acceptance
of group decisions by all members, making everyone feel included in the planning and
implementation of work goals and outcomes (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Additionally, task
conflict allows individuals to express their opinions and concerns (Jordan & Troth, 2021),
contributing to the continued success of the group's goals.
Conflict Management Modes and Attribution
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) and attribution theory can be
connected through their shared focus on how individuals manage conflict and make sense of
their behaviors and choices. The TKI utilizes two axes—assertiveness and cooperativeness—to
structure the instrument for relatability (Martin, 2020). The TKI is a tool used to identify a
person's preferred conflict-handling mode (Thomas, 2008), which can be categorized into five
modes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating (Thomas, 2008).

71
These modes reflect diverse ways individuals approach and manage conflict based on their
assertiveness and cooperativeness.
Competing is characterized by high assertiveness and low cooperativeness, where
individuals prioritize their needs and goals over others (Kelly, 2020). They often pursue their
interests at the expense of others, using power and influence to secure their position. This mode
is effective in situations requiring quick, decisive action, such as emergencies (Thomas &
Kilmann, 1974). Collaborating, which is high in both assertiveness and cooperativeness,
involves working with others to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both parties
(Qadir, 2020). It requires exploring differences to develop a creative solution that integrates
multiple perspectives. This mode is ideal for addressing complex issues where consensus is
needed (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Compromising balances assertiveness and cooperativeness,
aiming for a middle ground where both parties make concessions to reach a mutually acceptable
solution (Omene, 2021). This approach is advantageous when the goals are necessary but not
significant enough to justify the potential disruption caused by a more assertive strategy (Thomas
& Kilmann, 1974). Avoiding, which is low in assertiveness and cooperativeness, involves
sidestepping or withdrawing from conflict (Rambuyon & Domondon, 2021). This mode is
suitable when the conflict is trivial, when there are more pressing issues to address, or when the
potential damage from confrontation outweighs the resolution benefits (Thomas & Kilmann,
1974). Accommodating is high in cooperativeness but low in assertiveness, involving yielding to
the other party's concerns while neglecting one's own (Guerrero, 2020). This mode is effective
when the issue is more important to the other party or when maintaining harmony and avoiding
disruption is critical (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).

72
Figure 6
Thomas & Kilmann Conflict Modes Model
In parallel, attribution theory examines how individuals explain the causes of events and
behaviors (Weiner, 2012), focusing on whether these causes are attributed to internal or external
factors. Their attribution style can influence an individual’s preferred conflict-handling mode, as
identified by the TKI. For example, someone attributing conflicts to external factors might prefer
avoiding or accommodating mode to minimize confrontation. In contrast, someone attributing
conflicts to internal factors might be more likely to engage in competing or collaborating modes
to address and resolve the conflict directly. Individuals use attribution theory to make sense of
the outcome after a conflict is managed using a particular TKI mode (Lerner et al., 2023). For
instance, if a person adopts a compromising mode and the conflict is resolved, they might
attribute the successful resolution to their negotiation skills (internal attribution) or the
cooperative nature of the other party (external attribution) (Westmaas, 2022). Understanding the
attributions behind conflict handling can help develop more effective conflict management
strategies. If people recognize that they tend to avoid conflict because they attribute it to

73
uncontrollable external factors, they might develop more assertive modes to manage conflicts
more constructively.
Examining the Relationship between Conflict Management Modes Training and SBAE
Teachers' Experiences
Conflict management training significantly impacts teacher work groups (Jordan &
Troth, 2021) by enhancing their ability to manage disputes constructively and improving overall
team dynamics (Weingart et al., 2023). Research indicates that such training can increase
teachers' confidence in managing conflicts, fostering a more collaborative environment. This
training helps teachers to address conflicts more effectively, which is crucial in the complex and
often stressful environment of schools. Conflict management training in educational settings
reduces the frequency and intensity of conflicts and helps build a more cohesive and supportive
work environment. Teachers trained in conflict management modes are better equipped to
interact positively with colleagues, students, and parents, leading to a more harmonious school
environment and improved student outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of
integrating conflict management training (Collins et al., 2024; Folger et al., 2021) into teacher
professional development programs (Parker & Bickmore, 2020) to enhance their interpersonal
skills and create a more conducive learning environment.
In the competing mode, a teacher using the competing mode might push for their
preferred teaching method or curriculum, even if it creates tension within the group. This mode
can be effective when quick, decisive action is needed, such as during a crisis (Hakiki et al.,
2023). However, overuse can lead to resentment and a breakdown in collaboration (Samanana,
2022) among teachers. In collaborating mode, the group must integrate multiple perspectives in
ideal situations, such as when developing a new curriculum or policy. Teachers collaborating

74
may engage in open discussions, actively listen to each other, and jointly develop strategies that
benefit everyone. This mode fosters teamwork, innovation, and long-term problem-solving.
Teachers might use compromising when there is a need to resolve a conflict quickly, and both
parties are willing to give up something. For example, when deciding on the timing of parent-
teacher meetings, teachers may agree on a time that, while not ideal for everyone, is acceptable
to most. Compromising can be helpful when time is a constraint, but it may only sometimes lead
to the best long-term solutions. In avoiding, a teacher using the avoiding mode might ignore a
colleague’s suggestion or refrain from discussing a controversial issue in staff meetings. While
avoiding might prevent immediate confrontation, it can also lead to unresolved problems
festering over time, potentially causing more significant conflicts later. It is best used when the
issue is trivial or when emotions are too high for productive discussion. Teachers might
accommodate when maintaining a positive relationship is more important than winning on a
particular problem. For instance, a teacher might agree to implement a colleague’s preferred
classroom management strategy to avoid friction, even if they disagree. While this can promote
group cohesion, overuse may lead to a lack of input from the accommodating teacher and
potential burnout. The effectiveness of these conflict management modes in teacher work groups
depends on the context and the personalities involved. Ideally, a balanced approach is most
effective, where teachers can shift between modes depending on the situation. For instance,
collaboration is the most constructive in educational settings where long-term relationships and
shared goals are paramount. However, understanding when and how to use other modes can help
teachers navigate complex interpersonal dynamics, minimize conflicts, and create a more
positive work environment.

75
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is a valuable tool for teachers,
particularly in their interactions and collaborations with other educators, rather than dealing with
students. The TKI helps teachers understand their preferred conflict management style and how
it affects their relationships and teamwork within their professional environment. TKI helps
teachers identify whether they are more likely to compete, collaborate, compromise, avoid, or
accommodate conflicts (Ma et al., 2012). By recognizing their default style, teachers can
become more mindful of their reactions during disputes, which is crucial in a collaborative work
environment like a school. Teachers can learn to adapt their conflict style depending on the
situation. For instance, a teacher who avoids conflict might recognize situations where engaging
and collaborating with colleagues to solve a problem is more beneficial. If one teacher is more
accommodating and another is more competitive, knowing this can help them communicate
better and find a balanced approach to problem-solving. When teachers know their conflict
styles, they can consciously collaborate, which is the most constructive approach in educational
settings. This can lead to better decision-making and more innovative solutions to challenges
(MacDonald et al., 2022). A teacher who recognizes that they tend to compete might choose to
collaborate instead, avoiding unnecessary friction. The TKI helps teachers balance assertiveness
(standing up for their needs) and cooperativeness (considering others' needs). This balance is
essential in a school setting, where collaboration and teamwork are crucial to success. For
teachers in leadership positions, such as department heads or team leaders, understanding
conflict management through TKI is particularly important. It helps guide their teams through
conflicts and fosters a positive, productive work environment. By applying the TKI model,
teachers can better understand their conflict management styles, improve collaboration with
colleagues, and contribute to a more positive and productive school environment (Weingart &

76
Jehn, 2023). This tool is especially useful in helping teachers navigate the complex interpersonal
dynamics often present in educational settings.

77
Chapter Summary:
This chapter addresses the need for more research on the relationship between conflict
management, teacher output, and student outcomes in multi-teacher School-Based Agricultural
Education (SBAE) programs. It highlights that no conclusive evidence exists on how interactions
between multiple educators in a department affect their work output or how conflicts impact job
performance, attrition, and student outcomes. Boone and Boone (2009) found significant
differences in the nature and severity of problems faced by single-teacher versus multi-teacher
departments, suggesting more research on the dynamics and relationships within multi-teacher
SBAE programs. Gallo (2022) reported that workplace relationships are a significant source of
tension, and many workers have encountered toxic colleagues, which is also a concern for
agriculture educators. The chapter emphasizes the importance of intrinsic factors such as
problem-solving, conflict resolution, and effective communication in multi-teacher departments.
It suggests that pre-service and in-service training should address these aspects to improve the
workplace climate and reduce attrition. McKibben et al. (2022a) and other researchers have
explored the impact of workplace relationships on job satisfaction and retention, highlighting the
need for a supportive environment for SBAE teachers. Attribution theory, developed by Heider
and expanded by Weiner, is discussed as a framework for understanding how teachers interpret
and respond to conflicts. This theory helps explain how teachers attribute causes to conflicts and
their implications for motivation and behavior. An individual's attribution style influences their
preferred conflict-handling mode. Those attributing conflicts to external factors may prefer
avoiding or accommodating modes to minimize confrontation. Conversely, those attributing
conflicts to internal factors may engage in competing or collaborating modes to resolve conflicts
directly. After managing a conflict with a particular TKI mode, individuals use attribution theory

78
to make sense of the outcome. For instance, if a conflict is resolved through collaborating, the
individual might attribute the success to their negotiation skills (internal attribution) or the other
party's cooperativeness (external attribution).

79
Chapter 3
Methods
Research Approach and Design
This research targeted the five conflict types of the TKI for SBAE teacher interactions
and aimed to help facilitators use conflict management modes as a discourse for teacher
preparation. It will also aid the SBAE teacher in adequately applying the conflict management
and resolution discourse within the group dynamics of multiple SBAE teachers.
To determine what strategies may mediate and prevent conflict in the future, our
instrument consisted of Likert scale questions that assessed participants’ personal and
professional experiences in a multi-teacher department (Collins et al., 2024). The instrument was
divided into several categories to evaluate the experiences of working in a multi-teacher
department and address the interactions and experiences the participants have with faculty and
peers concerning their teaching partners (Collins et al., 2024). Instrument sections included
question blocks about conflict modes, personality, and behavioral dimensions; as Moberg (2001)
recommended, sections contained anywhere between fourteen to thirty questions for 105
questions. I included the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Interest Instrument to assess SBAE
teachers' conflict resolution modes.
Population and Sample
The population for this study was all agriculture teachers in Texas (Collins et al., 2024)
during the 2023-2024 school year (N = 2,600). Conducting a genuinely random sample of all
agriculture teachers in Texas was deemed impractical due to the unavailability of an accurate and

80
comprehensive list of these individuals. However, a list of agricultural education chapters was
accessible. Therefore, the decision was made to sample the chapters instead and contact all
agriculture teachers within those selected chapters. Contact information for 1,097 agricultural
education chapters was obtained from a publicly available list provided by Texas FFA. Using
Cochran's formula (1977), it was determined that a sample of 284 chapters would be necessary to
achieve a representative sample. Since the study’s objectives focused on the relationship between
teaching partners and program outcomes, chapters were chosen as the unit of analysis for random
selection. Using the online system commonly utilized in Texas, JudgingCard™, contact
information for all teachers within the selected chapters was obtained and organized into a table.
This process resulted in 738 contacts, who were then considered the sample of agriculture
teachers for this study.
Contact and Distribution
Dillman’s Tailored Design Method was employed for the sample survey to increase
response rates (Dillman et al., 2014). Multiple contacts were planned as part of this approach.
Initially, a pre-invitation letter was sent via the Qualtrics online system, informing potential
respondents of the study’s purpose and the rationale for their selection and emphasizing the
importance of their participation. This was followed by an email containing a link to the survey
instrument, managed through the Qualtrics system (Wright et al., 2021). As responses were
received, the resulting 'wave' of respondents was closely monitored. Following Dillman’s survey
research methods, it was determined that if a day passed with fewer than three responses, a
reminder email with the survey instrument link would be sent. This process was repeated four
additional times, resulting in 157 complete responses.

81
The survey instrument was emailed through Qualtrics to a randomly selected sample of
SBAE teachers in Texas (N = 738). The email included solicitation wording and embedded links
to the survey instrument. Of these, 57 emails bounced back due to disconnected addresses, and
one was duplicated, resulting in a final sample size of 681 (n = 681). A total of 204 survey
instruments were initiated, with 157 completed to the predetermined standard of 100%
completion. This led to a final response rate of 123 completed instruments (n = 123).
Non-response bias poses a significant threat to survey-based research, as it occurs when
respondents differ meaningfully from non-respondents, potentially leading to false differences
and invalid data (Ary et al., 2002). This can undermine the transferability of results to other
similar samples. Various methods for mitigating non-response bias are suggested in the
literature. According to Lindner et al. (2001), in agricultural education, three standard methods
are typically used to address non-response error: method 1- comparison of early to late
respondents; method 2 - using days to respond as a regression variable; and method 3 -compare
respondents to non-respondents.
This study determined that the most appropriate approach was statistically comparing
early and late respondents on a critical area of interest (Dooley & Lindner, 2003). Respondents
were coded based on their response time, and an independent t-test was conducted (Collins et al.,
2024) to compare the first and last respondents (Lindner et al., 2001). The analysis revealed no
significant differences, suggesting the data is free from measurable non-response bias.
Instrumentation
A comprehensive instrument consisting of three major sections was developed to achieve
the study's objectives. The first section included a series of Likert-type scale questions designed
to gain insight into the experiences of SBAE teachers in multi-teacher departments. This section

82
focused on the characteristics of the teacher, the composition of their program’s student body,
the makeup of the teaching staff, and the methods by which the teachers were trained to perform
their roles.
The second section of the instrument employed the Conflict Modes Management
Assessment, as redesigned and validated by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). This
section was used to assess the teachers' conflict management styles. The original instrument, The
Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), was developed by Thomas and Kilmann in
1974. The TKI assesses an individual’s behavior in conflict situations (Kahn, 2003) by
examining two primary dimensions: (1) assertiveness, the extent to which an individual attempts
to satisfy their concerns (Etodike et al., 2020), and (2) cooperativeness, the extent to which an
individual attempts to satisfy the concerns of others (Martono et al., 2020). These two
dimensions define five conflict-handling modes: competing, problem-solving, compromising,
avoiding, and accommodating (Thomas, 2008). The TKI consists of 30 pairs of statements
(Ogunyemi et al., 2010), with respondents choosing between an 'A' or 'B' item for each pair.
Each pair of statements was carefully designed to be equal in social desirability through research
(Thomas, 2008).
The third section of the instrument focused on the teachers' attitudes towards their
teaching partners, their community, their administration, and their feelings about decision-
making processes and their roles in those processes. This section included blocks of questions
that asked respondents about their perspectives on and interactions with their teaching partners,
programs, schools, communities, students' parents, and professional organizations. Respondents
were presented with declarative statements and asked to indicate their level of agreement using a
5-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to agree strongly) (Lindner & Lindner,

83
2024; Zheng et al., 2024). These blocks represented five predetermined constructs: teaching
partner professional 3-Ring duties, teaching partner positive perspectives, teaching partner
negative perspectives, interworking measurements, potential causes of multi-teacher dysfunction,
and perceptions of the professional organization.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity are critical to ensuring survey-based research instruments' accuracy,
repeatability, and generalizability (Ary et al., 2002). Reliability, often described as a measure of
internal consistency, refers to the likelihood that the instrument would yield the same results if
administered again (Ary et al., 2002). In this study, the existence of mathematical counter
constructs—where certain constructs are expected to produce different mean scores—
necessitated treating each construct as a separate section and calculating a reliability coefficient
for each. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability of individual constructs, with a
threshold of α > 0.70, as Field (2013) suggested, set as the minimum for acceptance.
1. Construct One: This construct consisted of eight questions related to the professional
duties of the 3-ring model, including whether SBAE teachers viewed themselves as
equals in the program, shared program/chapter responsibilities equally, and resolved
disagreements effectively. The reliability coefficient was calculated using Cronbach's
alpha (α = 0.94), indicating a reliable construct. Survey Question: I have/had a teaching
partner(s) with whom I agree on the direction our program and chapter are going.
2. Construct Two: This construct included nine questions addressing potential causes of
multi-teacher dysfunction. Questions explored scenarios such as envy among teaching
partners in interactions with parents, the officer team, and industry professionals (Dogan
& Vecchio, 2001). The reliability coefficient was calculated using Cronbach's alpha (α =

84
0.97), indicating a reliable construct. Survey Question: I have/had a teaching partner(s)
who is/are envious of my relationships with students and other SBAE teachers.
3. Construct Three: This construct focused on SBAE teachers' positive interactions,
perceptions, and experiences with their teaching partners, such as whether partners spoke
positively about them to students, parents, administration, or within the teacher's
association. The reliability coefficient was calculated using Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.98),
indicating a reliable construct. Survey Question: I have/had a teaching partner(s) who
speak positively about me to administration.
4. Construct Four: This construct addressed negative interactions, perceptions, and
experiences with teaching partners, including whether partners undermined their
authority with students, parents, other agriculture teachers, and community members. The
reliability coefficient was calculated using Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.97), indicating a
reliable construct. Survey Question: I have/had a teaching partner(s) who undermined my
authority with parents.
5. Construct Five: This construct included questions about the inner workings of SBAE
teachers' interactions with their teaching partners, such as whether partners undermined
their authority, exhibited work/life balance, were accountable for mistakes, and spoke
about politics or religion at work. The construct also included questions on self-reflection
practices. The reliability coefficient was calculated using Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.76),
indicating a reliable construct. Survey Question: I have/had a teaching partner(s) that take
accountability for their mistakes.
6. Construct Six: This construct focused on SBAE teachers' perceptions and interactions
with their agriculture teacher professional association. The reliability coefficient was

85
calculated using Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.80), indicating a reliable construct. Survey
Question: Professional associations/organizations run without bias.
Content & Face Validity
Face validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures what it intends to
measure based on subjective judgment (Nevo, 1985). A panel of experts was convened to content
validity, and a pilot study was conducted. This phase included a panel of experts assembled at
the 2024 Southern Region AAAE Conference (Collins et al., 2024) to have an open dialogue
about emerging research topics in agriculture education. During that session, agriculture
education stakeholders reviewed the themes from our exploratory research portion and offered
feedback on possible theoretical frameworks and potential outcomes from the research (Collins
et al., 2024). Face validity was a pilot study panel of five experts: two tenured faculty members
with experience as SBAE teachers, one recently retired SBAE teacher and administrator, and one
pre-tenured faculty member with extensive experience in SBAE in Texas. All panel members
held doctorates in Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications. After the panel
confirmed face validity, a pilot study was conducted with retired and former agriculture teachers.
Participants were asked to interact with the instrument online, as they would in the actual
research, and were then asked for their feedback about the survey.
Data Analysis
This study used descriptive procedures to achieve its objectives. Each objective is
reported along with the corresponding data and analysis. Objective One was analyzed using
descriptive statistics, including means, modes, standard deviations, and frequencies. Objective
Two was analyzed using frequency distributions. For Objective Three, an ANOVA was

86
conducted to perform a correlational analysis of the constructs. Additionally, constructs were
analyzed using ANOVA and t-tests, and intergroup variance was measured.

