\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Are Conflict Management Styles of Gen Y Related to their Socio-Demographic Characteristics?},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2017-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2017)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2017-01-15}
\title{Are Conflict Management Styles of Gen Y Related to their Socio-Demographic Characteristics?}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Dr. Smruti Rahul  Patre}

             \affil[1]{  National Institute of Technology}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 7 December 2016 Accepted: 2 January 2017 Published: 15 January 2017}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


A conflict is a disagreement between two or more parties (people/group).Within organizations, conflicts are inevitable. The growth in organizational interdependence, shift to collaborative team-based structures, increased diversity, and environmental uncertainty are all factors that can lead to higher degrees of organizational conflict (Callanan & Perri, 2006). Managers today are challenged to minimize the friction caused by multigenerational workforce and maximize the assets of distinct sets of work values and styles simultaneously. (Deyoe, R. H., & Fox, T. L. (2012). In response to growing demands for workplace harmony and productivity, effective conflict management is becoming paramount (Chan et al., 2006, 289). This paper takes a look at the conflict management styles of the next generation, Generation Y, who are in midst of their education and ready to enter the workforce. It focuses on their preferred conflict management style and also explores relationship between their socio-demographic characteristics and preferred conflict management style. Thomas kilman?s questionnaire was used to measure the conflict management styles of the students. A better understanding of the dominant conflict management style amongst Gen Y and the contribution of individual differences to conflict management has implications for managing employees effectively, especially for their recruitment and selection, training and development, as well as motivating and rewarding (Meier, J, & Crocker, M. (2010). The findings, implications, directions for further research and the limitations are discussed in the paper.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{conflict management styles, gen Y, socio-demographic variables, workforce management.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{I. Introduction}]{I. Introduction}\par
auta \& Kluwer (2004) contended that conflict is an important theme to study, both in organizations and in close relationships. In organizations, conflict may hinder productivity and job satisfaction. In close relationships it can also be a threat to relationship satisfaction and endurance of relationship. Such situations necessitates conflict to be studied empirically by gathering data on its appearance, causes and consequences, and on emotional, cognitive, motivational and behavioural aspects \hyperref[b30]{(Nauta \& Kluwer, 2004)}.\par
Today Workplace is populated by different generational cohorts-specifically Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials (Gen Y). With these diverse generations now in the workplace, obstacles involving respect, communication, and work styles are cropping up faster than some managers can handle them. If you're prepared, you can foster a respectful, collaborative work environment among these employees. It's now crucial and critical that management understands each generation's unique core values so they can effectively manage and lead those generations. When managers come to the point of understanding generational differences, conflicts will be resolved effectively and productivity of the organization will increase.\par
Gen Y is increasingly important now because of the fact that they are becoming part of workforce. Since workplace diversity in terms of multigenerations would be an inevitable phenomenon in the future, empirical studies are needed to establish the differences and to study how these generations interact while at work and how organisations can be responsive enough to understand these styles to make workplaces ready for these generations.  {\ref (Mukundan et.al, , 2013)}. This paper therefore is an attempt to identify the styles that Gen y adopts while confronting a conflict and the influence of their characteristics on their conflict management style. The study focuses on conflict management syles of Gen Y who are in the midst of their education. The findings will provide a better understanding of the dominant conflict management style amongst gen Y and the contribution of individual differences to conflict management which has implications for managing human resources in organizational contexts, especially for their recruitment and selection, training and development, as well as motivating and rewarding. Organization development practitioners, likewise, would benefit from knowing where they are most likely to encounter different patterns of conflict styles. \hyperref[b6]{(Brahnam et al, 2005)} that may be viewed as a situation in which the concerns of two or more individuals appear to be incompatible \hyperref[b12]{(Darling \& Fogliasso, 1999)}, and which tends to occur when individuals or groups perceive that others are preventing them from attaining their goals \hyperref[b1]{(Antonioni, 1998)}. Rahim looks it as, "An interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities (i.e., individual, group, organization, etc)". \hyperref[b33]{Poole and Putnam (1997)} define conflict as the process of interaction by interdependent individuals who perceive incompatible goals. According to \hyperref[b2]{Augsburger (1992)}, "conflict is a crisis that forces us to recognize explicitly that we live with multiple realities and must negotiate a common reality; that we bring with a role for each and for both".\par