87
Chapter Summary:
This chapter outlines the methodology and data analysis procedures used in the study to
achieve its objectives. The chapter is divided into sections detailing the instrument development,
data collection, reliability, validity assessments, and the statistical methods employed to analyze
the data. A comprehensive instrument consisting of three major sections was developed to assess
the study's objectives. The first section included Likert-type scale questions aimed at
understanding the experiences of SBAE teachers in multi-teacher departments, focusing on
teacher characteristics, program composition, and training methods. The second section
employed the Conflict Modes Management Assessment, utilizing the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict
Mode Instrument (TKI) to assess conflict management styles. The last section focused on
teachers' attitudes toward their teaching partners, community, administration, and decision-
making processes. This section used 5-point Likert scales to assess perspectives on various
constructs related to teaching partner interactions and professional responsibilities. Reliability
and validity were carefully addressed to ensure the accuracy and generalizability of the study's
findings. Each construct in the instrument was treated as a separate section, with reliability
assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Thresholds of α > 0.70 were set for acceptance as reliable.
Face validity was evaluated by a panel of experts and a pilot study with retired and former
agriculture teachers. Content validity was further validated through a roundtable discussion at the
Southern Association of Agricultural Sciences Research meeting, where researchers and
practitioners reviewed the survey instrument items. The study employed a combination of
statistical and descriptive procedures. Objective One was analyzed using descriptive statistics,
including means, modes, standard deviations, and frequencies. Objective Two was examined
through frequency distributions. For Objective Three, an ANOVA was conducted to perform a

88
correlational analysis of the constructs. Further analysis included ANOVA and t-tests, with
intergroup variance measured to provide additional insights.

89
Chapter 4
Findings
Overview
In this study, I sought to determine the interworking of SBAE teachers in programs with
multiple teachers. Interworking causes of conflict can affect multiple teachers’ interactions with
students, parents, administrators, other agriculture teachers, and other stakeholders. The survey
instrument was emailed to 738 SBAE teachers in Texas. To err on the side of caution, a response
was removed from consideration if the respondent had not answered the TKI and specific
question matrices; this eliminated 34 responses. Analysis was conducted with the remaining
respondents (n = 123).
The objectives of this research were as follows:
1. Describe the occupational characteristics of SBAE teachers in Texas.
2. Determine whether SBAE teachers are being taught to participate in conflict
management during preservice training, through professional organizations, school
districts, or other organizations.
3. Determine whether there is a relationship between SBAE teachers’ conflict
management modes and the SBAE teachers and their interworking.
Research Objective 1
Research Objective 1 was to describe the occupational characteristics of SBAE teachers
in Texas. The typical respondent was a white (89%) woman (54%) who had been teaching for 1–
4 years (26%) and had taught in only one school for the duration of her career (30.9%). This

90
SBAE teacher taught within a department with four or more educators (36.6%), was not related
to her teaching partner (90.2%), had at least one teaching partner of the opposite gender (76.4%),
and was traditionally certified (74.0%). A small margin (50.4%) indicated that this typical
respondent taught in a school system with only one high school and had 100–300 students in her
SBAE program. She believed that no single SBAE teacher in their program had received the
label of lead or head agriculture teacher (34.1%). The typical respondent received conflict
resolution training from the school system that employed her (56.1%). (Table 1).
Table 1
Characteristics of School-Based Agricultural Education (SBAE) Teachers in Multi-teacher
Departments
Category f %
Gender
Female 87 54.0
Male 75 46.0
Years of teaching experience
5–11 38 30.9
0–4 32 26.0
12–20 25 20.3
21–30 18 14.6
≥31 10 8.1
Race/ethnicity
White/Caucasian 103 83.7
Hispanic 7 5.7
Black/African American 5 4.1
Mixed 7 5.7
Familial relation to SBAE teaching partner
No relation 111 90.2

91
Marriage, blood, or adoption 11 8.9
Teaching department size
≥4 45 36.6
3 43 35.0
2 21 17.1
1 14 11.4
SBAE teaching partner of the opposite gender
Yes 94 76.4
No 29 23.6
Number of schools taught in over career
1 38 30.9
≥4 30 24.4
2 27 22.0
3 27 22.0
Certification type
Traditional 91 74.0
Alternative 28 22.8
District of Innovation 2 1.6
Not Certified 2 1.6
Number of high schools in
the local school
system
1 67 54.5
>1 56 45.5
Number of students in
the current program
101–300 62 50.4
301–500 30 24.4
<100 17 13.8
501–1,000 13 10.6
≥1,001 1 0.8
Position in SBAE program
No one is head of SBAE 42 34.1

92
Someone else is the head SBAE 35 28.5
Titled head SBAE 27 22.0
Not titled head SBAE but acts in that role 18 14.6
The data on the occupational characteristics of SBAE teachers in multi-teacher
departments reveals various profiles among educators. Gender distribution shows a near-even
split, with 54% female and 46% male teachers. Experience varies widely, with 30.9% having 5–
11 years of teaching experience and a smaller proportion holding experience beyond 31 years.
Most teachers identify as Caucasian (83.7%), while other racial/ethnic groups are
underrepresented. Familial connections within the teaching staff are rare, with 90.2% having no
relation to their colleagues. Teaching department sizes are small, with 36.6% working in
departments of four or more teachers and 11.4% in single-teacher departments. Most teachers
collaborate with a partner of the opposite gender (76.4%), and most have taught in one school
throughout their careers. Traditional certification is standard (74.0%), with alternative
certifications being less frequent. Most teachers are situated in school systems with one high
school (54.5%), and half of the teachers manage programs with 101–300 students. Within the
SBAE program, positions vary, with 34.1% having no designated head, 28.5% reporting
someone else as head, and 22.0% holding a titled head position.
Research Objective 2
Research Objective 2 was to determine whether SBAE teachers are taught conflict
management during preservice training through professional organizations, school districts, or
other organizations. To determine SBAE teachers’ exposure to conflict management and
resolution training, respondents were asked whether they had participated in formal conflict

93
management training and, if so, who had provided it. Most respondents (68%) indicated they had
received training from their professional organizations (Table 2).
Table 2
School-Based Agricultural Educator Conflict Management and Resolution Training Experiences
Experience Conflict training
f %
While in the school district 69 56.1
During university education 49 39.8
Within teacher association 35 28.5
None 27 22.0
Outside the education space 16 13.0
In the military 2 1.6
Research Objective 3
Research Objective 3 was to determine whether a relationship exists between SBAE
teachers’ conflict management modes and their feelings toward their work experiences. Among
the respondents who completed the TKI part of the survey instrument (n = 123), the most
frequently used conflict modes were compromising (30.1%), problem-solving (28.5%),
accommodation (21.1%), avoidance (19.5%), and competition (0.8%).
Table 3
Frequencies of Conflict Modes from the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument
Conflict mode
f
(%)
Never
Sometimes
Frequent
Problem solver
10 (8.10)
78 (63.4)
35 (28.5)
Accommodator
34 (27.6)
62 (50.4)
26 (21.1)

94
Conflict mode
f
(%)
Never
Sometimes
Frequent
Competitor
92 (74.8)
30 (24.4)
1 (0.8)
Avoider
27 (22.0)
72 (58.5)
24 (19.5)
Compromiser
8 (8.0)
78 (63.4)
37 (30.1)
Note. For analysis of the competitor mode, the “sometimes” and “frequent” responses were
grouped (because of the small number of “frequent” responses) to determine which conflict
mode school-based agricultural education teachers may use to shape interworking relationship
outcomes.
Respondents were asked to determine their feelings towards experiences and perceptions
of their relationship with their teaching partner (Collins et al., 2024) and their community
(teachers, school, students, parents, association). Respondents felt overall positive towards their
teaching partners as a partner (M = 4.00, SD = 1.25). Respondents were neither positive nor
negative about their perceptions of whether their teaching partners thought or spoke of them
negatively or positively (M=4.00, SD=.25). They were slightly favorable to neutral about their
interactions with their teaching partners concerning the duties that are typical to an SBAE
teacher and labeled here as “three-ring duties” (M = 3.77, SD = 1.07). Respondents were neutral
in their responses in their perceptions of their SBAE teacher interworking (M= 3.20, 0.83).
Respondents were neither positive nor negative when reflecting on their experiences with their
SBAE teaching partner that may cause dysfunctional conflict (M=3.21, SD=1.08). Respondents
were neither positive nor negative in their experiences with professional organizations (M=3.77,
SD=1.07).

95
Table 4
Constructs of Feelings Towards the Interworking of the SBAE Profession
Constructs M SD
Teaching partner professional three-ring duties 3.77 1.07
Teaching partners positive perspectives 4.00 1.00
Teaching partner negative perspectives 3.08 1.25
Interworking measurements 3.20 0.83
Potential causes of multi-teacher dysfunction 3.21 1.08
Experiences with professional organizations 3.77 1.07
I created five constructs corresponding to questions designed to collect information about
the positive and negative interworking of SBAE teachers in multi-teacher departments. The
question blocks addressed professional duties in the classroom, FFA advisors, and supervised
agriculture experiences. They also addressed each respondent’s teaching partner’s positive
perspectives, their teaching partner’s negative perspectives, the interworking of multiple SBAE
teachers, and probable causes of teaching partner conflicts from the respondent’s perspective.
Respondents answered a series of questions using Likert-type scales to determine the
interworking of SBAE teachers and their teaching partners. Those questions were negatively and
positively worded and asked about a respondent’s perceptions of their teaching partner’s
interactions with the community, school administrators, students, parents, other agriculture
teachers, and the respondent as a teacher. The responses were then summed to form three
subconstructs summarized as potential causes of dysfunctional outcomes (Dogan & Vecchio,
2001).
I measured the perceptions, interactions, and experiences of the SBAE teachers using
those five constructs: (a) teaching partner professional three-ring duties, (b) teaching partner

96
positive perspectives, (c) teaching partner negative perspectives, (d) interworking measurements,
(e) potential causes of multi-teacher dysfunction, and (f) experiences with professional
organizations (after conducting factorial analysis on those that negatively affected reliability, I
created another construct and recoded the data).
The constructs were then compared with the TKI conflict modes to determine whether
statistically significant differences existed in respondents’ conflict modes based on their
perceptions of their relationships with their teaching partners.
Table 5
Analysis of Constructs Against TKI Conflict Management Modes
Constructs PS AC CO** AV CM
Teaching partner professional three-ring duties .957 .933 .603 .598 .625
Teaching partners positive perspectives .997 .934 .372 .611 .908
Teaching partner negative perspectives .857 .921 .175 .434 .123
Interworking measurements .658 .824 .309 .723 .675
Potential causes of multi-teacher dysfunction .870 .910 .098 .503 .004*
Experiences with professional organizations .223 .440 .003
*
.049
*
.314
Note. PS=Problem solver, AC=Accommodator, CO=Competitor, AV=Avoider,
CM=Compromiser
* Significant at the .05 level
** Analyzed using t-testing due to two independent groups
Avoider
Table 6 displays descriptive statistics for experiences with professional organizations
according to the avoider conflict mode. Experiences with professional organizations differed
statistically (p < .05) based on the reported use of the avoider conflict mode. F(2,111) = 3.092, p
= .049.

97
A post hoc test run using Bonferroni correction indicated no significant differences
between the three groups using the avoider conflict mode.
Table 6
Scores for Experiences with Professional Organizations by Use of Avoider Conflict Mode
Response
n
M
SD
Do not use
27
3.37
1.11
Sometimes use
65
3.10
0.99
Frequent use
22
3.68
1.00
Competitor
Table 7 displays descriptive statistics for experiences with professional organizations
according to competitor conflict mode. Experiences with professional organizations differed
statistically significantly based on the reported use of the competitor conflict mode. An
independent samples t-test indicated there was a statistically significant difference in the score
for potential causes of multi-teacher dysfunction between those who had used the competitor
conflict mode (n = 29) and those who had not (n = 89), t(116) = −2.978, p < .01.
Table 7
Scores for Experiences with Professional Organizations by Use of Competitor Conflict Mode
Response n M SD
Do not use 89 3.05 1.06
Sometimes use
29 3.72 1.01

98
Compromiser
Table 8 displays descriptive statistics for potential causes of multi-teacher dysfunction
according to the compromiser conflict mode. Potential causes of multi-teacher dysfunction
differed in a statistically significant way (p = .004) based on the use of the compromiser conflict
mode. Combining sometimes use (n = 28), and frequent use (n = 1) created a binary variable
with any use (n = 29) as a value. F(2,111) = 5.468, p = .003.
Table 8
Scores for Potential Causes of Multi-teacher Dysfunction by Use of Compromiser Conflict Mode
Response n M SD
Do not use 7 3.47 0.84
Sometimes use 72 3.48 0.94
Frequent use 35 2.81 1.00
Post hoc testing using Bonferroni correction determined no specifically significant
differences between conflict management group types. Post hoc analysis using Bonferroni post
hoc correction indicated significant differences between frequent and sometimes users of
compromiser. Frequent users of compromising reported significantly lower feelings about their
relationship with their professional organization (M =2.81, SD = 1.00) than sometimes users of
compromise (M = 3.48, SD = 0.94).
Problem Solver
Analysis of variance indicated no statistically significant differences in training partner
positive perspectives based on using the problem solver conflict mode, F(2, 115) = 0.003, p =
.997.

99
Accommodator
Analysis of variance indicated no statistically significant differences in training partner
positive perspectives based on the use of the accommodator conflict mode, F(2, 114) = 0.069,
p = .934.

100
Chapter Summary:
This chapter thoroughly analyzes the characteristics, training experiences, and conflict
management preferences of SBAE teachers in Texas, emphasizing key findings and their
implications for professional development and collaborative relationships. Most respondents
were female and White, with no familial ties to their teaching partners, typically working in
departments comprising four or more teachers. The study discovered that 68% of the respondents
had undergone conflict management training facilitated by professional organizations, which was
more prevalent than training received during university education or from school districts. The
conflict management modes utilized by the respondents were compromise (30.1%), problem-
solving (28.5%), accommodation (21.1%), avoidance (19.5%), and competition (0.8%). These
modes were evaluated with the teachers' sentiments towards their job roles and community
interactions. Further, the study explored the impact of conflict management training on the
relationships between SBAE teachers and their teaching partners. Analyses using constructs
designed to measure professional responsibilities, perspectives, operational dynamics, and
potential factors leading to dysfunction revealed distinct outcomes. Teachers identifying with
conflict management's avoidance and compromise modes exhibited significant variations in their
experiences with professional organizations. Conversely, those favoring the competitive mode
demonstrated significant disparities in factors contributing to dysfunction within multi-teacher
environments.

101
Chapter 5
Discussion and Conclusions
This study aligns with research priority three of the American Association of Agricultural
Education’s goals (Sanders, 2021), focusing on effective methods and practices for recruiting
and supporting agricultural educators, leadership, and communication practitioners (Alston et al.,
2019). It extended beyond traditional teacher roles to include employer characteristics, FFA
program duties, and personal traits of educators. It explored non-traditional factors like
attribution contributing to longevity and success (Clemons & Lindner, 2019). The findings offer
valuable insights into conflict management and professional dynamics within SBAE settings,
highlighting three significant relationships between conflict management modes and six
interworking constructs.
Connection to Research Objective 1
Research Objective 1 aimed to describe the occupational characteristics of SBAE
teachers in Texas. Most respondents were occupationally described as female and Caucasian,
with no familial ties to their teaching partners, typically working in departments comprising four
or more teachers. The wide range of teaching experience, with a notable proportion having 5–11
years of experience, suggests a mix of new and more seasoned educators. Understanding how
varying experience levels impact teaching effectiveness and program development could be
valuable. The predominance of Caucasian teachers and the underrepresentation of other
racial/ethnic groups highlight a need for increased diversity within SBAE programs. Efforts to
recruit and support a more diverse teaching staff could enhance inclusivity and broaden
perspectives in agricultural education.

102
Demographic Insights and Implications
The demographic composition of the average respondent, female and Caucasian, in this
study on SBAE teachers in Texas, has several implications that can influence various aspects of
the educational environment, professional development, and research interpretations. A female
and White respondent group may not fully represent the diverse range of experiences and
challenges faced by SBAE teachers of other genders, races, or ethnic backgrounds. This could
limit the generalizability of the study's findings to different demographic groups (White, 2024)
within the profession. The underrepresentation of male teachers and teachers from diverse racial
and ethnic backgrounds might skew the understanding of conflict management styles and
professional dynamics in SBAE settings, potentially missing culturally or gender-specific
approaches to conflict resolution and professional interaction.
The near-even split between male and female teachers suggests a gender-balanced
environment. However, it may be helpful to explore whether gender influences roles,
responsibilities, or career advancement within SBAE programs. Cultural and gender norms can
influence conflict management styles. For example, research suggests that women often prefer
collaborative and accommodating approaches to conflict resolution. Understanding these
tendencies can help tailor professional development programs sensitive to these preferences
while challenging stereotypical norms, which is beneficial. Demographic makeup can influence
workplace dynamics, potentially impacting how the staff develops, implements, and perceives
policies. For instance, diversity in leadership positions and teaching roles can affect decision-
making processes (Maringe et al., 2007) and the inclusivity of different perspectives.
The rarity of familial connections among teaching staff (90.2% with no relation) indicates
that most teachers work in non-familial environments. This could influence team dynamics and

103
collaboration strategies within departments. Working in departments with no familial ties among
teaching partners and the commonality of larger group sizes presents unique dynamics and
challenges that can significantly influence workplace harmony and conflict management. Lack of
familial relations can lead to more defined professional boundaries, which might reduce personal
conflicts and enhance professionalism. However, it might also limit the depth of personal
relationships, potentially affecting team cohesion.
Decisions may be more objective and less influenced by personal biases or relationships,
which could enhance fairness and transparency in departmental operations. Larger departments
and a lack of familial relationships might necessitate more formal communication structures.
While this can help maintain clear and organized communication, it might also impede
spontaneous or informal knowledge sharing that enhances team bonding. In larger groups, the
risk of miscommunication or information dilution increases. Effective conflict management in
this context requires robust communication systems and regular check-ins to ensure alignment
and address misunderstandings promptly. Conflicts in settings without familial ties are less likely
to be personal, which could simplify resolution processes. However, it may also mean that
emotional support or understanding among colleagues could be less accessible, affecting
resolving conflicts with a personal or emotional component.
The prevalence of small teaching departments (11.4% in single-teacher departments and
36.6% in departments of four or more) suggests varying levels of support and resource
availability. Smaller departments might face unique challenges in terms of workload and
collaboration. Larger departments often mean a greater diversity of conflict management styles.
This diversity can be a strength if managed well, allowing for various approaches and solutions

104
to problems. However, adept management must also harmonize these styles to avoid
fragmentation or ongoing disputes. Teams without familial ties may need more structured team-
building activities to develop strong interpersonal relationships that support effective
collaboration and conflict resolution. In larger departments, individuals find it more challenging
to feel connected to the team, impacting motivation and engagement.
Doss (2023) found that SBAE teacher relationships, program activities, classroom
activities, and professional activities all positively influenced SBAE teachers’ ability to do their
job. Leadership fosters a sense of belonging (Nieminen, 2023) and ensures all team members feel
valued and understood. Leaders in such environments may need to adapt their management
styles to effectively address the needs of a diverse team (Kakabadse & Bank, 2004). This might
include emphasizing inclusive leadership practices, mediation skills, and proactive conflict
management. Effective management should focus on inclusivity, ensuring all team
members have equal opportunities to contribute and advance regardless of their background or
relationship status (Salas et al., 2013). Resources must be allocated to training programs that
enhance conflict management capabilities across diverse team structures, promoting a healthy
and productive work environment. Policies should be designed to accommodate the dynamics of
more extensive, non-familial teams, including guidelines on conflict resolution, communication
norms, and collaboration techniques. Understanding and addressing these factors can help design
better organizational structures, improve team dynamics, and implement more effective conflict
management strategies in educational and other professional settings.
Most teachers collaborating with a partner of the opposite gender (76.4%) could
influence teaching dynamics and collaboration. It may be worth exploring how these gender-

105
diverse partnerships affect program management and outcomes. The high rate of traditional
certification (74.0%) compared to alternative certifications implies a preference or requirement
for conventional pathways. This could impact recruitment and professional development
strategies. The fact that more than half of teachers work in school systems with only one high
school (54.5%) could affect their ability to collaborate and share resources with other SBAE
programs. Understanding how this impacts their teaching and program management could be
insightful. The distribution of program sizes and the variation in positions within SBAE
programs (with 34.1% having no designated head) suggest various levels of leadership and
organizational structures. This could impact how programs are run and how responsibilities are
distributed among staff.
Connection to Research Objective 2
Research Objective 2 sought to determine if SBAE teachers were taught conflict
management and resolution skills and concepts. The study discovered that 68% of the
respondents had undergone conflict management training facilitated by professional
organizations, which was more prevalent than training received during university education or
from school districts.
Connection to the Profession
An apparent reality in modern organizations is that teams of interdependent specialized
members accomplish increasingly complex tasks (DeChurch et al., 2013), such as managing

106
program budgets, student leadership development, and combined decision-making (DeChurch et
al., 2006). While this research study aligned closely with research priority three of the American
Association of Agricultural Education’s research goals, specifically, question two discusses what
methods, models, and practices are effective in recruiting agricultural leadership, education, and
communication practitioners (teachers, extension agents, etc.) and supporting their success at all
stages of their careers (Alston et al., 2019), I wanted to elaborate on these findings to our
professional association. This study addressed characteristics beyond the traditional role of the
teacher, including employer characteristics, FFA program and advisor duties, and personal
characteristics of the agricultural educator (Clemons & Lindner, 2019), and sought to identify
non-traditional variables accounting for longevity and success, such as attribution and its
connection to conflict. Our findings gave us some insight into where SBAE teachers receive their
ongoing leadership training and development, and it indicated that SBAE teachers receive most
of their training from their teacher association.
Little is known about how organizational conditions impact turnover within SBAE
programs. Turnover can stem from the school system and the teacher organization (Ingersoll,
2001). Despite extensive prescriptive advice from both applied and academic communities on
managing team differences, the development of practical, evidence-based strategies (DeChurch
et al., 2013) has been hindered by a focus on conflict states (i.e., what teams disagree about)
rather than conflict processes (i.e., how teams interact to address these differences) (DeChurch et
al., 2006). Conflict within formal organizations often arises from incompatible goals and values

107
within substructures. When organizational resources, including decision-making power, are
limited and shared (DeYoung, 1981), simultaneously satisfying all interests can be challenging
(Beck & Betz, 1975, p. 61). To improve interworking relationships among SBAE teachers,
implementing effective conflict negotiations and power-sharing strategies is essential.
Negotiation is critical to addressing differences among individuals.
We must evaluate whether the organizational structure effectively supports conflict
management for SBAE teachers. Team conflict involves emergent states and behavioral
processes (Folgers et al., 2021), each influencing team performance and outcomes. While both
are significant predictors of team outcomes, teams' processes to manage their differences explain
more variance in outcomes (Jordan & Troth, 2021) than their emerging perceptions of those
differences (DeChurch et al., 2006).
Structural differentiation and the centralization of authority are pivotal factors influencing
conflict within organizations. The extent of structural differentiation is indicated by
administratively distinct but functionally interdependent subunits (Corwin, 1969, p. 507), such as
SBAE teacher committees (Corwin, 1969). Centralization creates various positions with diverse
interests and establishes unequal decision-making power, fostering conditions conducive to
conflict (Beck & Betz, 1975). The existing organizational framework may encourage the
development of intrinsic factors, such as problem-solving, conflict resolution, and effective
communication (Stanton, 2011), which are essential for the functioning of multi-teacher
departments (Thompson, 1961, p. 520).
Centralization often results in significant power imbalances, where those in higher
positions have greater control over decisions, resources, and policies, while lower-level

108
employees experience reduced autonomy and input. This imbalance can generate resentment and
dissatisfaction among marginalized people in decision-making processes. Additionally,
centralization may lead to longer communication chains, increasing the risk of
miscommunication, misunderstandings, and delays. The lack of direct communication can also
breed mistrust and suspicion at organizational levels. While centralization might initially seem
effective for maintaining hierarchical order, it can limit participation in decision-making and
information sharing, stifling innovation and adaptability. This can frustrate SBAE teachers who
find their initiatives continually blocked or ignored, potentially leading to conflict as a form of
protest or disengagement.
The impact of centralization on conflict is also influenced by leadership style. Leaders
who practice inclusive and participatory decision-making can alleviate some conflicts associated
with centralization. The culture and dynamics of the professional teacher association or school
system are crucial in determining how centralization affects conflict. Centralization may be more
accepted in workgroups that value hierarchy and top-down control with less overt conflict.
Conversely, in groups that prioritize egalitarianism and democratic participation, centralization
can provoke significant resistance and conflict. SBAE teachers often face tensions between the
autonomy required to develop their leadership styles and an unwritten expectation to exemplify
ideal leadership. This discrepancy between expectations and actual practice can lead to conflicts
(Beck & Betz, 1975, p. 60). Kreisberg’s definition of conflict as a relationship between parties
with incompatible goals (as cited by Beck & Betz, 1975) may not fully capture the complexities
of our profession. It is essential to align behavior with a nuanced understanding of conflict to
ensure coherence in group dynamics while examining the existing leadership framework
(Hakvoort et al., 2022).

109
Leaders must have a deep understanding of conflict management and possess high
conflict competence (Rahim, 2023) to be practical in their schools. Msila’s (2012) research
indicates that conflict often leads to staffroom cliques, suspicion, communication breakdowns,
and low teacher morale. Participants in the study also noted that conflict negatively impacts
teaching and learning, and none of their teacher training adequately prepared them for conflict
management. Despite this, conflict remains a daily challenge in their schools. Effective conflict
managers must first determine and define the nature of the conflict before seeking resolution
(Msila, 2012, p. 26).
To improve the management of SBAE teachers, school systems and teacher associations
need to work more cohesively. Administrators who instigate conflict among SBAE teachers can
be a significant source of discord. Literature highlights that high employee turnover often results
from and contributes to organizational ineffectiveness and low performance (Ingersoll, 2001, p.
505). A thorough turnover analysis should examine the organizational conditions and character
affecting SBAE teachers. This analysis should involve state personnel, local school systems, and
teacher associations to identify best practices for improving working conditions and enhancing
interaction dynamics among SBAE teachers.
Efficacy and Accessibility of Conflict Management Training
Integrating comprehensive conflict management training into university curricula and
school district professional development programs can significantly enhance educational
environments and administrative effectiveness. Educators with conflict management skills are
better prepared to address disputes and tensions, creating a more conducive learning and working
atmosphere. Such training ensures that educational programs remain relevant and responsive to

110
the evolving demands of academic settings (García-Pérez et al., 2021), emphasizing the
importance of soft skills.
Effective conflict management fosters a positive school culture (Schipper et al., 2020),
where issues are resolved constructively, reducing stress and improving relationships among
staff and students. Educators trained in these skills can model effective conflict resolution for
their students, promoting a learning environment that values dialogue and understanding over
confrontation. This supportive classroom environment can lead to improved academic
performance and student well-being. Additionally, conflict management training enhances
teamwork among educators by providing tools to navigate interpersonal differences, leading to
more effective collaboration and shared responsibilities. A well-managed conflict environment
can improve job satisfaction and reduce educator turnover rates. More precise guidelines and
procedures for managing conflicts can be developed, ensuring a consistent approach across the
institution.
Effective conflict management may also decrease the need for disciplinary actions and
the resources allocated to managing behavioral problems, allowing schools to focus more on
proactive educational initiatives. Institutions known for effective conflict management are likely
to build stronger relationships with their local communities, demonstrating a commitment to a
safe and inclusive environment. Schools and universities prioritizing conflict management and a
harmonious educational climate can attract prospective students and staff who value supportive
and progressive environments. Ultimately, integrating conflict management training into
academic curricula and professional development programs equips educators to manage disputes

111
more effectively and fosters a broader culture of respect and cooperation, transforming
educational institutions into models of constructive interaction.
Connection to Research Objective 3
Research Objective 3 explores the relationship between SBAE teachers' conflict
management modes and their interactions within their teaching environments. The most
frequently utilized conflict management modes were compromise (30.1%), problem-solving
(28.5%), accommodation (21.1%), avoidance (19.5%), and competition (0.8%). These modes
were examined in terms of teachers' attitudes toward their job roles and community interactions.
The study sought to identify how SBAE teachers manage conflicts by assigning TKI
conflict management modes to their interpretations of professional experiences within their
teacher associations and various organizations. It was found that SBAE teachers used avoidance
and compromise when dealing with professional organizational experiences. Additionally, the
frequent use of the competitive mode in interactions with teaching partners was noted,
highlighting a significant relationship between this mode and potential causes of dysfunction in
multi-teacher settings.
These findings suggest several implications: SBAE teachers may rarely practice
distributive leadership, indicating an imbalance in power sharing and a need for more
decentralization of authority. The study also assessed the impact of conflict management training
on the relationships (Kilag et al., 2024) between SBAE teachers and their teaching partners.
Analyses of constructs related to professional responsibilities, perspectives, operational
dynamics, and potential dysfunctions revealed that teachers who preferred avoidance and

112
compromise modes experienced significant differences in their interactions with professional
organizations. Conversely, those who favored competitive conflict management displayed
considerable disparities in factors contributing to dysfunction within multi-teacher environments.
Utilization and Effectiveness of Conflict Management Modes
The prevalence of compromise, problem-solving, and accommodation as the most
frequently used conflict management modes reflects a tendency towards cooperative strategies in
workgroup settings. Each mode carries distinct advantages and disadvantages that influence team
dynamics and effectiveness.
Compromise often leads to quicker conflict resolution as it involves mutual concessions,
which can expedite negotiations. It is perceived as fair, enhancing mutual respect and
cooperation. However, a compromise might not address the root causes of conflict (Weingart &
Jehn, 2023), potentially resulting in recurring issues. It may also leave the parties somewhat
satisfied, as each makes concessions, which can lead to a lack of total commitment to the agreed
solution. Additionally, concentrating on splitting differences may limit the exploration of more
innovative solutions that could satisfy all parties involved more effectively.
Problem-solving aims to address all parties' underlying needs and concerns (Rott et al.,
2021), often resulting in more sustainable and creative outcomes. This approach can strengthen
relationships through open communication and collaboration, building trust and understanding.
By addressing the root causes of conflicts, problem-solving helps prevent similar issues from
reoccurring. However, this mode can be time-consuming, requiring thorough analysis and

113
discussion, which may be challenging under tight deadlines or high-pressure environments. It
also demands significant skills in communication, negotiation, and critical thinking.
Accommodating quickly reduces tension by meeting the other party's needs, preserving
team harmony, and enhancing personal relationships. It is effective when the issue is more
important to one party than the other, allowing for efficient prioritization. Nevertheless, overuse
of accommodation can lead to exploitation, where more assertive members may take advantage
of the accommodating ones. This approach can result in inequitable outcomes if the
accommodating party's needs are consistently sidelined and may undermine the accommodator’s
authority or respect within the team, especially if perceived as a sign of weakness.
In workgroup settings, the effectiveness of these conflict management modes depends on
the context, the nature of the conflict, and the personalities involved. Teams that adeptly blend
these approaches, tailoring them to specific situations and needs, will achieve more positive
outcomes regarding productivity and cohesion (Jordan & Troth, 2021).
Relationships and Conflict Management Styles
Reasons to Use the Avoider and Compromiser Mode. My findings highlighted that
SBAE teachers use compromise (30.1%) and avoidance (19.5%) as conflict management styles.
These preferences may be influenced by various personal, interpersonal, and organizational
factors (Collins et al., 2024).
Avoidance is often employed to preserve harmony and prevent disruptions, especially if
teachers perceive the conflict as potentially damaging to team relationships or believe it is not
worth the disturbance. This mode may reflect personal discomfort with confrontation due to past

114
negative experiences, low self-confidence in conflict resolution, or a naturally non-
confrontational personality. Teachers who choose avoidance might also do so if they believe the
conflict cannot be resolved favorably or lack the skills to manage the dispute effectively, viewing
avoidance as a way to prevent worsening the situation.
Conversely, compromise achieves a fair resolution where all parties make concessions,
promoting a sense of equity among colleagues. It is particularly effective when power dynamics
are balanced, ensuring that all voices are heard and preventing individuals from dominating the
decision-making process. Teachers might compromise to build or maintain relationships with
colleagues, demonstrating flexibility and cooperation, which is crucial in collaborative
environments like education. Compromise can also be a safer choice than more assertive conflict
styles that risk aggression or retaliation, significantly when conflict outcomes could affect
professional standing or job security.
Both avoidance and compromise can significantly impact group dynamics. Avoidance
may result in unresolved issues lingering beneath the surface, potentially leading to more
destructive outbursts later. However, it can temporarily maintain group functionality if the
conflict is separate. Compromise ensures progress and continuity but may only sometimes
address the root causes of conflicts, leading to repeated tensions. To address these challenges,
administrators should consider providing professional development focused on enhancing
conflict management skills. This could include training in assertive communication, negotiation
techniques, and effective conflict-resolution strategies. By deepening teachers' understanding of
conflict dynamics, they can better select appropriate management styles for different situations,
improving collaborative efforts and educational outcomes.

115
Reasons to use Competitor Mode. The data from our respondents indicated that SBAE
teachers in Texas used the competitive mode of conflict management the least (0.8%) among all
TKI conflict modes. This low usage of the competitive style can be attributed to various
personal, situational, and organizational factors.
Personal characteristics play a role in competitive strategies. Teachers with high self-
confidence might adopt a competitive approach, believing their ideas and methods are superior.
They may view competition as a way to drive excellence and justify it as beneficial for the
group's performance. Past experiences where competitive behaviors led to successful outcomes
can reinforce the use of this approach.
Situational factors can also prompt the use of competition. In scenarios where critical
outcomes are at stake—such as funding allocations, program direction, or leadership roles—
teachers might feel compelled to prioritize their interests through competition. Limited resources,
like time and funding, can create a competitive environment where teachers vie for their share. If
previous collaborative or accommodating methods fail to resolve significant issues, competition
may be seen as a more effective way to achieve goals (Oubrich et al., 2021).
Cultural and organizational influences contribute to the adoption of competitive
behaviors. Teachers may be more inclined to compete in districts or teacher associations that
value individual achievement over collaboration. Without sufficient training in collaborative
skills or conflict resolution, teachers might default to competitive approaches, especially under
stress or uncertainty. Additionally, competitive behaviors modeled by school leadership or
respected colleagues can influence teachers to adopt similar strategies if they associate such
behaviors with professional advancement or recognition.

116
While competitive behavior can yield short-term successes or advance specific initiatives,
it can also foster resentment, reduce trust, and damage long-term team cohesion. Persistent use of
competition can erode a collaborative culture, undermining a supportive educational
environment. Educational leaders should consider the broader implications of competitive
behaviors on team dynamics and school atmosphere. Balancing assertiveness with cooperation
can help ensure that competitiveness enhances rather than detracts from collaborative efforts and
the educational mission.
Would SBAE teachers admit that they are Competitive?
In agricultural teaching, a discontinuity often exists between the imposed, competitive
state and the more natural, non-competitive state. This discontinuity can lead to a fluid transition
between competitive and avoiding behaviors, depending on the SBAE teachers’ perceptions of
the situation. Several terms and practices are commonly associated with a competitive approach,
where individuals or subgroups prioritize their personal goals and achievements over
collaborative efforts and shared objectives. I created synonyms and practices that describe the
competitive nature and experiences of SBAE teachers in multi-teacher departments and work
groups.
Table 9
Synonyms for Competition that can be demonstrated by SBAE Teachers
Term Definition
Power Struggles Disputes where individuals vie for influence or control
within the team
Cutthroat Behavior Actions that involve undermining others to get ahead
Win-Lose Attitude The mindset that one party’s gain is another party’s loss

117
Self-Interest Prioritizing personal gain or success over team
objectives
Dominance Seeking to assert one’s views or decisions over others’
Competition for Resources Contending for limited resources like budget,
recognition, or opportunities
One-Upmanship The practice of trying to outdo others or demonstrate
superiority
Envy is a harmful emotion in the workplace that can significantly affect colleague
relationships (Menon & Thompson, 2010). In our study, we examined the experiences of SBAE
teachers with their teaching partners, where envy often surfaced due to unresolved conflict and
misattributions. Conflict occurs when there is a disparity between an individual's self-interest and
the interests of others (Kilag et al., 2024). Although having power can benefit those who possess
it, it can also have detrimental effects when influential individuals interact with others in a group
context (Greer & Chu, 2019). This dynamic is worsened by social undermining—often called
cutthroat behavior—which includes actions intended to hinder others from forming positive
relationships, achieving success, and maintaining a good reputation (Hilal, 2021). Such
competitive motives are often driven by personal outcomes that employees anticipate or receive,
reflecting a self-interested decision-making model (Stroebe & Frey, 1982).
Wong et al. (2020) argue that ethical leadership is essential for promoting cooperative
conflict management and reducing competitive approaches (Wong et al., 2020). This emphasizes
the importance of organizations implementing training and selection processes to cultivate more
ethical leaders. By prioritizing the reduction of competitive conflict management, leaders and
employees can understand that imposing solutions and striving to "win" in conflicts undermines
the effectiveness of ethical leadership, consequently weakening relationships among team
members and fostering suspicion. Furthermore, Hakanen (2024) suggests that teamwork