During the past number of decades researchers have taken a keen interest in conflict and its impact on organizations. Researchers have focussed on a number of factors e.g. such as styles of handling conflict  {\ref (Jehn, 1997;}\hyperref[b21]{Jehn, Northcraft \& Neale, 1999)}, resolution strategies (Van de Vliert \& Euwema, 1994), conflict and justice \hyperref[b31]{(Ohbuchi, Suzuki \& Hayashi, 2001)}, theories of managing conflict \hyperref[b0]{(Rahim, 2002)}, conflict of interest and objectives \hyperref[b39]{(Vilaseca, 2002)} and conflict management techniques  {\ref (Fillbeck \& Smith, 1997)}.\par
Conflict styles can be defined as the style that an individual chooses to satisfy one or others  {\ref (Womack, 1988)}. Some of the styles of the persons involved in a conflict can play a critical role (either be individuals, or as groups). Certain styles promote a search for solutions while some lead to a deadlock and result in strained relations. Several styles have been identified by theorist -one of the early theories of conflict style resolution was one-dimensional proposed by Mary P Follet (1924) where three styles were proposeddomination compromise and integration and added two more secondary styles namely avoidance and suppression. Later, Blake and Mouton (1964) developed the managerial grid, which included two dimensions: concern for production and concern for people with four styles-forcing (low-low for both, smoothing, compromising and problem solving (high-high for both). Thomas and  {\ref Kilmann (1974}\hyperref[b23]{Kilmann ( , 1977) )} based on the work of Blake and Mouton labelled two components of conflict behavior as assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness was a behavior that satisfies one's own concern, and cooperativeness was a behavior that satisfies another person's concerns. These two dimensions yield the five conflict management styles of competitiveness, accommodation, compromise, avoiding and collaboration. This model has been one of the popular models.  {\ref Rahim \& Bonomo (1979} {\ref , 1983}) came with a differentiation with two dimensions namely -concern for self and concern for others which basically portrays the motivational orientation of an individual at the time of conflict. Rahim's model is based on five conflict handling approaches namely integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising. All the styles however converge into the perceptions of the conflicting parties when conflicts arise between two parties it may either lead to resignation to fate or a power struggle. Pareekh \& purohit (2010) proposed that the perception of the conflicting groups should be used to understand the modes of conflict management. They suggested two modes of conflict managementapproach and avoidance. Avoidance is based on fear and dysfunctional while approach is based on hope and functional. Avoidance is typified by a tendency to deny, rationalise or avoid the problem, to displace anger or aggression or to use emotional appeals while approach orientation is characterised by making efforts to find a solution by one's own efforts or with the help of others. This dimension has been used in understanding conflict styles of managers (Pareek 1987). Establishing research findings on multigenerational conflict styles is relatively at an early stage. Since workplace diversity in terms of multigenerations would be an inevitable phenomenon in the future, empirical studies are needed to establish the differences and to study how these generations interact while at work and how organisations can be responsive enough to understand these styles to make workplaces ready for these generations. This paper therefore is an attempt to identify the styles that Gen y adopts while in conflict with others.  
\section[{c) Gen Y (Millenials) characteristics}]{c) Gen Y (Millenials) characteristics}\par
This enormously powerful group in terms of sheer size brought up during the times of economic prosperity believes in empowerment, are networked, collaborative ,highly social and team focused, (UN report 2010) need they demand workplace relationships that cater to the their needs of social networking, work life balance and civic engagement. loyalty does not have the same meaning as their earlier cohorts had as these millennial's seek for instant gratification (Wynn 2012). Financial rewards and motivators cannot lure this generation. They seek advancement in their career and hence don't mind switching their jobs for the sake of career. They look for participation in intelligent talks and decisions which aeefct them directly. They are highly team oriented and like empowerment in their job. Hence, they do not believe in hierarchies and rather expect a mentoring role from the seniors than a supervisory role. To this generation, work is seen as an elective activity to further one's personal goals rather than a necessity (Saxena \& Jain 2012). Some researchers connote them in negative manner as the "generation me" as they are sometimes described with negative connotations such as being self-centered and unmotivated .However, this cohort has emerged as the most educated, technology savvy generation ever. They have also been quoted as ones who have strong work ethics when they have landed in the right job. \hyperref[b28]{(Mukundan, S et al, 2013)}. 