118
characterized by autonomy and other empowering qualities can enhance engagement.
Meaningful decision-making processes that involve interpersonal and social relations may
influence the work environment, whether through informal climate-related interactions or
structured, goal-oriented organization at the group level.
Competition for wages, competencies, resources, and promotions is a fundamental aspect
of most modern organizations, as Sischka et al. (2021) emphasized. Management practices that
reward relative rank can significantly intensify competition among employees. This competitive
environment can lead to bullying, mainly when in-group members use their superior informal
political positions to target and isolate out-group members (Ramsay et al., 2011). Role clarity is
an indispensable job resource that supports effective work organization. Regarding interpersonal
and social resources, friendliness and team empowerment are non-negotiable, while servant
leadership and justice are indispensable organizational resources. It is imperative to address these
interconnected factors - envy, competition, ethical leadership, and team dynamics - to foster a
healthier, more collaborative workplace environment.
Table 10
Competitive Practices that SBAE Teachers may demonstrate
Activity Definition
Secretive Work Withholding information or resources from others to
maintain an advantage
Sabotage Deliberately undermining or obstructing others’ efforts
to ensure one’s success.
Excessive Rivalry Creating or fostering intense rivalries among team
members
Manipulation Using deceit or manipulation to gain personal
advantages or outcomes

119
Aggressive Negotiation Engaging in brutal bargaining tactics aimed at
maximizing personal gain, often at the expense of
others
Credit Hoarding Taking sole credit for group achievements or projects
rather than acknowledging team contributions
Overemphasis on Individual
Achievement
Valuing personal accomplishments and recognition
over collective success
Undermining Criticizing or diminishing others’ work or ideas to
promote one’s own
Exclusive Decision-Making Making decisions unilaterally or within a small clique
without involving or considering the broader team
In the study, participants were asked whether they felt involved in decision-making or
excluded by their teaching partners. This inquiry was based on a thematic analysis conducted
during the research exploration phase (Collins et al., 2024). Understanding these dynamics can
help address challenges and promote a more collaborative and effective working environment.
Lin and Huang (2010) emphasized that group size plays a crucial role in a team’s structure and
composition. Previous research indicates that larger group sizes can hinder information-sharing
as they often allow members to disengage from contributing. This increased size complicates the
assessment of each individual’s contributions, leading to a lack of accountability (Lin & Huang,
2010). In contrast, smaller groups tend to foster a sense of individual importance, making
members feel that their contributions are vital to the team's success (Lin & Huang, 2010).
Knowledge sabotage is a significant concern, motivated by personal satisfaction and a
desire to retaliate against colleagues rather than seek revenge against the organization (Serenko,
2020). The perpetrators of knowledge sabotage and their targets tend to claim innocence: the
saboteurs see their actions as necessary responses to inappropriate behavior from others
(Serenko, 2020), while the targets blame the saboteurs for their misconduct. This highly
counterproductive behavior concerning knowledge is influenced by social desirability bias

120
(Serenko, 2020); for instance, saboteurs may minimize the frequency or seriousness of their
actions (Bogdanović, 2022), often admitting only to minor offenses while concealing more
damaging behaviors.
It is essential to consider the impact of competition on teamwork engagement. Team size,
gender, and seniority can influence collaboration, rivalry, and engagement. Using structural
composition as a criterion for selecting teams for future research is crucial. The organizational
structure significantly influences how tasks are performed, decisions are made, and,
consequently, team cooperation and commitment. Additionally, this structure affects the
relationship with the surrounding environment, which can intensify rivalry. Rivalry may be
influenced by organizational initiatives and policies and the individual characteristics of
employees (Riyanto et al., 2021). Combining these individual traits with the organizational
context can exacerbate competition and elevate its intensity (Moczulska et al., 2024). Studies on
post-negotiation behavior suggest that aggressive negotiation tactics can lead to relationship
conflicts (Boothby et al., 2023) and diminish motivation to fulfill obligations to counterparts
after reaching agreements (Hart & Schweitzer, 2020). Duffy et al. (2006) emphasized that social
undermining is a low-intensity behavior that can harm work attitudes (Ahmad et al., 2022). Such
undermining behaviors can result in immediate negative consequences, including increased
rumination, emotional exhaustion, and partner social undermining (Rodríguez-Muñoz et al.,
2022). Furthermore, Anderson et al. (2020) found that disagreeableness did not predict the
attainment of power. Individuals who are selfish, deceitful, and aggressive are no more likely to
gain power than those who are generous, trustworthy, and kind (Rodríguez-Muñoz et al., 2022).
While disagreeable individuals may appear intimidating and thus gain some control, their poor
interpersonal relationships often negate potential advantages (Rodríguez-Muñoz et al., 2022).

121
Impact on Professional Relationships and Environment
Conflict management styles significantly influence dynamics within multi-teacher work
groups, with each style impacting team interactions in diverse ways. The competitive style,
which emphasizes pursuing one's goals at the expense of others (Latham, 2023), can contribute
to dysfunction in several areas. Characterized by assertiveness and low cooperativeness, the
competitive style often focuses on winning rather than collaboration, leading to potential conflict
if not managed properly.
Although our findings did not show a significant relationship between the competitive
mode and specific constructs, exploratory evidence suggests that competitiveness impacts
various aspects of the 3-ring model (Collins et al., 2024). The competitive style can elevate
tension among team members, as individuals focused on personal goals may view others as
rivals, making cooperation difficult. This rivalry can result in fragmented efforts and diminished
synergy as individuals prioritize outperforming their colleagues over working collaboratively.
Persistent competitiveness can breed frustration and resentment, affecting overall morale. When
some team members feel consistently undermined or disregarded, trust within the group can
erode. Trust is crucial for effective teamwork, and a competitive approach may undermine it by
creating a fear of being undermined or unable to rely on colleagues. Additionally, competitive
individuals might need more time to maintain a perceived advantage, leading to unequal
contributions and reduced collective success.
A win/lose mindset often accompanies competitive behavior, escalating conflicts rather
than resolving them. This approach can lead to prolonged disputes and a toxic work
environment, where teachers work in isolation to protect their ideas, creating silos that hinder
overall effectiveness. To mitigate these adverse effects, fostering a more collaborative

122
environment is essential. Encouraging cooperative styles, focusing on mutual goals, and
collective success can enhance team productivity and morale. Implementing team-building
activities, promoting open communication, and setting clear collective goals can shift the focus
from competition to collaboration, creating a more positive and effective work environment (Li,
2024).
Connection to Attribution Theory
The demographic makeup of SBAE environments, predominantly female and Caucasian,
may influence attributions related to workplace behaviors and expectations. Teachers might
attribute specific conflicts or harmonious interactions to these demographic similarities or
differences, impacting their approaches to conflict resolution and departmental interactions.
Teachers with professional conflict resolution training may attribute their abilities to the
skills acquired during such training, perceiving themselves as more adept at managing disputes.
In contrast, those who need formal training might attribute their challenges in conflict resolution
to the lack of such education or perceived inadequacies in their preparation. The choice of
conflict management modes, such as compromise or problem-solving, can reflect teachers'
attributions of effectiveness based on their past experiences and beliefs about what strategies
work best.
Teachers' perceptions of conflict management effectiveness are influenced by their
adopted modes. For example, those who use avoidance might attribute fewer direct conflicts to
their approach but may still perceive underlying tensions as unresolved. In cases where
competitive styles lead to dysfunction, individuals might attribute this dysfunction to personality
clashes or a lack of cooperation, potentially affecting team morale and perceived effectiveness in

123
collaboration. These attributions can significantly shape how conflicts are managed and resolved
within SBAE departments.
Connection to Efficacy
Attributions of efficacy, or beliefs about one's ability to manage situations effectively, can
significantly impact how individuals use the five conflict modes (Thomas, 2008) identified by
the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). Here is how efficacy beliefs might affect
each mode. In competing, Individuals who believe they are highly effective at resolving conflicts
may lean more toward the competing mode. They might feel confident in their ability to assert
(Ginn, 2021) their position and win the conflict. Those needing more confidence may still use the
competing mode but do so defensively or aggressively. They may overcompensate for their
perceived ineffectiveness by being more confrontational.
The accommodating mode individuals with high efficacy may use the accommodating
mode strategically, believing that they can balance their needs with others and that
accommodating will eventually lead to positive outcomes. Those with low efficacy may default
to accommodating more often, believing they cannot effectively assert their needs or resolve
conflicts. This can lead to them sacrificing their own needs too readily. In the avoiding mode,
SBAE teachers with high efficacy might avoid conflicts if they believe addressing them could be
more disruptive than beneficial or if they think they can manage the situation better later. Those
with low efficacy might avoid conflicts out of fear of being unable to manage them successfully.
They may feel they need to gain the skills to address the issues effectively. In collaborative
settings, high-efficacy individuals might compromise when they believe they can successfully
find a middle ground that meets all parties' essential needs. Conversely, those with low efficacy
may resort to compromising to avoid more complex conflict resolution strategies. They might

124
believe compromising is the safest approach when they doubt their ability to resolve the conflict
entirely. By addressing efficacy beliefs and improving confidence in conflict management,
individuals and teams can become more adept at using the most appropriate conflict-handling
strategies for different situations.
Connection to Attribution Styles
To navigate interactions effectively with other SBAE teachers, we must recognize our
attribution styles and their impact on emotions and outcomes. Attribution theory can help resolve
conflicts by increasing awareness of our own and others' attributions. SBAE teachers can request
or provide feedback, present evidence, and offer alternative viewpoints to help colleagues correct
behavior. For instance, if agriculture education teachers perceive inequity in workload,
resources, or recognition, they may attribute these disparities to intentional favoritism or bias by
school administrators. Teachers bearing most of the workload may be misattributed as over-
achievers or unwilling to delegate responsibilities. Suppose one teacher is assigned more
challenging classes or fewer resources. In that case, they might believe this is due to personal
bias rather than logistical constraints, leading to feelings of unfairness and conflict.
Utilizing attribution theory within SBAE teacher work groups can reduce friction,
improve communication, and increase collaboration. Misattributions can create feelings of
distrust in multi-teacher departments. Simons and Peterson (2000) state that distrust can lead to
ambiguous conflict behaviors interpreted as sinister (Semmer, 2020) and conveying distrust
through conduct, increasing task conflict. Trust among SBAE teachers encourages accepting
disagreements at face value and reduces the likelihood of misattributing conflict behaviors.
Mishra (1996) found that task conflict leads to relationship conflict, primarily due to
misattributions, highlighting the moderating role of interpersonal relationships. Positive

125
interpersonal relationships facilitate conflict resolution, as individuals are more likely to engage
in constructive dialogue (Collins et al., 2024) and find mutually beneficial solutions. Good
relationships can buffer negative emotions, while strained relationships can amplify them.
SBAE teachers make professional and personal decisions based on experience, education,
family, and career needs (Solomonson et al., 2021), making it essential to understand the
rationale behind these decisions for teacher retention. Due to the formation of intrinsic
attributions, SBAE teachers need tools to address hurt feelings from poorly managed conflict and
abnormal language, which can set up an emotional defense that leads to causal attributions.
Personal animosity often underlies attributions, leading to task and relationship conflicts.
Relationship conflict can trigger task conflict, such as sabotage, where one teacher makes tasks
more difficult for a partner by falsely manufacturing task conflict. Identifying the conflict
source—task or relationship—is crucial to isolating the cause and creating a management plan to
increase productivity. Attribution theory aids in identifying and challenging maladaptive
attributions, such as blaming oneself excessively for failures, which can contribute to depression
and low self-esteem (Kelly & Michela, 1980).
SBAE conflict should be assessed at various stages to prevent and mediate conflict.
Emerging disputes can be managed quickly with the proper identification of the issues and by
utilizing a professional conflict management plan. Conversely, a more calcified conflict can do
irreversible damage if not correctly identified and managed. Theoretically, scholars argue that
minor distractions and disturbances are conflicts because the actions of one person (Hakavort et
al., 2017) will prevent, block, or interfere with the possibilities of another teacher to reach their
goals. As these conflicts are in an emerging stage, we refer to them as emerging conflicts
(Hakvoort et al., 2020).

126
Individual, professional, and firsthand experiences and the perception of SBAE teacher
behaviors profoundly influence teacher retention. What we may have previously categorized as
perceptions could be attributions we have yet to recognize or understand. Acknowledging that
others' behaviors can be influenced by external, uncontrollable factors can foster empathy and
reduce unnecessary blame or conflict (Kelly & Michela, 1980). School systems and the
association can effectively mitigate these conflicts and cultivate a more harmonious and
productive workgroup by promoting clear communication, equitable practices, and a supportive
environment.
Overall, attribution theory deeply enriches the interpretation of how SBAE teachers
manage conflict by highlighting the underlying beliefs that influence their choice of strategies
and their interactions with peers. Understanding these attributions can help design interventions
that address the behaviors and beliefs that drive these behaviors, leading to more effective
conflict management strategies (Ford et al., 2020) in educational settings.
Strategies to Manage Conflict
Effective conflict management within multi-teacher groups requires a structured
approach incorporating several key strategies. Communication techniques such as active
listening, clarification, and summarizing ensure that all parties feel heard and understood
(Furlong, 2020). Conflict resolution methods should include negotiation, mediation,
collaboration, compromise, and accommodation, each contributing to a balanced and
constructive resolution process.
To achieve effective outcomes, it is crucial to establish clear conflict management
procedures, provide comprehensive training and development, and set ground rules that foster

127
psychological safety. Leaders have a pivotal role in this process by modeling appropriate
behavior, facilitating open discussions, and ensuring that conflicts are addressed promptly and
fairly. Encouraging teachers to take responsibility for managing their conflicts while providing
them with the necessary tools and support can enhance their ability to manage disputes
constructively (Furlong, 2020). By tackling conflicts early and effectively, schools can minimize
negative impacts and leverage conflict as a catalyst for innovation, collaboration, and growth.
Recommendations for Future Research
Results from this study will be utilized to develop lessons and courses focused on conflict
management, resolution, and adaptive leadership aimed at enhancing the organizational
psychology skills of SBAE teachers. Understanding the gaps in SBAE teacher professionalism is
crucial, and gaps need to be filled (Cheng, 1996). These gaps can manifest as power imbalances,
communication barriers, resistance to change, leadership styles, and organizational dynamics.
One notable research gap is the identification of emerging conflicts as they happen and how to
mediate them. Emerging conflicts are challenges to the short-term or long-term teaching plans of
SBAE teachers, often triggered by communication shortcomings and conflicts of interest
(Hakvoort, 2018).
Areas for further research include longitudinal studies to track changes in conflict
management training and its effects or comparative studies across different states or educational
settings to enhance understanding of cultural or regional differences in conflict management.
There is a clear need for further research that includes a more diverse array of participants to
explore whether the findings hold across different demographic groups or if different strategies
and challenges emerge in more varied samples. Further research could investigate how
attributions change over time with sustained conflict management training or vary across distinct

128
cultural or educational contexts. This could help us understand how attributions to conflict styles
or training efficacy evolve and influence behavior in academic settings.
To help SBAE teachers self-identify and resolve conflicts, we can develop a
comprehensive training module that includes the following components: self-assessment tools,
conflict resolution strategies, role-playing scenarios, and emotional intelligence training. In this
study, I utilized a questionnaire derived from the experiences of SBAE teachers. For instructional
and practical purposes, alongside my instrument, teacher educators, teacher associations, and
school systems can utilize the Work Attributional Style Questionnaire for diagnostic purposes
(Ashforth & Fugate, 2006). This instrument will allow our profession to isolate specific events
that trigger attribution bias and errors that may lead to group conflict. The TKI can be used to
assess SBAE teacher working groups through an experiential process that measures the
Transition from TKI Assessments to Effective Behavior. An assessment of the organizations
should take place to determine if we have the professional competencies to facilitate workshops
and courses about conflict management. The personality of the head of the pedagogical team and
the level of their competence determine the effectiveness of prevention and resolution of conflict
situations (Frolova, 2019).
Reconciliation after conflict involves restoring trust and collaboration among SBAE
teachers after a conflict. Frovola (2019) summarized Minchin’s (2009) research, which detailed
that overcoming the negative consequences of conflict should focus on cooperative technologies,
collaborative educational environment design, and mechanisms for introducing conflict
management methods at various organizational levels. Research should be done to assess these
key steps: open communication, apology and forgiveness, collaborative problem-solving,
reflection, and follow-up. According to Jhangiani and Terry (2022), focusing on understanding

129
the causes of events or feelings is more productive than assigning blame when attributing them.
This approach promotes a more objective and constructive perspective, enabling individuals to
address the underlying issues without becoming entangled in personal grievances. By adopting
this mindset, SBAE teachers can approach conflicts with a focus on resolution and improvement
rather than fault-finding, leading to a more harmonious and effective working environment.
One potential cause of teacher migration is the lack of effective conflict management and
resolution and its underlying factors. Ingersoll (2001) observed that teacher migration represents
a form of turnover that does not decrease the overall supply of teachers, as new hires typically
offset departures. From a macro or systemic viewpoint, this may suggest that teacher migration
does not contribute to staffing challenges. However, at the organizational level, the data indicate
that teacher migration can impact staffing stability. While moving to a new school may
reinvigorate an SBAE teacher's commitment to the organization's mission (Rada, 2023), it is
essential to consider that the migrating teacher might be displaying a "fight or flight" response
due to unresolved conflicts with other SBAE teachers.
Conclusion
Enhancing the quality and effectiveness of SBAE teachers involves more factors than this
study revealed. Future research should investigate the effectiveness factors of future SBAE
teachers based on their high school experiences, ethnicity, and race (Eck et al., 2021). To
effectively address conflicts among SBAE teachers, it is crucial to identify the specific causes
(Jiménez-Herrera et al., 2020), understand the emotions involved, and determine the factors or
individuals perceived as responsible for the conflict. Attribution theory helps us understand how
individuals assign responsibility for events and outcomes. When disputes arise, it is common for

130
individuals to attribute blame to others, external circumstances, or even themselves. This can
exacerbate tensions and hinder resolution efforts.
As an organized profession, we should aim to assign causality to understand why
agriculture educators experience conflict and why retention rates fluctuate, leaving larger states
like Texas with over 100 vacancies annually. Pre-service programs need to produce more SBAE
teachers to fill these positions. Teacher recruitment programs alone will not solve the staffing
problems of schools if they do not address the organizational sources of low retention (Ingersoll,
2001, p. 501). In examining SBAE teacher attrition, it is essential to consider the impact of
unresolved conflict and the benefits of effectively managing conflict to enhance the collaboration
among SBAE teachers, which can influence student outcomes. Conflict can be constructive when
its root causes are identified through assessment, leading to targeted training for SBAE teachers,
which will help them manage their emotions and thoughts through the attributional process.
Proximity fosters care, while distance breeds fear and negative emotions. The further we distance
our profession from the essential work of conflict mediation, the longer it will take to achieve
significant growth in recruitment, reduce attrition rates, and achieve a prominent level of
psychological safety for all SBAE teachers. Perception is not always reality. By positioning
ourselves closer to conflict, we can begin to make adaptive changes in both our personal and
professional lives. Embracing the opportunity to mediate and understand conflict will lead to
better outcomes for SBAE teachers (Richardson et al., 2014) and their students while fostering a
more resilient and supportive working environment.