\section[{d) Multi generations and role of conflict}]{d) Multi generations and role of conflict}\par
Present workplace face the biggest challenge of managing diverse workforce in terms of generations. Today, organizations have four generations working together. This brings in a lot of complexities as each generation have their own expectations of the workplace and hence perspectives differ which brings in scope for conflicts at workplace. While several generations are at the workplace they should be encouraged to deal with generational differences and adopt the right conflict styles too. Failure to do so may cause misunderstandings, miscommunications and mixed signals \hyperref[b41]{(Smola \& Sutton, 2002)}. Conflicts are likely to arise between the baby boomers /Gen x and the Gen y as they would comprise a major portion of the workforce.\par
(Mukundan, S., Dhanya, M., \& Saraswathyamma, K. P. (2013).\par
Conflict management styles of Gen Y were assessed using the Thomas-Kilman instrument. The TKI (Thomas and  {\ref Kilmann, 1974} {\ref Kilmann, , 2002}) is an established measure of conflict styles that is widely used in managerial training and organization development interventions. The measure contains 30 forced-choice items, each of which asks subjects to choose one of two statements as most characteristic of their behavior. The study sample consisted of 270 college students of Jamshedpur. A cross section of the sample was done in terms of the background of the students. 
\section[{IV. Data Analysis}]{IV. Data Analysis}\par
This qualitative study explored the most preferred conflict management styles of gen Y (students) and its association with the sociodemographic variables of them. There are very few studies that seek to ascertain the association between these two. Among the 300 students to whom the questionnaire was distributed, 227 filled the questionnaires completely. Chi-square test and Cramers test was used to test the association between conflict management styles and the socio demographic variables. The data was analysed using SPSS software. 
\section[{a) Socio-Demographic analysis}]{a) Socio-Demographic analysis}\par
The demographic statistics of these 227 respondents are briefly discussed below. 
\section[{Chart 1: Frequency distribution of demographic variables}]{Chart 1: Frequency distribution of demographic variables}\par
Gender: 87\% of respondents were males whereas 13\% females. Age: 72.24\% rerspondents were aged in between 20-22 years, 24.23\% in between 23-25 years and 3.52\% were aged above 25 years. Since most of the students were pursuing final year B-tech, maximum were aged in between 20-22 years. Course level: 32.16\% students were pursuing their PG course (MCA), while 67.84\% were pursuing their graduation in B-tech. Students from only three disciplines of study were studied. Academic discipline: 37.89\% students were from Civil engineering discipline, 31.72\% from computer science and engineering and remaining 31.72\% from MCA. Family structure: 65\% respondents belonged to nuclear family whereas 35\% to joint family. Fathers occupation: 57\% students father were in service class, 39\% in business class, 2\% were farmers, 1\% retired and 0.44\% students father were expired. Mothers occupation: 92\% of students mother were house wife, while 8\% belonged to working class. No. of siblings: 3\% students were single child in their family, 33\% had one sibling, 29\% had two siblings and 35\% students had more than 2 siblings. Placement amongst siblings: 32\% respondents were eldest among their siblings, 45\% were youngest, 19\% were placed in middle and 3\% were the single child in their family. Family income level: 89\% respondents belonged to a family with average income, while 11\% belonged to low income family. None of the student belonged to high income family background. It is seen from the table----that the 37\% students accommodate to manage their conflicts while 36\% collaborate. These are the most preferred conflict management styles. The least preferred style is avoidance (3.96\%), followed by compromise (6.16\%). It is seen that the Gen Y students prefer giving importance to others first and then themselves in managing conflicts, which is a good sign of maintaining cordial relations in their personal and professional life. This is similar to the finding that in India the most preferred style to resolve the conflict is accommodating followed (2010) but contrasts another finding which says most preferred style of Gen Y is negotiation followed by compromise (Mukundan, S., Dhanya, M., \& Saraswathyamma, K. P. (2013)). It is assumed that collaborating, or integrating, styles is a better method for responding to conflict, and individuals should be trained to strive for collaboration when confronted by a conflicting situation (Weingar t \&  {\ref Jehn, 2000)}. So it can by Avoiding (Lather, A. S., Jain, S., \& Shukla, A. D. be said that Gen Y students are naturally trained to collaborate in conflicts.  This study attempted to explore the association between conflict management style of Gen y and their ten different socio-demographic factors like gender, age, their course level of study, academic discipline, family structure, no. of siblings, placement amongst siblings, fathers occupation, mothers occupation and family income level. Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1} shows the relationship between socio-demographic variables of the respondents and their conflict management styles. 