131
Chapter Summary:
My findings provided insight into SBAE teachers' conflict management modes and their
application within the professional environment. SBAE teachers use avoider and compromiser
modes in professional organization experiences, while the competitor mode is more common in
their interworking, correlating with multi-teacher dysfunction. The study calls for integrating
conflict management training into teacher preparation and professional development programs to
support SBAE teachers better.
Using attribution theory can reduce friction, improve communication, and increase
collaboration among SBAE teachers. Trust encourages accepting disagreements at face value and
reduces the likelihood of misattributing conflict behaviors. SBAE teachers need tools to address
hurt feelings from poorly managed conflict. Identifying the conflict source—task or
relationship—is crucial to creating a management plan to increase productivity. Misattributions
and misunderstandings can lead to perceived inequities, blame, and miscommunication, fueling
conflict. Clear communication, equitable practices, and a supportive environment can mitigate
these conflicts and promote a harmonious and productive workgroup.

132
References
Adegbola, A. E., Adegbola, M. D., Amajuoyi, P., Benjamin, L. B., & Adeusi, K. B. (2024). Fostering
product development efficiency through cross-functional team leadership: Insights and strategies
from industry experts. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6(5),
1733-1753. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v6i5.1144
Agriculture Teachers Association of Texas. (2023, January 1). History.
https://www.texasagteachers.org/history#:~:text=History&text=On%20August%209%2C%2019
40%2C%20representatives,Agriculture%20Teachers%20Association%20of%20Texas
Ågotnes, K. W., Nielsen, M. B., Skogstad, A., Gjerstad, J., & Einarsen, S. V. (2024). The role of
leadership practices in the relationship between role stressors and exposure to bullying
behaviors–a longitudinal moderated mediation design. Work & Stress, 38(1), 44-72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2023.2226635
Agyapong, B., Obuobi-Donkor, G., Burback, L., & Wei, Y. (2022). Stress, burnout, anxiety and
depression among teachers: a scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 19(17), 10706 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710706
Ahmad, B., Shafique, I., & Kalyar, M. N. (2022). A moderated mediation model of the association
between coworker social undermining and knowledge hiding. VINE Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems, 52(5), 763-778. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-03-2020-
0051
Ahmed, R., Philbin, S. P., & Paracha, O. S. (2024). Investigating the impact of task-oriented,
relationship-oriented, and innovation-oriented leadership competencies on project success in
Pakistan: a moderated model of multi-dimensional senior management support. Engineering
Management Journal, 36(1), 42-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2023.2186681
Al Maita, L., Fakhoury, N., Jarrad, S., & Caputo, A. (2015). Conflict management styles, religious
motivation and nepotism: evidence from Jordan.
Alston, A. J., Roberts, R., & English, C. W. (2019). Building a Sustainable Agricultural Career Pipeline:
Effective Recruitment and Retention Practices Used by Colleges of Agriculture in the United
States. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 3(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.9741/2578-
2118.1073
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Industrial and organizational psychology.
https://www.apa.org/
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2009). Weiner's Model of Attributions. Review of Educational
Research, 51(1), 1-5.

133
Anderson, C. A. (1991). How people think about causes: Examination of the typical phenomenal
organization of attributions for success and failure. Social Cognition, 9(4), 295–329.
https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1991.9.4.295
Anderson, C., Sharps, D. L., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2020). People with disagreeable personalities
(selfish, combative, and manipulative) do not have an advantage in pursuing power at
work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(37), 22780–22786.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005088117
Annisa, N. N., & Ginarti, S. (2023). Employee performance: Self-efficacy and locus of
control. International Journal on Social Science, Economics and Art, 12(4), 200–206.
https://doi.org/10.35335/ijosea.v12i4.181
Appelbaum, S. H., Shapiro, B., & Elbaz, D. (1998). The management of multicultural group
conflict. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 4(5), 211-234.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527599810234173
Ariyanto, A., Hornsey, M. J., & Gallois, C. (2009). Intergroup attribution bias in the context of extreme
intergroup conflict. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(4), 293–299.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2009.01292.x
Arooj, S. N. (2024). Antecedents and Outcomes of Hatred from Affective Event Theory Perspective. A
Study in Public Sector of Pakistan (Doctoral dissertation, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY).
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. and Razavieh, A.,(2002). Introduction to Research in Education 6th Edition,
NewYork, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston).
Ashforth, B. E., & Fugate, M. (2006). Attributional style in work settings: Development of a measure.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(3), 12–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190601200302
August, V. (2024). Understanding democratic conflicts: The failures of agonistic theory. European
Journal of Political Theory, 23(2), 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851221120120
Badriyah, N., Sulaeman, M. M., Wibowo, S. N., & Anggapratama, R. (2024). The role of constructive
conflict management in fostering team collaboration and innovation: A perspective of
transformational leadership. Journal of Contemporary Administration and Management
(ADMAN), 2(1), 402–408. https://doi.org/10.61100/adman.v2i1.159
Bandhu, D., Mohan, M. M., Nittala, N. A. P., Jadhav, P., Bhadauria, A., & Saxena, K. K. (2024).
Theories of motivation: A comprehensive analysis of human behavior drivers. Acta
Psychologica, 244, 104177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104177

134
Barker Scott, B. A., & Manning, M. R. (2024). Designing the Collaborative Organization: A Framework
for how Collaborative Work, Relationships, and Behaviors Generate Collaborative Capacity. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 60(1), 149–193.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863221106245
Bartell, C. A. (1995). Shaping teacher induction policy in California. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27-
43.
Beck, E. M., & Betz, M. (1975). A comparative analysis of organizational conflict in schools. Sociology
of Education, 59-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112050
Belosevic, F., & Aleksic, A. (2019). Attribution process, errors, and conflict management styles.
Proceedings of FEB Zagreb 10th International Odyssey Conference on Economics and Business,
1(1), 560. https://doi.org/10.22598/odyssey/2019.1
Benard, S., Doan, L., Nicholson, D. A., Meanwell, E., Wright, E. L., & Lista, P. (2024). An “eye for an
eye” versus “turning the other cheek”? The status consequences of revenge and forgiveness in
intergroup conflict. Social Forces, 102(3), 1200–1219. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad073
Bessolo, D. (2023). Destructive conflict and task and relationship orientation of leaders (Order No.
30525298). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/destructive-conflict-task-relationship/docview/2826108877/se-2
Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Zheng, A., Hopwood, C. J., Sosa, S. S., Roberts, B. W., & Briley, D. A.
(2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 148(7-8), 588.
Blustein, D. L. (2011). A relational theory of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.10.004
Bogdanović, M. (2022). Destructive organizational communication and manipulation: Emergent forms,
consequences and coping in the function of smarter organizational solutions. Romanian
Economic and Business Review, 17(3), 20-39.
Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Baron, J. (2020). The psychology of intergroup conflict: A review of theories
and measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178, 947-962.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020
Boone, H., & Boone, D. (2009). An assessment of problems faced by High School Agricultural
Education Teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 21–32.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01021
Boothby, Erica J., Gus Cooney, and Maurice E. Schweitzer. "Embracing complexity: A review of
negotiation research." Annual Review of Psychology 74, no. 1 (2023): 299–332.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-014116

135
Bouchard Jr, T. J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits: A survey. Current directions
in psychological science, 13(4), 148-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00295.x
Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. (2013). Ready to rumble: How team
personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98(2), 385.
Bransby, D. P., Kerrissey, M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2024). Paradise Lost (and Restored?): A Study of
Psychological Safety over Time. Academy of Management Discoveries, (ja).
https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2023.0084
Braun, M. T., Kozlowski, S. W., Brown, T. A., & DeShon, R. P. (2020). Exploring the dynamic team
cohesion–performance and coordination–performance relationships of newly formed
teams. Small Group Research, 51(5), 551-580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496420907157
Britannica. (2024). Groupthink: Psychology, decision-making & consequences. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/science/groupthink.
Brown, M., & Jarldorn, M. (2024). Overcoming fear of conflict in group work: reflections from practice
and teaching. Social Work with Groups, 47(1), 79-94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2023.2220115
Bruening, T. H., & Hoover, T. S. (1991). Personal life factors as related to effectiveness and satisfaction
of secondary agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(4), 37–43.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1991.04037
Brun, L., Pansu, P., & Dompnier, B. (2021). The role of causal attributions in determining behavioral
consequences: A meta-analysis from an intrapersonal attributional perspective in achievement
contexts. Psychological Bulletin, 147(7), 701. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000331
Buchanan, G. M., Seligman, M. E., & Seligman, M. (2013). Explanatory style. Routledge.
Cano, J., & Miller, G. (1992). A gender analysis of job satisfaction, job satisfier factors, and job
dissatisfier factors of agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33(3),
40-46. https://DOI:10.5032/jae.1992.03040
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Professional association. https://dictionary.cambridge.org
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). "Work organization". https://dictionary.cambridge.org
Cheng, Y. C. (1996). Relation between teachers' professionalism and job attitudes, educational
outcomes, and organizational factors. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(3), 163–171.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1996.9941322
Chernetsky, V. V., Hughes, D. E., Walker, D., Nowlin, E. L., & Schrock, W. A. (2024). Managing the
interfunctional war: Mitigating the negative effects of conflict between sales and marketing.

136
Industrial Marketing Management, 122, 106-118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.08.007
Chernyak-Hai, L., & Rabenu, E. (2018). The new era workplace relationships: Is social exchange theory
still relevant? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice, 11(3), 456–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.5
Chirkov, V. I. (2008). Culture, personal autonomy and individualism: Their relationships and
implications for personal growth and well-being. https://doi.org/10.4087/IFQE7624
Chung, S., & Lee, S. (2021). Crisis management and corporate apology: The effects of causal attribution
and apology type on publics’ cognitive and affective responses. International Journal of
Business Communication, 58(1), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417735646
Clark, M. S., Kelsey, K. D., & Brown, N. R. (2014). The thornless rose: A phenomenological look at
decisions career teachers make to remain in the profession. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 55(3), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.03043
Clemons, C. A., & Lindner, J. R. (2019). Teacher Longevity and Career Satisfaction in the Secondary
Agricultural Education Classroom. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(1), 186-201.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.01186
Clemons, C. A., Hall, M., & Lindner, J. (2021). What is the Real Cost of Professional Success? A
Qualitative Analysis of Work and Life Balance in Agriscience Education. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 62(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.01095
Clifford, M. M., Kim, A., & McDonald, B. A. (1988). Responses to failure as influenced by task
attribution, outcome attribution, and failure tolerance. The Journal of Experimental Education,
57(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1988.10806493
Coleman, B. M., Bunch, J. C., & Thoron, A. C. (2020). Identifying agriscience teachers’ instructional
practice professional development needs by certification type. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 61(3), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03086
Collins, A., McKibben, J., & Hancock, G. (2024). An assessment of the inner working relationships of
school-based agriculture educators in multi-teacher departments. Proceedings of the Southern
AAAE, 306–312.
https://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/Southern%20Region/2024%20Southern%20Region
%20Atlanta/SR%20Paper%20Proceedings%202024.pdf
Conte, J. M. (2024). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational
psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
Cornille, T. A., Pestle, R. E., & Vanwy, R. W. (1999). Teachers’ conflict management styles with peers
and students’ parents. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(1), 69–79.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022819

137
Corwin, R. G. (1969). Patterns of organizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 507-520.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391588
Coutts, A., Gerhards, L., & Murad, Z. (2020). Who to blame? Self-serving attribution bias with multi-
dimensional uncertainty. In Working Paper.
Davison, H. K., & Smothers, J. (2015). How Theory X style of management arose from a fundamental
attribution error. Journal of Management History, 21(2), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-
03-2014-0073
DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(2), 311.
DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task
conflict: toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559.
De Dreu, C. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (Eds.). (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in
organizations (pp. 3-54). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
De Dreu, C. K., & Triki, Z. (2022). Intergroup conflict: origins, dynamics, and consequences across
taxa. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 377(1851), 20210134.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0134
De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of
organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of
Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 22(3), 309-328.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.71
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and
team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
DeYoung, A. J. (1981). Emergent Conflict Models in Educational Theory. The Educational
Forum, 45(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728109336068
DiBenedetto, C. A. (2024). Education Needs of School-Based Agriculture Teachers to Prepare Students
for the 21st Century. In Emerging Research in Agricultural Teacher Education (pp. 205-226).
IGI Global.
DiBenedetto, C. A., Willis, V. C., & Barrick, R. K. (2018). Needs assessments for school-based
agricultural education teachers: A review of literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4),
52-71. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04052
Dillman, D. A. (2011). Cram101 textbook outlines to accompany internet, mail, and mixed-mode
surveys: The Tailored Design Method: Don A. Dillman, 3rd edition. Academic Internet
Publishers Incorporated.

138
Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L. S., Fu, S., Boulamatsi, A., Smith, T. A., Runnalls, B., Corner, A. J., Tepper,
B. J., & Maurer, T. (2023). Gains and Losses: Week-To-Week Changes in Leader-
Follower Relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 66(1), 248–275. https://doi-
org.spot.lib.auburn.edu/10.5465/amj.2019.1100
Ding, R. X., Cheng, R. X., Li, M. N., Yang, G. R., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2024). Conflict management-
based consensus-reaching processes consider conflict relationship clustering in large-scale group
decision-making problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 238, 122095.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122095
Dogan, K., & Vecchio, R. P. (2001). Managing envy and jealousy in the workplace. Compensation &
Benefits Review, 33(2), 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863680122098298
Dong, R. K., & Li, X. (2024). Psychological safety and psychosocial safety climate in workplace: A
bibliometric analysis and systematic review towards a research agenda. Journal of Safety
Research, 91, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863680122098298
Dooley, L.M. and Lindner, J.R. (2003). The handling of nonresponse error. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 14: pp. 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1052
Doss, W., Rayfield, J., & Lawver, D. (2023). A national study assessing the influence of perceived
challenges faced by school-based agricultural education teachers on their ability to do their
job. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(3), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i3.2476
Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., Scott, K. L., & Tepper, B. J. (2006). The moderating roles of self-esteem and
neuroticism in the relationship between group and individual undermining behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1066. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1066
Dumitru, A., Motoi, A. G., & Budica, A. B. (2015). What kind of leader is a manager. Annals of the
University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication, and Management, 1, 50-60.
Duncan, D. W., Ricketts, J. C., Peake, J. B., & Uesseler, J. (2006). Teacher preparation and in-service
needs of Georgia agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 24–35.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.02024
Eck, C. J. (2023). Identifying the Teaching Effectiveness of School-Based Agricultural Education
Teachers Who Aim to Increase their Human Capital.
Eck, C. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2019). Teacher shortage in school-based, agricultural education (SBAE):
A historical review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 223–239.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04223
Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Ramsey, J. W., & Cole, K. L. (2019). Identifying the characteristics of an
effective agricultural education teacher: A national study. Journal of Agricultural Education,
60(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04001

139
Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Cole, K. L., Terry Jr, R., & Ramsey, J. W. (2021). Identifying the
characteristics of effective school-based agricultural education teachers: A national census study.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3), 292–309. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03292
Epel, E. E., Moyer, A. E., Martin, C. D., Macary, S., Cummings, N., Rodin, J., & Rebuffe‐Scrive, M.
(1999). Stress‐induced cortisol, mood, and fat distribution in men. Obesity Research, 7(1), 9–15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1550-8528.1999.tb00385.x
Eleftherakis, G., Dimitrova, V., Maglova, D., & Morogianni, V. (2024, July). Exploring Success Factors
of Agile Teams: The Impact of Personality Traits, Psychological Safety, and Team Reflexivity
on Performance. In 2024 16th International Conference on Human System Interaction (HSI) (pp.
1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HSI61632.2024.10613563
Engbers, M., & Khapova, S. N. (2024). How boards manage the tension between cognitive conflict and
cohesiveness: Illuminating the four board conflict climates. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 32(1), 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12516
Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2021). Working through conflict: Strategies for
relationships, groups, and organizations. Routledge.
Ford, M. B., & Collins, N. L. (2010). Self-esteem moderates neuroendocrine and psychological
responses to interpersonal rejection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 405.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0017345
Ford, T. G., Lavigne, A. L., Fiegener, A. M., & Si, S. (2020). Understanding district support for leader
development and success in the accountability era: A review of the literature using social-
cognitive theories of motivation. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 264-307.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319899723
Forsyth, D. R. (2021). Recent advances in the study of group cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 25(3), 213. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/gdn0000163
Foster, S., & O’Mealey, M. (2022). Socioeconomic status and mental illness stigma: The impact of
mental illness controllability attributions and personal responsibility judgments. Journal of
Mental Health, 31(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2021.1875416
Fritz, C. A., & Mantooth, L. J. (2005). Challenges Expressed By Cooperating Teacher Mentors When
Working with Agricultural Education Student Teachers: A Delphi Study. NACTA Journal, 49(4),
51–56.
Frolova, E. V., Rogach, O. V., Ryabova, T. M., & Zuykina, A. V. (2019). Factors of Conflict in the
Educational Environment of the Modern School. European Journal of Contemporary Education,
8(3), 513-523. DOI: 10.13187/ejced.2019.3.513
Furlong, G. T. (2020). The conflict resolution toolbox: Models and maps for analyzing, diagnosing, and
resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.

140
García-Pérez, L., García-Garnica, M., & Olmedo-Moreno, E. M. (2021). Skills for a working future:
How to bring about professional success from the educational setting. Education Sciences, 11(1),
27. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010027
Gegenfurtner, A., Lewalter, D., Lehtinen, E., Schmidt, M., & Gruber, H. (2020, May). Teacher expertise
and professional vision: Examining knowledge-based reasoning of pre-service teachers, in-
service teachers, and school principals. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 5, p. 59). Frontiers Media
SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00059
Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (2020). Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: The buffering effect
of third-party help. In Conflict in Organizations: Beyond Effectiveness and Performance (pp.
137-155). Psychology Press.
Ginn, A. (2021). Teachers’ Perspectives on Remaining in a Rural School With Poor Teacher Retention
Rates (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Goldman, B.M., & Shapiro, D.L. (Eds.). (2012). The Psychology of Negotiations in the 21st Century
Workplace: New Challenges and New Solutions (1st ed.). Routledge.
Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96-109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.11.003
Gordeeva, T., Sheldon, K., & Sychev, O. (2020). Linking academic performance to optimistic
attributional style: attributions following positive events matter most. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 35, 21-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00414-y
Gorton, K. B. (2005). Attribution theory & de-escalation: Transforming concrete into abstract as a
method of conflict management. Mediate. com.
Graham, S. (2020). An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, p. 61,
101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101861
Graham, S., & Chen, X. (2020). Attribution theories. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.892
Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. Handbook of educational
Psychology, 4(1), 63-84.
Greer, L. L., & Chu, C. (2020). Power struggles: when and why the benefits of power for individuals
paradoxically harm groups. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 162-166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.040
Greer, T. W., & Egan, T. M. (2012). Inspecting the hierarchy of life roles: A systematic review of role
salience literature. Human Resource Development Review, 11(4), 463-499.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312445322

141
Guerrero, L. K. (2020). Conflict style associations with cooperativeness, directness, and relational
satisfaction: A case for a six‐style typology. Negotiation and Conflict Management
Research, 13(1), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12156
Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well‐being: Towards a new analytic
framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-
8583.12139
Guest, D. E., Sanders, K., Rodrigues, R., & Oliveira, T. (2021). Signaling theory as a framework for
analyzing human resource management processes and integrating human resource attribution
theories: A conceptual analysis and empirical exploration. Human Resource Management
Journal, 31(3), 796-818. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12326
Haddad, B., Knight, K. J., Stewart, J., & Velez, J. J. (2020). Will the first through fifth years please stand
up? quantifying national sbae teacher experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 266-
282. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04266
Haddad, B., Velez, J., Stewart, J., & Botkin, H. (2023). That’s not in my position description: A
discourse analysis of SBAE migratory context. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(3), 203–
224. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i3.156
Hakiki, M. S., Anggraini, D. A., Putra, R. S., & Adinugroho, M. (2023). Exploring Conflict
Management Strategies in Organizations: An In-Depth Case Study Approach. Proceeding of
Applied Science, Education, and Technology, 1(1), 14-26.
Hainline, M. S., Ulmer, J. D., Ritz, R. R., Burris, S., & Gibson, C. D. (2015). Career and family balance
of Texas agricultural science teachers by gender. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 31–
46. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04031
Hall, M. (2023). Reexamining Intra Team Conflict: A Dyadic Perspective (Doctoral dissertation, The
University of North Carolina at Charlotte).
Hamilton, O. S., & Lordan, G. (2023). Ability or luck: A systematic review of interpersonal attributions
of success. Frontiers in Psychology, p. 13, 1035012. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1035012
Han, A., Krieger, F., Kim, S., Nixon, N., & Greiff, S. (2024). Revisiting the relationship between team
members’ personality and their team’s performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in
Personality, 104526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104526
Hancock, G., Hancock, C., & McKibben, J. (2024). The Teaching Techniques of Alabama’s
Traditionally and Alternatively Certified School-Based Agricultural Education Instructors.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 65(3). 18-34 https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v65i3.166
Hart, E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2020). Getting to less: When negotiating harms post-agreement
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 156, 155-175.

142
Hasselquist, L., Herndon, K., & Kitchel, T. (2017). School Culture’s Influence on Beginning Agriculture
Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Teacher Self-Efficacy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1),
267–279. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01267
Harvey, J. H., & Weary, G. (1984). Current issues in attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 35(1), 427–459. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.002235
Haun, S., Steinmetz, H., & Dormann, C. (2011). Objective work–nonwork conflict: From incompatible
demands to decreased work role performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 578-587.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.001
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment:
A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
Hede, A. (2007). The shadow group: Towards an explanation of interpersonal conflict in work groups.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710721929
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics
for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Heinze, K. L., & Soderstrom, S. B. (2024). Practicing dialogue: How an organization can facilitate
diverse collaborative action. Journal of Business Ethics, 189(3), 453-478.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05348-6
Hewstone, M., & Jaspars, J. (1983). A re‐examination of the roles of consensus, consistency, and
distinctiveness: Kelley's cube revisited. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22(1), 41–50.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1983.tb00564.x
Hilal, O. A. (2021). The moderating role of self‐efficacy in the relationship between workplace envy and
social undermining. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 40(6), 28–40.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22091
Hilton, D. J., & Slugoski, B. R. (1986). Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnormal conditions
focus model. Psychological review, 93(1), 75.
Himes, J. S. (2008). Conflict and conflict management. University of Georgia Press.
Hoogenboom, L. M., Dijkstra, M. T., & Beersma, B. (2024). Conflict personalization: a systematic
literature review and the development of an integrative definition. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 35(2), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2022-0142
Hurt, K. J., & Welbourne, J. (2018). Conflict and decision‐making: Attributional and emotional
influences. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 11(3), 225-251.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12133

143
Ilies, R., & Dimotakis, N. (2015). Genetic influences on attitudes, behaviors and emotions in the
workplace. The Biological Foundations of Organizational Behavior, 47.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499
Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006). Psychological
collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(4), 884. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.884
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on
the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187-242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X
Jhangiani, R., & Tarry, H. (2022). 5.3 Biases in Attribution. Principles of Social Psychology-1st
International H5P Edition.
Job Description of an Ag Teacher. (2019). Vatat.org. https://www.vatat.org/teacher-ag-teacher-job-
description
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2021). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional
intelligence and conflict resolution. In Emotion and Performance (pp. 195–218). CRC Press.
Kahn, W.A. (2009). The Student's Guide to Successful Project Teams (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315820873
Kakabadse, A., & Bank, J. (2004). Working in Organisations (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427992
Keashly, L., Minkowitz, H., & Nowell, B. L. (2020). Conflict, conflict resolution and workplace
bullying. In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace (pp. 331-361). CRC Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American psychologist, 28(2), 107.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0034225
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual review of psychology,
31(1), 457–501.
Kelly, M. P. (2020). Conflict style is not a label: The relationship of age, education level, work level,
reason for assessment, and time between assessments to conflict style change. Nova Southeastern
University.

144
Keilwitz, H. A. (2014). Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Linking Teacher Induction to
Theory. Online Submission.
Kilag, O. K., Largo, J., Rabillas, A., Kilag, F., Angtud, M. K., Book, J. F., & Sasan, J. M. (2024).
Administrators’ Conflict Management and Strategies. International Multidisciplinary Journal of
Research for Innovation, Sustainability, and Excellence (IMJRISE), 1(1), 60-67.
Kilmann, R. H. (2011). Celebrating 40 Years with the TKI Assessment.
Kinderman, P., & Bentall, R. P. (1996). A new measure of causal locus: the internal, personal and
situational attributions questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(2), 261-264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00186-7
Korkut, P., Dolmacı, M., & Karaca, B. (2018). A study on communication breakdowns: Sources of
misunderstanding in a cross-cultural setting. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18(78),
139-158.
Körner, A., Moritz, S., & Deutsch, R. (2020). Dissecting dispositionality: distance increases stability of
attribution. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 446-453.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619877856
Kouzakova, M., Ellemers, N., Harinck, F., & Scheepers, D. (2012). The implications of value conflict:
How disagreement on values affects self-involvement and perceived common ground.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 798–807.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211436320
Kwofie, T. E., Ellis, F. A., Addy, M. N., Amos-Abanyie, S., Aigbavboa, C., & Afram, S. O. (2024).
Relationship clusters and performance of conflict management strategies in cross-organizational
projects teams. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 73(3), 676–
699. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-09-2021-0504
Larsson, K., Hakvoort, I., & Lundström, A. (2022). How teachers understand and strategize about
emerging conflicts. British Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 785-802.
https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3794
Lagnado, D. A., & Channon, S. (2008). Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and
foreseeability. Cognition, 108(3), 754-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.009
Lam, L. W., & Xu, A. J. (2019). Power imbalance and employee silence: The role of abusive leadership,
power distance orientation, and perceived organizational politics. Applied Psychology, 68(3),
513-546. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12170
Latham, G. P. (2023). Motivate employee performance through goal setting. Principles of
Organizational Behavior: The Handbook of Evidence‐Based Management 3rd Edition, pp. 83–
111. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394320769.ch5

145
Lawver, R. G. (2022). Providing Teacher Certification and Professional Development Programs. In A.
Thoron & R. Barrick (Eds.), Preparing Agriculture and Agriscience Educators for the
Classroom (pp. 268-286). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3420-8.ch014
Lebowitz, M. S., Pyun, J. J., & Ahn, W. K. (2014). Biological explanations of generalized anxiety
disorder: Effects on beliefs about prognosis and responsibility. Psychiatric Services, 65(4), 498-
503. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300011
Lemons, L. L., Brashears, M. T., Burris, S., Meyers, C., & Price, M. A. (2015). Factors contributing to
attrition as reported by leavers of secondary agriculture programs. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 56(4), 17–30. doi: 10.5032/jae.2015.04017
Lerner, J. S., Dorison, C. A., & Klusowski, J. (2023). How do emotions affect decision making? In
Emotion theory: The Routledge comprehensive guide (pp. 447–468). Routledge.
Li, L. (2024). Teachers' lived experiences of disruptive classroom behavior in self-contained classrooms
for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State
University).
Liao, Z., Lee, H. W., Johnson, R. E., Song, Z., & Liu, Y. (2021). Seeing from a short-term perspective:
When and why daily abusive supervisor behavior yields functional and dysfunctional
consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 377.
https://doi.orgl2024/10.1037/apl0000842
Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of social
exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information & Management, 47(3), 188-196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.02.001
Lim, J. H., & Yazdanifard, R. (2012). The difference of conflict management styles and conflict
resolution in workplace. Business & Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1).
Lindner, J. R., & Lindner, N. (2024). Interpreting Likert type, summated, unidimensional, and attitudinal
scales: I neither agree nor disagree, Likert or not. Advancements in Agricultural Development,
5(2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.351
Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social research. Journal
of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist, 57(9), 705.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6),
382–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017

146
Ma, Z., Liang, D., Erkus, A., & Tabak, A. (2012). The impact of group-oriented values on choice of
conflict management styles and outcomes: An empirical study in Turkey. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(18), 3776–3793.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.700171
MacDonald, A., Clarke, A., & Huang, L. (2022). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainability:
Designing decision-making processes for partnership capacity. In Business and the ethical
implications of technology (pp. 103–120). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18794-0_7
Malle, B. F. (2022). Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior. Theories in Social
Psychology, Second Edition, pp. 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394266616.ch4
Maman, L., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Chetouani, M., Likforman-Sulem, L., & Varni, G. (2024).
Modeling the Interplay Between Cohesion Dimensions: a Challenge for Group Affective
Emergent States. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2024.3349910
Maringe, F., Lumby, J., Morrison, M., Bhopal, K., & Dyke, M. (2007). Leadership, diversity and
decision making. Centre for Excellence in Leadership–Research Report.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
Martin, D. W. (2020). Culture-Based Analysis of Construction Management Students' Conflict
Management Styles. The Professional Constructor, pp. 46–58.
Martinko, M. J. (1995). Attribution theory. The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational
Behavior. London: Blackwell, 21-3.
Martinko, M. J., & Mackey, J. D. (2019). Attribution theory: An introduction to the special issue.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5), 523–527.
Martono, S., Khoiruddin, M., WIJAYANTO, A., RIDLOAH, S., WULANSARI, N. A., & Udin, U. D. I.
N. (2020). Increasing teamwork, organizational commitment and effectiveness through the
implementation of collaborative resolution. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and
Business, 7(6), 427-437. doi:10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no6.427
Maryani, M., & Gazali, A. U. (2024). The Effect of Work Conflict on Job Stress and Employee
Performance. Golden Ratio of Human Resource Management, 4(2), 146-159.
https://doi.org/10.52970/grhrm.v4i2.494
McCarthy, J. M., Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Anderson, N. R., Costa, A. C., & Ahmed, S. M. (2017).
Applicant perspectives during selection: A review addressing “So what?”“What’s new?” and

147
“Where to next?”. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1693-1725.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316681846
McKay, S., Hair Jr, J. F., Johnston, M. W., & Sherrell, D. L. (1991). An exploratory investigation of
reward and corrective responses to salesperson performance: An attributional approach. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(2), 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.1991.10753867
McLaughlin, M.L., Cody, M.J., & Read, S.J. (Eds.). (1992). Explaining One's Self To Others: Reason-
giving in A Social Context (1st ed.). Routledge.
McKibben, J., Clemons, C., & Nurradin, M. (2022a). Hybrid vigor: A quantitative analysis of job
satisfaction of United States School based secondary agricultural education classrooms. Journal
of Agricultural Education, 63(2), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.02238
McKibben, J. D., Giliberti, M., Clemons, C. A., Holler, K., & Linder, J. R. (2022b). My Ag Teacher
Never Made Me Go To The Shop! Pre-Service Teacher’s Perceived Self-Efficacy in Mechanics
Skills Change Through Experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(3), 283–296.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.03283
McKibben, J., Holler, K. ., Clemons, C., & Lindner, J. (2023). Locus of Control and Pedagogy in Skill-
Based Agricultural Mechanics. NACTA Journal, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v67i1.88
McKibben, J., Hyjeck, A., Clemons, C., Hancock, G., & Yopp, A. (2024). Serving to Learn: Increasing
Agriculture Students Self-Efficacy Through Service-Learning. NACTA Journal, 68(1).
https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v68i1.136
McLaney, E., Morassaei, S., Hughes, L., Davies, R., Campbell, M., & Di Prospero, L. (2022, March). A
framework for interprofessional team collaboration in a hospital setting: Advancing team
competencies and behaviors. In Healthcare management forum (Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 112–117).
Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704211063584
Meier, L. L., Gross, S., Spector, P. E., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Relationship and task conflict at work:
interactive short-term effects on angry mood and somatic complaints. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 18(2), 144.
Menon, T., & Thompson, L. (2010). Envy at work. Harvard Business Review, 88(4), 74–79. DOI:
10.1109/ICIAS.2010.5716239
Merriam-Webster. (2023, January 1). Conflict definition & meaning. Merriam-Webster.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict
Meyer, A., Richter, D., & Hartung-Beck, V. (2022). The relationship between principal leadership and
teacher collaboration: Investigating the mediating effect of teachers’ collective
efficacy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 593-612.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945698

148
Milch, K. F., Weber, E. U., Appelt, K. C., Handgraaf, M. J., & Krantz, D. H. (2009). From individual
preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 242-255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.11.003
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust.
Msila, V. (2012). Conflict management and school leadership. Journal of Communication, 3(1), 25–34.
Moberg, P. J. (2001). Linking Conflict Strategy to the Five-Factor Model: Theoretical and Empirical
Foundations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 47. https://doi-
org.spot.lib.auburn.edu/10.1108/eb022849
Moczulska, M., Glabiszewski, W., & Grego-Planer, D. (2024). The impact of employee collaboration
and competition on team work engagement. Current Psychology, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05702-5
Moffett, J., Little, R., Illing, J., de Carvalho Filho, M. A., & Bok, H. (2024). Establishing psychological
safety in online design-thinking education: a qualitative study. Learning Environments
Research, 27(1), 179-197.National Association of Supervisors of Agricultural Education. (2023,
January 1). ABOUT US. About Us. https://nasae.ffa.org/About
Murphy-Sharp, A. S. (2023). Bystander Employee Coping Strategies to Toxic Leader Behaviors: A
Qualitative Descriptive Study (Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University).
Murray, T. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building and integral theory: On perspectives, uncertainty,
and mutual regard. Integral Review, 2(1), 210–268.
National Association of Agricultural Educators. (n.d.). What is agricultural education? NAAE.
https://www.naae.org/about/overview/what-is-agricultural-education/
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2020, March 27). Workplace safety & health
topics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/workplace
Neiman, T. S. (2011). Communication in Conflict and Problem-Solving: A Study of Dialogue in
Everyday Life.
Nieminen, J. (2023). Fostering Sense of Belonging in Change.
Newburgh, K. (2018). Teaching in good faith: Towards a framework for defining the deep supports that
grow and retain first-year teachers. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(12), 1237–1251.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1537878
Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 287–293.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01065.x

149
Nguyen, V. N., Truong, M. T., & Tran, M. T. (2024). Enhancing Team Performance Unveiling Novel
Insights into Teamwork Dynamics. Kurdish Studies, 12(1), 3280-3302.
https://doi.org/10.58262/ks.v12i1.235
O’Donovan, R., & McAuliffe, E. (2020). A systematic review exploring the content and outcomes of
interventions to improve psychological safety, speaking up and voice behavior. BMC health
services research, pp. 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4931-2
Ogunyemi, D., Fong, S., Elmore, G., Korwin, D., & Azziz, R. (2010). The associations between
residents' behavior and the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument. Journal of graduate
Medical Education, 2(1), 118-125. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-09-00048.1
Omene, G. R. (2021). Conflict management strategies as a prerequisite for effective organizational
performance: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Business & Law Research, 9(4),
187–199.
Oubrich, M., Hakmaoui, A., Benhayoun, L., Söilen, K. S., & Abdulkader, B. (2021). Impacts of
leadership style, organizational design and HRM practices on knowledge hiding: The indirect
roles of organizational justice and competitive work environment. Journal of Business
Research, 137, 488-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.045
Pandey, A., & John, B. (2023). Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives: Their Effectiveness in Promoting
Positive Organizational Behavior. RES MILITARIS, 13(2), 7176-7189.
Park, S., Luciano, M. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Fenters, V. W. (2024). Intra-individual conflict and task
performance in a multiteam context: Examining the structural elements of conflict
experience. Academy of Management Journal, 67(1), 33-60.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.0285
Parker, C., & Bickmore, K. (2020). Classroom peace circles: Teachers’ professional learning and
implementation of restorative dialogue. Teaching and Teacher education, p. 95, 103129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103129
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). Introduction to emotions in education. In International
Handbook of emotions in Education (pp. 1-10). Routledge.
Pelz, B. (2014). Inferring Dispositions Using Causal Attribution. Social Psychology.
Pletzer, J. L., Breevaart, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2024). Constructive and destructive leadership in job
demands-resources theory: A meta-analytic test of the motivational and health-impairment
pathways. Organizational Psychology Review, 14(1), 131–165.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231197519
Ployhart, R. E., Ehrhart, K. H., & Hayes, S. C. (2005). Using attributions to understand the effects of
explanations on applicant reactions: Are reactions consistent with the covariation principle?