\section[{b) Conflict Management Style in Gen Y}]{b) Conflict Management Style in Gen Y}\par
Gender: Gender plays a strong and significant role in influencing Gen Y's conflict management style (Chi-sq=10.25, p=03; Cramers V=0.21, p=0.03). It was found that 53\% females distinctively preferred collaboration (approach) style and 26\% preferred accommodation style when confronted with a conflict, whereas 39\% male preferred accommodation and 33\% prefer collaboration style. It can be said that males prefer avoidance-approach, whereas females prefer approach-avoidance style of managing conflict. This difference could be attributed partly to the growing acceptance of women empowerment in the society and partly to the collectivist culture that Indians have. This finding partially supports the literature that male students prefer the approach modes of conflict and the females have a mixed preference of both approach and avoidance (Mukundan S., Dhanya, M., \& Saraswathyamma, K. P. (  {\ref 2013}), but contrasts to another finding which says Males tended to use the forcing or competing conflict management styles compared with their female counterparts \hyperref[b24]{(Lindeman et al., 1997;} {\ref Polkinghorn \& Byme, 2001;}\hyperref[b32]{Osisioma, 2009)}. Inconsistency in the literature indicates the need for more larger scale studies on the role of gender in predicting conflict management styles. (Al Wekhian, J. (2015). Age: Age plays a strong and significant role in determining conflict management styles.(Chi-sq=14.58, p=00.04; Cramers V=0.17, p=0.04). Gen Y students aged 20-22 years preferred Accommodation (avoidance), whereas those aged in between 23-25 years and above 25 years preferred to collaborate (approach) when confronted with a conflict. Older students were discovered to have concern for both self and the opponent in conflicting situation, whereas younger students preferred to lose against their opponent to maintain relationship. This difference across the age could be attributed partly to the maturity that develops with age and hence students look for collaborative ways to resolve a conflict. This contrasts the literature which states that the older students were discovered to use more avoiding, while younger students are more likely to be competitive in nature (Gbadamosi, O., Ghanbari Baghestan, A., \& Al-Mabrouk, K. (2014). Academic discipline and Level of course: Gen Y students conflict management style is strongly and significantly influenced by their academic discipline (Chi-sq=27.63, p=0.01; Cramers V=0.24, p=0.001. and level of course (Chi-sq=25.59, p=00; Cramers V=0.33, p=00). It was found that PG (MCA) students preferred collaboration whereas UG (B-Tech ) both Civil and Computer Science engineering students preferred to accommodate in conflicting situation. This difference in conflict management style can be partly attributed to their age and maturity level which gives them an understanding of handling conflict in better ways. There is no available literature to study the academic influence on conflict management. Family structure: The family structure whether joint or nuclear Gen Y does not significantly determine their conflict management style .(Chi-sq=4.  {\ref 41, p=0.35)}. It was found that the respondents from nuclear family preferred to collaborate (38.77\%) whereas those from joint family preferred to accommodate (43.75\%). This finding partially supports the literature that both men and women, living in joint family were found to have better adjustment than individuals living in nuclear families \hyperref[b20]{(Ramamurti \& Jamuna, 1984)}. Indian joint families are considered to be strong, stable, close, resilient and enduring with focus on family integrity, family loyalty, and family unity at expense of individuality, freedom of choice, privacy and personal space \hyperref[b9]{(Chekki D, 1996)}.\par
No. of siblings: It was found that number of siblings plays a strong and significant role in determining Gen Y's conflict management style. This study found that both the groups of students who were single child and also who had two siblings accommodate, whereas those having one sibling preferred to collaborate in conflicts. It was also found that those having more than 2 siblings compete to resolve their conflicts. Research says siblings serve as companions, confidants, and role models in childhood and adolescence (e.g., Hence they prefer to accommodate when confronted by conflict.\par
Dunn, 2007) and as sources of support throughout adulthood (e.g., \hyperref[b10]{Connidis \& Campbell, 1995)} which directly affect the family environment. This difference in conflict management styles with varying number of siblings can be attributed to the fact that lone child may not enjoy such environment, hence prefers to give up in conflicts, whereas those having siblings learn to manage conflicts in different ways. Like those having one sibling, may initially have more insecurity which later may develop into strong bonding and hence they may prefer to collaborate. While those having two siblings, may have to adjust a lot, resulting in accommodation style to manage their conflicts. Finally, more than two siblings is a big family, where every individual may have to fight to get their needs and wants fulfilled, hence they prefer to compete in conflicting situations. Placement amongst siblings: The order of birth or placement amongst siblings does not significantly influence Gen Y's conflict managing style. But, it was found that the only child and those born in middle preferred to collaborate, eldest preferred to accommodate, whreas youngest preferred collaborating or accommodating. This finding is partially consistent with the literature that those born in middle are considered peacemakers, and a good resource to turn to when it comes to conflict resolution. (Robin \hyperref[b35]{Throckmorton, 2013)}. Those who are Only children never have to compete with siblings for personal attention, which makes them more confident and articulate, whereas those who are youngest are manipulative, charming, blames others, attention seekers. Eldest amongst siblings are practical, confident, and able to delegate and make rapid decisions. \hyperref[b4]{(Bernardo Tirado, 2011)}. All these characteristics influence the preferred style to manage conflict.\par
Parents occupation: This study explored a strong and significant relationship between students fathers occupation and their conflict management style (Chi-sq=32.56, p=0; cramers=0.189, p=.008), but mothers did not (chi-sq=5.85, p=0.21). It was found that students whose father were in service preferred to accommodate, while those in business, farming, retired and expired preferred to collaborate when confronted with a conflict. Also students whose mother was housewife preferred to accommodate whereas whose mother was working preferred to collaborate. Working women are more empowered and they give equal concerns to others as well as self while resolving conflict. 
\section[{V. Conclusion}]{V. Conclusion}\par
Specifically, non-employed mothers' homemaker role experiences indirectly affects their toddlers behaviors \hyperref[b3]{(Barling, MacEwen and Nolte, 1993)}. Family income: The study discovered no significant association between Family income level of Gen Y and their conflict management style (chi-sq=7.4, p=0.11). It was found that students with low family income background preferred to accommodate, whereas those with average level preferred to collaborate. This may be due to the fact that low access to resources results in giving up things and high concern for others in family. Whereas, high access to resources, may result in high concern for others as well as self. This contrasts the literature finding that low income families tend to have more acts of violence compared to others \hyperref[b16]{(Gelles, 1992}\hyperref[b17]{, 1997}\hyperref[b36]{, Straus, Gelles, \& Steinmetz, 1980)}. This means low income level should compete to resolve conflict, which is not the case here.\par
An understanding of the conflict management styles that Gen Y is likely to use while confronting conflict situations would be of enormous use for the superiors and human resource professionals, as they can examine the background variables of Gen Y and can seek to identify their preferred style of conflict handling at work. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the most preferred conflict resolution styles used by Gen Y and to determine the effects (if any) of demographic variables on how they respond to conflicts. The present study found that the most preferred conflict management style of Gen Y is accommodation, followed by collaboration. This shows that while having high concern for self, they have concern for others as well in conflicts, which is a good sign for healthy competitions and peace at large. The background of the individuals seems to be a factor in deciding the conflict style adopted as it is seen in the study. The study explored a strong and significant association between gender, age, course, discipline, academic year and fathers occupation with the preferred style of conflict management of Gen Y. While, a weak association was discovered between their family structure, family income level, no of siblings, placement amongst siblings and their mothers occupation with their conflict management style. This study was crosssectional in nature and does not found whether individuals" conflict handling styles change over time when they join the workplace. Hence, it is recommended to conduct a future research with a longitudinal survey, with an objective to determine whether a conflict handling style used changes overtime. 