150
1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 259-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2005.tb02121.x
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being
reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly,
pp. 296–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391553
Qadir, A. (2020). Resolving conflicts at workplace–a discourse, using Thomas-Kilmann instrument
mode framework. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 10(6), 28–46.
Queen, T. P. (2024). Factors Affecting First-Year SBAE Teachers in Georgia (Master's thesis,
University of Georgia).
Quillien, T., & German, T. C. (2021). A simple definition of ‘intentionally’. Cognition, 214, 104806.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104806
Rada, L. L. (2023). The Relationship Between Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Professional
Commitment of Minnesota School-Based Agricultural Education Teachers (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota).
Rahim, M. A. (2003). Managing conflict in organizations. In Construction conflict management and
resolution (pp. 370–379). Routledge.
Rahim, M. A. (2023). Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge.
Rambuyon, R., & Domondon, C. (2021). Conflict management styles of faculty. Psychology Education
Journal, 58, 1709-13.
Ramsay, S., Troth, A., & Branch, S. (2011). Work-place bullying: A group processes framework.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 799–816.
https://doi.org/10.1348/2044-8325.002000
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal
perception. Psychological Review, 86(1), 61. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-
295X.86.1.61
Rice, A. H., & Kitchel, T. (2015). Preservice agricultural education teachers' experiences in and
anticipation of content knowledge preparation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(3), 90–
104. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.03090
Richardson, P.W., Karabenick, S.A., & Watt, H.M.G. (Eds.). (2014). Teacher Motivation: Theory and
Practice (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203119273

151
Riyanto, S., Endri, E., & Herlisha, N. (2021). Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on
employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Problems and Perspectives in
Management, 19(3), 162. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(3).2021.14
Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., Antino, M., Leon-Perez, J. M., & Ruiz-Zorrilla, P. (2022). Workplace bullying,
emotional exhaustion, and partner social undermining: a weekly diary study. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 37(5-6), NP3650-NP3666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520933031
Rott, B., Specht, B., & Knipping, C. (2021). A descriptive phase model of problem-solving
processes. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 53, 737-752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-
01244-3
Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content
validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research,
27(2), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/27.2.94
Sacramento, C., Lyubovnikova, J., Martinaityte, I., Gomes, C., Curral, L., & Juhasz‐Wrench, A. (2024).
Being open, feeling safe and getting creative: The role of team mean openness to experience in
the emergence of team psychological safety and team creativity. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 41(1), 12-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12699
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S., Cohen, D., & Latham, G. (Eds.). (2013). Developing and enhancing
teamwork in organizations: Evidence-based best practices and guidelines (Vol. 33). John Wiley
& Sons.
Salgado, J. F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality
measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 323–346.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647201
Samanana, K. P. (2022). Interpersonal conflict management strategies used at Oryx energy company
limited of Lusaka, Zambia (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Zambia).
Samoei, M. (2020). Student Teaching Internship Experiences and Perceived Success of First-Year
School Based Agricultural Education (SBAE) Teachers. (Graduate Theses, University of
Arkansas). https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/3661
Sancar, R., Atal, D., & Deryakulu, D. (2021). A new framework for teachers’ professional
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103305 .
Sanders, K. W. (2021). Evaluating the Preparation of Pre-Service School-Based Agricultural Education
Teachers in Laboratory-Based Courses (Order No. 28770184). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (2628294498).https://www-proquest-
com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/dissertations-theses/evaluating-preparation-pre-service-school-
based/docview/2628294498/se-2

152
Satterlee, A. G. (2002). Conflict Resolution Strategies for the Adult Higher Education Student.
Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:151036296
Savio, D. (2015). Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Conflict Management–Automobile and It
Industries In Chennai. International Journal of Management (IJM), 6(12). 71-77
http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJM?Volume=6&Issue=12
Schaumberg, R. L., & Tracy, J. L. (2020). From self-consciousness to success: When and why self-
conscious emotions promote positive employee outcomes. In L.-Q. Yang, R. Cropanzano, C. S.
Daus, & V. Martínez-Tur (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of workplace affect (pp. 414–425).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108573887.032
Schein, E. H. (2015). Organizational psychology then and now: Some observations. Annu. Rev. Organ.
Psychol. Organ. Behavior., 2(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111449
Schipper, T. M., de Vries, S., Goei, S. L., & van Veen, K. (2020). Promoting a professional school
culture through lesson study? An examination of school culture, school conditions, and teacher
self-efficacy. Professional development in education, 46(1), 112-129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1634627
Schouten, M. E., van Knippenberg, D., & Greer, L. L. (2024). Hierarchy Conflict: Causes, Expressions,
and Consequences. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.17976
Science Direct. (n.d.). Attribution theory. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-
sciences/attribution-theory
Semmer, N. K. (2020). Conflict and offense to self. Handbook of Socioeconomic Determinants of
Occupational Health: From Macro-level to Micro-level Evidence, 1-31. Springer.
Serenko, A. (2020). Knowledge sabotage as an extreme form of counterproductive knowledge behavior:
the perspective of the target. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(4), 737–773.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2019-0337
Shafaei, A., Nejati, M., Omari, M., & Sharafizad, F. (2024). Inclusive leadership and workplace
bullying: a model of psychological safety, self-esteem, and embeddedness. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 31(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518231209
Shaibu, O. G., & Njoku, C. O. (2024). Organizational Conflict And Innovation As Strategy For
Employee Performance. Ilorin Journal of Business Education, 5(1), 180-192.
https://www.ijem.org.ng/index.php/ijbe/article/view/228
Sharma, P., Dhanta, R., & Sharma, A. (2024). Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution in the
Workplace. In Leveraging AI and Emotional Intelligence in Contemporary Business
Organizations (pp. 102–121). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1902-4.ch007

153
Shaver, K. G., & Drown, D. (1986). On causality, responsibility, and self-blame: a theoretical note.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(4), 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.50.4.697 .
Shier, M. L., Turpin, A., Nicholas, D. B., & Graham, J. R. (2019). Dynamics of a culture of workplace
safety in human service organizations: A qualitative analysis. International Social Work, 62(6),
1561–1574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872819858744
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102–111.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
Sischka, P. E., Schmidt, A. F., & Steffgen, G. (2021). The effect of competition and passive avoidant
leadership style on the occurrence of workplace bullying. Personnel Review, 50(2), 535-559.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2019-0469
Smalley, S., Hainline, M. S., & Sands, K. (2019). School-based Agricultural Education Teachers'
Perceived Professional Development Needs Associated with Teaching, Classroom Management,
and Technical Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(2), 85–98.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02085
Smith, K. L., McKibben, J. D., & Rayfield, J. (2015). The relationship status is complicated: A
qualitative examination of thoughts on the student teacher/cooperating teacher relationship from
both perspectives. In Western AAAE Research Conference Proceedings 2015 (p. 113).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jason-Mc-
Kibben/publication/373069951_Descriptive_Survey_Analysis_of_Student_Teacher_and_Cooper
ating_Teacher_Relationships_An_Examination_of_Paired_Data/links/6578dcd06610947889bf5f
78/Descriptive-Survey-Analysis-of-Student-Teacher-and-Cooperating-Teacher-Relationships-
An-Examination-of-Paired-Data.pdf
Solomonson, J. K., Thieman, E. B., Korte, D. S., & Retallick, M. S. (2019). Why Do They Leave and
Where Do They Go? A Qualitative Study of Illinois School-Based Agriculture Teachers Who
Left The Profession. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 115. https://doi-
org.spot.lib.auburn.edu/10.5032/jae.2019.04115
Stanton, N.A. (Ed.). (2011). Trust in Military Teams (1st ed.). CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315549637
Stein, S., & Zechner, S. (2020). Macro to micro trigger: Model of the mental state as a moderating
variable in organizational conflict management. Advance.
https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.12440402.v1
Stewart, T. L., Latu, I. M., Kawakami, K., & Myers, A. C. (2010). Consider the situation: Reducing
automatic stereotyping through situational attribution training. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46(1), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.004

154
Stolarski, M., Zawadzki, B., Matthews, G., Pruszczak, D., & Wojciechowski, J. (2024). Behavioral
genetics of temporal framing: heritability of time perspective and its common genetic bases with
major personality traits. Journal of Personality, 92(4), 1050-1066.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12870
Stroebe, W., & Frey, B. S. (1982). Self‐interest and collective action: The economics and psychology of
public goods. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(2), 121-137.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1982.tb00521.x
Sunkanmi, A. B. (2013). Assessment of conflict management among professionals in the Nigerian
construction industry (Master's thesis, University of Johannesburg, South Africa). University of
Johannesburg.
Tabassi, A. A., Bryde, D., Michaelides, R., Bamford, D., & Argyropoulou, M. (2024). Leaders, conflict,
and team coordination: a relational leadership approach in temporary organizations. Production
Planning and Control. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2024.2313518
Taylor, S., & Wald, J. (2003). Expectations and attributions in social anxiety disorder: Diagnostic
distinctions and relationship to general anxiety and depression. Cognitive Behavior Therapy,
32(4), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506070310020315
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, pp. 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130307
Thomas, K. W. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument (TKI) profile and interpretive report
(Report No. 1). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.
Thompson, M. (2023). How Exemplary Chief Nurse Executives Utilize the Six Domains of Conflict
Transformational Strategies to Establish Common Ground and Produce Breakthrough
Results (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Global).
Thompson, V. A. (1961). Hierarchy, specialization, and organizational conflict. Administrative Science
Quarterly, pp. 485–521. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2390618
Tippens, A., Ricketts, J. C., Morgan, A. C., Navarro, M., & Flanders, F. B. (2013). Factors Related to
Teachers' Intention to Leave the Classroom Early. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(4), 58-
72. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.04058
The National Council for Agricultural Education. (2023, January 19). About Us. The National Council
for Agricultural Education. https://thecouncil.ffa.org/about-us/
Tobin, K. (2012). Control of teacher certification in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education,
87(4), 485–499. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41725450

155
Touchstone, A. J. (2015). Professional development needs of beginning agricultural education teachers
in Idaho. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(2), 170–187.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.02170
Traini, H. Q., Yopp, A. M., & Roberts, R. (2020). The Success Trap: A Case Study of Early Career
Agricultural Education Teachers' Conceptualizations of Work-Life Balance. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 61(4), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04175
Traini, H., Roberts, R., Osbourne, E., Park, T., & Yopp, A. (2023). A national review of state standards
relevant to SBAE teacher performance and program quality. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 64(1), 46–60 https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i1.29 .
Troy, A. S., Willroth, E. C., Shallcross, A. J., Giuliani, N. R., Gross, J. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2023).
Psychological resilience: an affect-regulation framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1),
547-576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020122-041854
United States Institute of Peace. (2024). Conflict Styles Assessment. The United States Institute of Peace.
https://www.usip.org/public-education-new/conflict-styles-assessment
Vallone, F., Dell’Aquila, E., Dolce, P., Marocco, D., & Zurlo, M. C. (2022). Teachers’ multicultural
personality traits as predictors of intercultural conflict management styles: Evidence from five
European countries. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 87, 51–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2022.01.006
Van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict
behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 674–687.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.674 .
Varma, V. S., & Gupta, R. (2023). Conflict resolution strategies in the workplace: empirical study of
managing interpersonal and team conflicts. Ontologic 1(1). 35-42.
https://www.nirwanuniversity.ac.in/uploads/pdf/reshu-gupta.pdf
Walker, W. D., Garton, B. L., & Kitchel, T. J. (2004). Job satisfaction and retention of secondary
agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(2), 28–38
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2004.02028 .
Watanabe, W. C., Shafiq, M., Nawaz, M. J., Saleem, I., & Nazeer, S. (2024). The impact of emotional
intelligence on project success: Mediating role of team cohesiveness and moderating role of
organizational culture. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 16,
https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790241232508
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of
educational research, 42(2), 203-215.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

156
Weiner, B. (2010). The Development of an Attribution-Based Theory of Motivation: A History of Ideas.
Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433596
Weiner, B. (2012). An attribution theory of motivation. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 135–155). Sage Publications Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n8
Weiner, B. (2021). An attributionally based theory of motivation and emotion: Focus, range, and issues.
In Expectations and Actions (pp. 163–204). Routledge.
Weiner, B. (1990). Searching for the roots of applied attribution theory. In S. Graham & V. S. Folkes
(Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict
(pp. 1–13). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029211
Weingart, L. R., Jehn, K. A., & Krueger, K. L. (2023). Manage intrateam conflict through
collaboration. Principles of Organizational Behavior: The Handbook of Evidence‐Based
Management 3rd Edition, 403-427.
Wegerif, R., Fujita, T., Doney, J., Perez Linares, J., Richards, A., & van Rhyn, C. (2017). Developing
and trialing a measure of group thinking. Learning and Instruction, 48, 40–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.001
Westmaas, L. (2022). Conflict management: Perspectives of the Canadian workplace. Fanshawe.
https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/conflictmanagement/
Wheelan, S. A., Åkerlund, M., & Jacobsson, C. (2024). Creating effective teams: A guide for members
and leaders. Sage Publications.
White, J. (2024). Leadership Styles, Conflict Caused by Dysfunctions in Administrative Leadership, and
the Relationship With Teacher Morale and Student Achievement (Order No. 31237329).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (3054306481). https://www-proquest-
com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/dissertations-theses/leadership-styles-conflict-caused-
dysfunctions/docview/3054306481/se-2
Wienclaw, R. A. (2021). Conflict Management. Salem Press Encyclopedia.
Wong, A., Wang, X., Wang, X., & Tjosvold, D. (2020). Ethical leaders manage conflict to develop
trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(1), 133-146.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2018-0363
Wright, H., Martin, F., Clyne, W., Clark, C. C., Matouskova, G., McGillion, M., & Turner, A. (2021). A
digital self-management program (help to overcome problems effectively) for people living with

157
cancer: feasibility randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(11),
https://doi.org/10.2196/28322 .
Wurzel Goncalves, P., SV Goncalves, J., & Bacchelli, A. (2024, April). Constructive Code Review:
Managing the Impact of Interpersonal Conflicts in Practice. In Proceedings of the 46th
International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (pp. 334-
345). https://doi.org/10.1145/3639477.3639715
Yafei, J. (2024). Psychological Entitlement and Behavioral Outcomes: An Integrated Model in Beijing's
Service Sector. Journal of Digitainability, Realism & Mastery (DREAM), 3(07), 82–94.
https://doi.org/10.56982/dream.v3i07.252
Yang, M., Luu, T., & Wang, D. (2024). Does too much or too little task conflict hurt service
performance? A multilevel curvilinear model. Personnel Review.
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2020). Encyclopedia of personality and individual
differences. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Zheng, H., Zhao, L., Luo, C., Fu, S., Chen, X., & Liang, S. (2024). Understanding user engagement in
mobile health applications from a privacy management perspective. Health Promotion
International, 39(4), Article daae103. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae103
Zogmaister, C., & Maricutoiu, L. P. (2022). Mirror, mirror on the wall, tell me that I have succeeded at
it all: Self-esteem and the defensive mechanisms against failure. Social Psychology of
Education, 25(5), 1221–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09723-5

158
For assistance, contact: The Oice of Research Compliance (ORC)
Phone: 334-844-5966 E-Mail: IRBAdmin@auburn.edu Web Address:
http://www.auburn.edu/research/vpr/ohs Submit completed form and supporting
materials as one PDF through the IRB Submission Paae
Hand Mitten forms are not accepted. Where links are found hold down the control button (Ctd) then dick the link..
1. Prolect Identification Today's Date: February 26, 2024
Anticipated start date of the project: March 1, 2024 Anticipated duration of project: 1
Year
a. Project Title: An Assessment of the Interworklng Relationships of School Based
Agriculture Educators in MultiTeacher Departments
b. Principal Investigator (PI): Andra Collins Degree(s): Doctorate Rank/Titte: Graduate
Student
DepartmenVSchool: Education
Role/responsibiiities in this project: Principal Investigator
Preferred Phone Number: (832)746-6280 AU Email: auc0001@auburn.edu
Faculty Advisor Principal Investigator (If applicable): Jason McKibben
Rank/Titie: Professor Department/School: Curriculum and Teaching
Role/responsibilities in this project: Oversee and assist with the study
Preferred Phone Number: (979) 587-1065 AU Email: jdm0184@auburn.edu
Department Head: Paul Fitchett Department/School: Curriculum and Teaching
Preferred Phone Number: (334) 844-3233 At-J Email: pgf0011@aubum.edu
Revised 09/13/2023
AUBURN UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION PROGRAM
(HRPP)
EXEMPT REVIEW APPLICATION

159
Role/responsibilities in this project: Oversee and assist with the study
c. Project Key Personnel — Identify all key personnel who will be involved with the
conduct of the research and describe their role in the project. Role may include
design, recruitment, consent process, data collection, data analysis, and reporting.
(To determine key personnel. see decision tree). Exempt determinations are made by
individual institutions; reliance on other institutions for exempt determination is not
feasible. Non-AU personnel conducng exempt research acvies must obtain approval
from the IRB at their home instuon.
Key personnel are required to maintain human subjects training through CITI.
Please provide documentation of completed CITI training, with course tide(s) and
expiration date(s) shown. As a reminder, both IRB and RCR modules are required
for all key study personnel.
Name: Andra Collins Degree(s): PhD
Rank/Title: Graduate Student Department/School: Curriculum and Teaching
Role/responsibilities in this project: analyze and collect information from individuals
over the age of 18
- AU ailiated? 8 Yes O No If no, name of home institution: Click or tap here to enter
text.
- Plan for IRB approval for non-AU ailiated personnel? n/a
- Do you have any known competing financial interests, personal relationships, or other
interests that could have influence or appear to have influence on the work conducted
in this project? D Yes No - If yes, briefly describe the potential or real conflict of
interest: Click or tap here to enter text.
- Completed required CITI training? Yes O No If NO, complete the appropriate CITI basic
course and update the revised Exempt Application form.
- If YES, choose course(s) the researcher has completed: Human Sciences Basic
Course 1/27/2027
Human Sciences Basic Course Expration
Date
The Auburn University
Institutional
Review Board has approved
this Document for use from
03/19/2024 to

160
Protocol #
24
-
769 EX 2403
Name: Christopher Clemmons Degree(s): Cbck ot tap here to enter text.
RanWTitte: Assistant Professor Department/School: Agricultural Education
Role/responsibiiities in this project: Oversee
- AU ailiated? @ Yes O No If no, name of home institution: Click or tap here to enter
text.
- Plan for IRB approval for non-AU ailiated personnel? n/a
- Do you have any knom competing financial interests, personal relationships, or other
interests that could have influence or appear to have influence on the work conducted
in this project? O Yes @ No
- If yes, briefly describe the potential or real conflict of interest: Click or tap here to enter text
- Completed required CITI training? Yes O No If NO, complete the appropriate CITI b?Sic
course and update the revised EXEMPT application form.
- If YES, choose course(s) the researcher has completed: Choose a course Expiration Date Choose a course
Expiration Date
Name: Jason McKibben
Degree(s): Click or tap here to enter text.
RanklTitle: Assistant Professor
Department/SchooI: Agricultural Education
Role/responsibilities in this project: Oversee
- AU ailiated? Yes O No If no, name of home institution: Click or tap here to enter text.
Plan for IRB approval for non-AU ailiated personnel? n/a
- Do you have any known competing financial interests, personal relationships, or other
interests that could have influence or appear to have influence on the work conducted
in this project? O Yes @ No - If yes, briefly describe the potential or real conflict of
interest: Click or tap here to enter text.
Completed required CITI training? E Yes O No If NO, complete the appropriate CITI
basic course and update the revised EXEMPT application form.
- If YES, choose course(s) the researcher has completed: Choose a course Expiration Date Choose a course
Expiration Date
d. Funding Source — Is this project funded by the investigator(s)? Yes @ No O ts this
project funded by AU? Yes O No If YES, identify source Ctqck or tap here to enter text,

161
Is this project funded by an external sponsor? Yes O No @ If YES, provide name of
sponsor, type of sponsor (governmental, non-profit, corporate, other), and an
identification number for the award.
Name: nla Type: n/a Grant #: n/a
e. List other AU IRB•approved research projects and/or IRB approvals from other
institutions that are associated with this project. Describe the association between
this project and the listed project(s):
n/a
2. Project Summary
a. Does the study TARGET any special populations? Answer YES or NO to all.
Minors (under 18 years of age; if minor participants, at least 2 adults
must
be present during all research procedures that include the minors)
Yes O
Auburn University Students
Yes D
Pregnant women, fetuses, or any products of conception Yes O
Prisoners or wards (unless incidental, not
allowed for Exempt
research)
Yes O
Temporarily or permanently impaired
Yes O
b. Does the research pose more than minimal risk to participants? Yes O No n
If YES, to question 2.b, then the research activity is NOT eligible for EXEMPT review.
Minimal risk means that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated
in the research is not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily
life or during the performance ofroutine physical or psychological examinations or test. 42
CFR 46.102(i)
c. Does the study involve any of the following? If YES to any of the questions in item 2.c,
then the research activity is NOT eligible for EXEMPT review.