\section[{VI. Future Implications}]{VI. Future Implications}\par
The area researched is extremely relevant in the coming years anywhere across the globe and this study was done in one country and in a small city ,therefore more empirical research needs to be done on a wider population. This paper studied the conflict management styles of a homogenoous group of young students only, therefore it cannot be generalized to a non student sample. \hyperref[b29]{(Smarty Mukundan et al, 2013)}.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}Figure 1 a}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}1 Are}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png}
\caption{\label{figure5}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.10137614678899083\textwidth}P{0.47568807339449537\textwidth}P{0.0779816513761468\textwidth}P{0.19495412844036697\textwidth}}
Variable\tabcellsep Style\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep \%\\
\tabcellsep Avoidance\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 6.16\\
\tabcellsep Accommodation\tabcellsep 85\tabcellsep 37.44\\
Style\tabcellsep Competition\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep 16.29\\
\tabcellsep Collaboration\tabcellsep 82\tabcellsep 36.12\\
\tabcellsep Compromise\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 3.96\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.24955516014234874\textwidth}P{0.08847864768683274\textwidth}P{0.10662811387900356\textwidth}P{0.10133451957295374\textwidth}P{0.10889679715302492\textwidth}P{0.0862099644128114\textwidth}P{0.045373665480427046\textwidth}P{0.01966192170818505\textwidth}P{0.02344306049822064\textwidth}P{0.020418149466192168\textwidth}}
Variables\tabcellsep Avoidance (\%)\tabcellsep Accomodation (\%)\tabcellsep Competition (\%)\tabcellsep Collaboration (\%)\tabcellsep Compromise (\%)\tabcellsep Chi\tabcellsep P\tabcellsep Cramers\tabcellsep P\\
Gender\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Males Females\tabcellsep 10.3 13.33\tabcellsep 39.08 26.66\tabcellsep 17.76 6.66\tabcellsep 33.5 53.33\tabcellsep 4.56 0\tabcellsep 10.12\tabcellsep 0.0 3\tabcellsep 0.21\tabcellsep 0. 03\\
Age\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
< 20 yrs\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
20-22 yrs 23-25 yrs\tabcellsep 6.21 7.27\tabcellsep 41.61 27.27\tabcellsep 19.87 7.27\tabcellsep 29.81 54.54\tabcellsep 4.34 3.63\tabcellsep 14.58\tabcellsep 0.0 5\tabcellsep 0.17\tabcellsep 0. 06\\
above 25 yrs\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 37.5\tabcellsep 12.5\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Course level\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
MCA Btech\tabcellsep 5.47 6.49\tabcellsep 26.02 42.85\tabcellsep 6.84 20.77\tabcellsep 58.9 25.32\tabcellsep 2.73 4.54\tabcellsep 25.5\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0.33\tabcellsep 0\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Discipline of study}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
MCA\tabcellsep 5.47\tabcellsep 26.02\tabcellsep 6.84\tabcellsep 58.9\tabcellsep 2.73\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
CSE\tabcellsep 7.24\tabcellsep 37.68\tabcellsep 17.39\tabcellsep 33.33\tabcellsep 4.34\tabcellsep 25.6\tabcellsep 0.01\tabcellsep 0.24\tabcellsep 0. 00\\
CE\tabcellsep 5.81\tabcellsep 46.51\tabcellsep 23.25\tabcellsep 19.76\tabcellsep 4.65\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Family Structure}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Nuclear Joint\tabcellsep 7.48 3.75\tabcellsep 34.01 43.75\tabcellsep 14.96 18.75\tabcellsep 38.77 31.25\tabcellsep 4.76 2.5\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{4.418 0.35}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
No. of siblings\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Zero\tabcellsep 8.47\tabcellsep 42.37\tabcellsep 21.05\tabcellsep 25.42\tabcellsep 3.38\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
One Two\tabcellsep 6.6 1.88\tabcellsep 31.13 47.16\tabcellsep 16.03 9.43\tabcellsep 43.39 35.84\tabcellsep 2.83 5.66\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{28.14 0.05}\tabcellsep 0.2\tabcellsep 0. 00\\
>two\tabcellsep 11.11\tabcellsep 22.22\tabcellsep 33.33\tabcellsep 22.22\tabcellsep 11.11\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Placement amongst siblings}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Eldest\tabcellsep 5.55\tabcellsep 43.05\tabcellsep 19.4\tabcellsep 27.77\tabcellsep 4.16\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Youngest Middle\tabcellsep 7.76 4.54\tabcellsep 36.89 36.36\tabcellsep 14.56 15.9\tabcellsep 36.89 40.9\tabcellsep 3.88 2.27\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{12.12 0.42}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Only child\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 12.5\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 12.5\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Fathers occupation}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Service\tabcellsep 7.69\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 30.76\tabcellsep 1.53\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Bus\tabcellsep 4.49\tabcellsep 37.07\tabcellsep 12.3\tabcellsep 40.44\tabcellsep 5.61\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Farmer\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 32.56\tabcellsep 0.0 08\tabcellsep 0.189\tabcellsep 0. 00\\
Retired\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Expired\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Mothers occupation}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Housewife\tabcellsep 5.26\tabcellsep 38.75\tabcellsep 16.26\tabcellsep 35.4\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Service\tabcellsep 16.6\tabcellsep 22.22\tabcellsep 16.6\tabcellsep 44.44\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 5.85\tabcellsep 0.21\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Retired\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Expired\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: © 2017 Global Journals Inc. (US) 61 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XVII Issue VI Version I Year ( ) A 2017]} 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2017 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 			\footnote{© 2017 Global Journals Inc. (US) 1} 			\footnote{Are Conflict Management Styles of Gen Y Related to their Socio-Demographic Characteristics?} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Tirado ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Bernardo Tirado 		.  		 \url{https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/digital-leaders/201109/birth-order-in-the-workplace}  		2011.  	 
\bibitem[Brahnam et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘A benderbased categorization for conflict resolution’.  		 			S D Brahnam 		,  		 			T M Margavio 		,  		 			M A Hignite 		,  		 			T B Barrier 		,  		 			J M Chin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Management Development}  		2005. 24  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mukundan et al. ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘A study on the conflict resolution styles of generation Y students in Indian context’.  		 			S Mukundan 		,  		 			M Dhanya 		,  		 			K P Saraswathyamma 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Global Business}  		2013. 6  (1)  p. 81.  	 
\bibitem[Lindeman et al. ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Age and gender differences in adolescents' reactions to conflict situations: Aggression, prosociality, and withdrawal’.  		 			M Lindeman 		,  		 			T Harakka 		,  		 			L Keltikangas-Järvinen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of youth and adolescence}  		1997. 26  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Jamuna and Ramamurti ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Age, adjustment and husband-wife communication of middle aged and older women’.  		 			D Jamuna 		,  		 			P V Ramamurti 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Psychological Researches}  		1984.  	 
\bibitem[Van De Vliert and Euwema ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		‘Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors’.  		 			E Van De Vliert 		,  		 			M C Euwema 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personality and social Psychology}  		1994. 66  (4)  p. 674.  	 
\bibitem[Straus et al. (ed.) ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		\textit{Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family},  		 			M M A Straus 		,  		 			R J Gelles 		,  		 			Steinmetz 		.  		S. K. (ed.)  		1980. Transaction Publishers.  	 