162
Procedures subject to FDA regulations (drugs, devices, etc.)
Use of school records of identifiable students or information
from instructors about specific students.
Protected health or medical information when there is a direct or indirect link
which could identify the participant.
Collection of sensitive aspects of the participant's own
behavior, such as illegal conduct, drug use, sexual
behavior or alcohol use.
d. Does the study include deception? Requires limited review by the IRB*
Yes O No
@
YesO No
n
YesO No
E
YesO No
@
YesO No
n
3. MARK the category or categories below that describe the proposed research. Note the
IRB Reviewer will make the final determination of the eligible category or categories.
0 1. Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational
settings, involving normat educational practices. The research is not likely to
adversely impact students' opportunity to learn or assessment of educators
providing instruction. 104(d)(1)
@ 2. Research only includes interactions involving educational tests, surveys,
interviews, public observation if at least ONE of the following criteria. (The
research includes data collection only; may include visual or auditory recording;
may NOT include intervention and only includes interactions), Mark the
applicable sub-category below (l, ii, or iii). 104(d)(2)
(i) Recorded information cannot readily identify the participant (directly or
indirectly/ linked);
OR
• surveys and interviews: no children;
• educational tests or observation of public behavior: can only include children
when investigators do not participate in activities being observed.
D (Il) Any disclosures of responses outside would not reasonably place participant at
risk; OR
O (IN) Information is recorded with identifiers or code linked to identifiers and IRB conducts limited
review; no children. Requlres limited review by the IRB.*
0 3. Research involving Benign Behavioral Interventions through verbal, written
responses including data entry or audiovisual recording from adult subjects who
prospectively agree and ONE of the following criteria is met. (This research does

163
not include children and does not include medical interventions. Research
cannot have deception unless the participant prospectively agrees that they will
be unaware of or misled regarding the nature and purpose of the research) Mark
the applicable sub-category below (A, B, or C).
O (A) Recorded information cannot readily identify the subject (directly or indirectly/
linked); OR
O (B) Any disclosure of responses outside of the research would not reasonably place
subject at risk;
OR
(C) information is recorded with identifies and cannot have deception unless
participants prospectively agree. Requires limited review by the IRB.•
0 4. Secondary research for which consent is not required: use of identifiable
information or identifiable biospecimen that have been or will be collected for
some other 'primary or 'initial' activity, if one of the following criteria is met.
Allows retrospective and prospective secondary use. Mark the applicable sub-
category below (l, Il, iil, or IV). 104
O (i) Bio-specimens or information are publicly available;
O (il) Information recorded so subject cannot readily be identified, directly or
indirectty/linked investigator does
not
contact subjects and will not re-identify the subjects; OR
O (iii) Collection and analysis involving investigators use of identifiable health
information when us is regulated by HIPAA 'health care operations" or
eresearch" or "public health activities and purposes" (does not include bio-
specimens (only PHI and requires federat guidance on how to apply); OR

164
O (iv) Research information collected by or on behalf of federal govemment using
government generated or collected information obtained for non-research
activities.
0 5. Research and demonstration projects which are supported by a federal
agency/department AND designed to study and which are designed to study,
evaluate, or otherwise examine: (i)public benefit or service programs; (ii)
procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii)
possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv)
possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or service under
those programs. (must be posted on a federal web site). 104.5(d)(5) (must be
posted on a federal web site)
D 6. Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies, (i) if
wholesome foods without additives and consumed or (ii) if a food is consumed
that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe,
or agricultural chemical or environmental contaminant at or below the level
found to be safe, by the Food and Drug Administration or approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The research does not involve prisoners as
participants. 104(d)(6)
*Limited IRB review — the IRB Chair or designated IRB reviewer reviews the protocol to
ensure adequate provisions are in place to protect privacy and confidentiality.
'*Category 3 — Benign Behavioral Interventions (BBI) must be briefin duration,
pajnless/harmless, not physically invasive, not likely to have a significant adverse lasting impact
on participants, and it is unlikely participants will find the interventions offensive or embarrassing.
Exemption categories 7 and 8 require broad consent. The AU IRB has determined the
regulatory requirements for legally effective broad consent are not feasible within the current
institutional infrastructure. EXEMPT categories 7 and 8 will not be implemented at this time.
4. Describe the proposed research including who does what, when, where, how, and for
how long, etc.
a. Purpose
To assess if school-based agriculture educators have been taught conflict
management in their teacher preparation programs, professional organizations and in their
organizations (where they work).

165
b. Participant population, inctuding the number of participants and the rationale for
determining number of participants to recruit and enroll. Note if the
study enrolls minor participants, describe the process to ensure more than 1 adult
is present during all research procedures which include the minor.
A national research project that could include up to 8,000 responding high school
agriculture teachers. Large states have an upward of 1500 SBAE. Smaller states have
approximately 100 to 200 teachers.
c. Recruitment process. Address whether recruitment includes
communicationslinteractions between study sta and potential participants
either in person or online. Submit a copy of all recruitment materials.
Cover letter wili be emailed and posted for participants. Email letter Wii' be
attached and wording included in the email.
d. Consent process including how information is presented to participants, etc.
Information will be presented digitally. Compliance/ cover letter will be presented
with link to survey and imbedded in digital version of the survey.
e. Research procedures and methodology
Agriculture educators will meet the following criteria: 21 years of age or older,
previously or currently teaching agriculture in the US. They will be administered a Qualtrics
survey instrument to answer questions about their demographic characteristics,
professional development experiences, pre-service preparation and experiences working in
a mufti-teacher department. Participant data will be collected and analyzed to determine
what specific professional development and course adjustments need to be created.
f. Anticipated time per study exercise/activity and total time if participants complete
all study activities. 15 minutes
g. Location of the research activities.
Participants will complete the online questionnaire at the location of their choice
h. Costs to and compensation for participants? If participants will be compensated
describe the amount, type, and process to distribute.

166
There is no cost or compensation to participants for participation.
i, Non-AU locations, site, institutions. Submit a copy of agreements/lRB approvals.
NIA
j, Describe how results of this study will be used (presentation? publication?
thesis? dissertation?) The results of this study wilt be used for the
completion of my dissertation.
k. Additional relevant information.
N/A
5. Waivers
Check applicable waivers and describe how the project meets the criteria for the waiver.
Q Waiver of Consent (Including existing de-identified data)
@ Waiver of Documentation of Consent (Use of information Letter, rather than
consent form requiring signat
O Waiver of Parental Permission (in Alabama, 18 years-olds may be considered
adults for research purposes) https://sites.auburn.edu/admin/orc/irb/lRB 1 Exempt and
Expedited/11-113 MR 1104 Hinton Renewal 2021-1.pdf
a. Provide the rationale for the waiver request.
This study provides minimat risk to participate and the survey is conducted online. By
clicking the consent button, this can take the place of a signature.
6. Describe the process to select participants/data/specimens. If applicable, include
gender, race, and ethnicity of the participant population.
Agriculture educators will meet the following criteria: must be 21 years of age or older,
must have taught agriculture or currently teaching agriculture grades 9-12 in the US.
7. Risks and Benefits
7a. Risks - Describe why none of the research procedures would cause a
participant either physical or psychological discomfon or be perceived as

167
discomfort above and beyond what the person would experience in daily life
(minimal risk).
Participants will experience no risk no more than what would be expected in everyday
life.
7b. Benefits — Describe whether participants witl benefit directly from participating in
the study. If yes, describe the benefit. And, describe generalizabte benefits resulting
from the study.
The benefits of the study will allow educators an opportunity to assess their conflict
management styles and share their experiences working in multi teacher programs.
8. Describe the provisions to maintain confidentiality of data, including cottection,
transmission, and storage. Identify platforms used to collect and store study data. For
EXEMPT research, the AU IRB recommends AU BOX or using an AU issued and
encrypted device. Ifa data collection form will be used, submit a copy. There will be no
identifiers in any form to track which respondents replies with their responses.
a. If applicable, submit a copy of the data management plan or data use agreement. n/a
9. Describe the provisions included in the research to protect the privacy Interests of
participants (e.g., others will not overhear conversations with potential participants,
individuals wilt not be publicly identified or embarrassed).
Individual results and data will be classified as a number to protect their identity and
responses ensuring privacy.
10. Does this research include purchase(s) that involve technology hardware, software
or online services? O YES NO 'f YES:
A. Provide the name of the product n/a and the manufacturer of the
product n/a
B. Briefly describe use of the product in the proposed human subject's
research. n/a

168
C. To ensure compliance with AU's Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility Policy, contact AU CT Vendor Vetting team at
vettinq@auburn.edu to leam the vendor registration process (prior to
completing the purchase).
D. Include a copy of the documentation of the approval from AU Vetting
wlth the revised submission.
11. Additional Information and/or attachments.
In the space below, provide any additional information you believe may help the IRB
review of the proposed research. If attachments are included, list the attachments below.
Attachments may include recruitment materials, consent documents, site permissions,
IRB approvals from other institutions, data use agreements, data collection form, CITI training
documentation, etc.
Survey Instrument Questions; Dissertation Cover Page and Chapter 3; Consent/cover letter/
CITI Training certificates; Email Survey Request Information
Required Signatures (If a student PI is identified in item 1.4 the EXEMPT application must be
re-signed and updated at revision by the student PI and faculty advisor. The signature of
the department head is
required only on the
submission of the
initial
EXEMPT application,
regardless of Pl. Sta
and faculty PI submissions
require the PI signature on all version, the department head signature on the
Signature of Principal Investigator: Date:
26/Feb/2024
Signature Date:
Signature of Dept. Head: Date:
Version Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
of
Faculty
Advisor

169

170

171

172

173

174
O 3

175

176
COLLABORATIVE INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING INITIATIVE (CITI PROGRAM)
COMPLETION REPORT - PART 1 OF 2 COURSEWORK
REQUIREMENTS*
• Scores on this Requirements Report (Part I) reflect quiz completions at the time all requirements for the course were met. The
Transcript Repott (Part 2) lists more recent quiz scores, including those on optional (supplemental) course elements.
• Name: Andra Collins (ID: 13015251)
• Institutlon Ailiation: Auburn University (ID: 964)
• Institution Email: auc0001@aubum.edu
• Curriculum Group: IRB # 2 Socia! and Behavioral Emphasis - AU Personnel - Basic/Refresher
• Course Learner Group: IRB # 2 Socia* and Behavioral Emphasis -AU Personnel
• Stage: Stage 1 - Basic Course
• Description: Choose this group to satisfy CITI training requirements for Key Personnel (including AU Faculty, Sta and
Students) and Faculty Advisors Involved primarily in SociaVBehavioral Research with human subjects.
• Record ID: 60829556
• Completion Date: 05-Mar-2024
• Expiration Date: 05-Mar-2027
• Minlmum Passing: 80
• Reported Score*: 88
REQUIRED AND ELECTIVE MODULES ONLY DATE COMPLETED SCORE
Belmont Report and Its Principles (ID: 1127) 29-Jan-2024 2/3 (67%)
The Federal Regufations - SBE (ID: 502) 29-Jan-2024 5/5 (100%) Assessing Risk - SBE (ID: 503) 29-Jan-2024 4/5 (80%)
Informed Consent - SBE (ID: 504) 05-Mar-2024 5/5 (100%)
Privacy and Confidentiality - SBE (ID: 505) 05-Mar-2024 415 (80%)
Students in Research (ID: 1321) 05-Mar-2024 415 (80%)
Unanticipated Problems and Reporting Requirements in Social and Behavioral Research (ID: 14928) 05-Mar-2024 5/5 (100%)
For this Report to be valid, the learner identified above must have had a valid ailiation wlth the CITI Program subscribing
institution identified above or have been a paid Independent Learner.
This document was generated on 05.Mar•2024. Verify at:
www.ßitiprogram 60029556
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program)
101 NE 3rd Avenue
Email:
support@citiprogram.orq
Suite 320
Phone: 888
-
529
-
5929
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 US
Web:
bttps://www.Gitiprogram.Org

177
COLLABORATIVE INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING INITIATIVE (CITI PROGRAM)
COMPLETION REPORT PART 2 OF 2 COURSEWORK
Scores on this Transcript ReQQd (Part 2) reflect the most current quiz completions, including quizzes on optional (supplemental)
elements of the course. The Requirements Report (Part 1) lists the reported scores at the time all requirements for the course were
met.
• Name: Andra Collins (ID: 13015251)
• Institution Ailiation: Aubum University (ID: 964)
• Institution Email: auc0001@auburn.edu
• Curriculum Group: IRB # 2 Social and Behavioral Emphasis - AU Personnel - Basic/Refresher
• Course Learner Group: IRB # 2 Social and Behavioral Emphasis - AU Personnel
• Stage: Stage 1 - Basic Course
• Description: Choose this group to satisfy CITI training requirements for Key Personnel (including AU Faculty. Sta and Students)
and Faculty Advisors involved primarily in Social/Behavioral Research with human subjects.
• Record ID: 60829556
• Current Score'*• 88
REQUIRED, ELECTIVE, AND SUPPLEMENTAL MODULES MOST RECENT SCORE
Belmont Report and Its Principles (ID: 1127) 29-Jan-2024 2/3 (67%)
The Federal Regulations - SBE (ID: 502) 29-Jan-2024 5/5 (100%) Assessing Risk - SBE (ID: 503) 29-Jan-2024 4/5
(80%)
Informed Consent - SBE (ID: 504) 05-Mar-2024 5/5 (100%)
Privacy and Confidentiality - SBE (ID: 505) 05-Mar-2024 4/5 (80%)
Unanticipated Problems and Reporting Requirements in Social and Behavioral Research (ID: 14928) 05-Mar-2024 5/5 (100%)
Students in Research (ID: 1321) 05-Mar-2024 4/5 (80%)
For this Report to be valld, the learner identified above must have had a valid ailiation with the CITI Program subscribing
institution identified above or have been a paid Independent Learner.
This document was generated on 05-Mar-2024. Verify at:
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program)
101 NE 3rd Avenue
Email: sun.QQÄ@AÆ.agr.am.QL.g
Suite 320
Phone: 888
-
529
-
5929
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 US
Web:
https:/(www.pitiprogram.qrg

178

179

181
느0
l
국

182

183

184

185
0

186

187

188

189


190

191
The Auburn University
Institutional
Review Board has approved this
Document for use from
03/19/2024 to
Protocol # 24-769 EX 2403

192
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

193
CU RRI CU LUM A N D TEAC H I NG
AUBURN
UNIVERSITYMarch 4, 2024
My name is Andra Collins. I am a doctoral candidate in the College of
Education at Auburn University. I would like to invite you to participate in my
research study for the completion of my degree which investigates the
relationships of school based agriculture educators in multi-teacher
departments.
The survey takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your participation
is entirely voluntary, and your survey responses will be kept strictly
confidential. The risks associated with this study are minimal and not
greater than risks ordinarily encountered in daily fife.
Attached to this email is the consent form which is required of you to
participate in the study. If you choose to participate, click the link and
complete the Qualtrics survey that is attached to this email.
Every completion of this survey is important and the data will be used to
improve the profession.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this
research project.
Sincerely,
S040 Haley Center
Auburn, AL 36849-5212 Andra Collins
auc0001@auburn.edu
Telephone:(832) 746-6280
334-844-4434
fax.•
334-844-6789
www.auburn.edu

194

195
The Auburn University Institutional
Review Board has approved this
Document for use from
03/19/2024 to
Protocol # 24-769 EX 2403
Version Date (date document
create#

196
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

197
CU RRI CU LU M A N D TEAC H I NG
March 4, 2024
To whom it may concern,
The following study is for completion of my dissertation research for Auburn
University's Doctoral Program. Participants in this study must meet the following
criteria: must be 21 years or older, currently teaching secondary agricultural
education, retired from secondary agricultural education or have taught
secondary agricultural education. The purpose of this study is to investigate the
experiences of school based agricultural educators that work with one or more
teaching partners. Completion of this study will provide insight for teacher
preparer programs, agriculture teacher associations and school districts. Your
participation in this study is voluntary, greatly appreciated and needed. Please
select the appropriate response to proceed with this survey. Thank you for your
time.
Sincerely,
Andra Collins aug0001@auburn.edu

198

(NOTE: DO NOT AGREE TO PARTICIPATE UNLESS IRB APPROVAL
INFORMATION WITH CURRENT DATES HAS BEEN ADDED TO THIS
DOCUMENT.)
INFORMED CONSENT LETTER
for a Research Study entitled
Assessment of the Interworking Relationships of School Based Agriculture
Educators in Multi-Teacher Departments
You are invited to participate in a research study that addresses how two or more agricultural
teachers work together within their agriculture program. This study is being conducted by
doctoral candidate Andra Collins, Associate Professor Jason McKibben, Associate Professor
Chris Clemmons and Professor James Lindner in the Auburn University Department of
Curriculum and Teaching. You are invited to participate because you are an agriscience
education teacher and are 21 years or older.
What will be involved if you participate? Your participation is completely voluntary. If you
decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked a series of questions using an
interview guide and your responses will be recorded using a digital audio recorder. The purpose
of the recording is to transcribe your comments for analysis. The recordings will be deleted after
the transcription process is complete. Your total time commitment will be approximately one-
hour.
Are there any risks or discomforts? The risks associated with participating in this study are
minimal and no more than encountered in everyday life. To minimize these risks, data will be
collected confidentially, you will not be asked to leave your name.
Are there any benefits to yourself or others? There are no direct benefits to your participation in
this study. Benefits within the field of agriscience education will aid teacher
preparation programs in teaching pre-service teachers conflict management
and resolution skills and to aid practicing teachers in identifying conflict
and developing conflict management skills.
Will you receive compensation for participating? You will not receive any compensation for your
participation.
Are there any costs? Other than your time there are no costs associated with your participation. If
you change your mind about participating, you can withdraw at any time by not responding or
The Auburn University
Institutional
Review Board has approved this
Document for use from
03/19/2024 to
Protocol # 24-769 EX 2403

not returning the distributed consent form. Your decision about whether to participate or to stop
participating will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University, the College of
Education, Curriculum and Teaching, and the Agriscience Education program.
Any data obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. We will protect your
privacy and the data you provide by maintaining your confidential responses. At the
conclusion of each survey all identifiable information will be deleted Information collected
through your participation may be used for presentations at academic conferences, journals,
population publications.
If you have questions about this study, please contact Doctoral Candidate Andra Collins at
auc0001@auburn.edu , Associate Professor Chris Clemons at cac0132@aubum.edu or
334.844.4411 , Assistant Professor Jason McKibben at jdm0184@auburn.edu or 334.844.4411,
or Professor James Lindner at jr10039@aubum.edu or 334.844.4411.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the
Auburn University Office of Research Compliance or the Institutional Review Board by phone
(334) 844-5966 or e-mail at IRBadmin@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu
HAVING READ THE INFORMATION ABOVE, YOU MUST DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO
PARTICIPATE m THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE,
PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AND RETURN TO ANDRA COLLINS AT
auc0001@auburn.edu.
YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO KEEP. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES
YOUR WILLINGNESS To PARTICIPATE. Participant's Signature Date
The Auburn University
Institutional
Review Board has approved this
Document for use from
03/19/2024 to
Protocol # 24-769 EX 2403

Investigators Obtaining Consent
Andra Collins
Date
Jason McKibben Date
Chris Clemons Date
James Lindner Date