\bibitem[Polkinghorn and Byrne ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘Between war and peace: An examination of conflict management styles in four conflict zones’.  		 			B Polkinghorn 		,  		 			S Byrne 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Conflict Management}  		2001. 12  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Throckmorton ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		\textit{Birth Order: How Does It Impact You in the Workplace},  		 			Robin Throckmorton 		.  		 \url{https://strategichrinc.com/article/birth-order-how-does-it-impact-you-in-the-workplace/}  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Blake et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Breakthrough in organization development’.  		 			R R Blake 		,  		 			J S Mouton 		,  		 			L B Barnes 		,  		 			L E Greiner 		.  	 	 		\textit{Harvard business review}  		1964. 42  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Macon and Artley ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Can't we all just get along? A review of the challenges and opportunities in a multigenerational workforce’.  		 			M Macon 		,  		 			J Artley 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Business Research}  		2009. 9  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Callanan et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Choice of conflict-handling strategy: A matter of context’.  		 			G A Callanan 		,  		 			C D Benzing 		,  		 			D F Perri 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Psychology}  		2006. 140  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Connidis and Campbell ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Closeness, confiding and contact among siblings in middle and late adulthood’.  		 			I A Connidis 		,  		 			L D Campbell 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Family Issues}  		1995. 16  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Darling and Fogliasso ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Conflict management across cultural boundaries: a case analysis from a ultinational bank’.  		 			J R Darling 		,  		 			C E Fogliasso 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Business Review}  		1999. 99  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ohbuchi et al. ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘Conflict management and organizational attitudes among Japanese: Individual and group goals and justice’.  		 			K I Ohbuchi 		,  		 			M Suzuki 		,  		 			Y Hayashi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Asian Journal of Social Psychology}  		2001. 4  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chan et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Conflict management styles of male and female junior accountants’.  		 			C C Chan 		,  		 			G Monroe 		,  		 			J Ng 		,  		 			R Tan 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Management}  		2006. 23  (2)  p. 289.  	 
\bibitem[Augsburger ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Conflict mediation across cultures: Pathways and patterns},  		 			D W Augsburger 		.  		1992. Westminster John Knox Press.  	 
\bibitem[Follett ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Creative experience},  		 			M P Follett 		.  		1924. ????? ???????.  	 
\bibitem[Kilmann and Thomas ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The" MODE" instrument. Educational and psychological measurement},  		 			R H Kilmann 		,  		 			K W Thomas 		.  		1977. 37 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Osisioma ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘Effect of gender, age, and religion on choice of conflict management style in Nigerian organizations’.  		 			H E Osisioma 		.  	 	 		\textit{African Journal of Business and Economic Research}  		2009. 4  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Smarty and Zakkariya ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘Emotional Intelligence as a determinant of Conflict Style Adoption of Managers: A theoretical perspective’.  		 			Mukundan Smarty 		,  		 			\& K A Zakkariya 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Social Sciences And Interdisciplinary Research}  		2013. 2  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chekki ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Family values and family change’.  		 			D A Chekki 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Comparative Family Studies}  		1996. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gbadamosi et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Gender, age and nationality: assessing their impact on conflict resolution styles’.  		 			O Gbadamosi 		,  		 			A Ghanbari Baghestan 		,  		 			K Al-Mabrouk 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Management Development}  		2014. 33  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Meier and Crocker ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Generation Y in the workforce: Managerial challenges’.  		 			J Meier 		,  		 			M Crocker 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning},  				2010. 6 p. 68.  	 
\bibitem[Jurkiewicz and Brown ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{Generational comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of public personnel administration},  		 			C L Jurkiewicz 		,  		 			R G Brown 		.  		1998. 18 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Macky et al. ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘Generational differences at work: Introduction and overview’.  		 			K Macky 		,  		 			D Gardner 		,  		 			S Forsyth 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Managerial Psychology}  		2008. 23  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Smola and Sutton ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		‘Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium’.  		 			Wey Smola 		,  		 			K Sutton 		,  		 			CD 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of organizational behavior}  		2002. 23  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Barling et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Homemaker role experiences affect toddler behaviors via maternal well-being and parenting behavior’.  		 			J Barling 		,  		 			K E Macewen 		,  		 			M L Nolte 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology}  		1993. 21  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Deyoe and Fox ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Identifying strategies to minimize workplace conflict due to generational differences’.  		 			R H Deyoe 		,  		 			T L Fox 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business}  		2012. 5 p. 1.  	 
\bibitem[Gelles ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Intimate violence in families’.  		 			R J Gelles 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sage}  		1997.  	 
\bibitem[Solutions ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		\textit{Managing Generation X and Y and a Multi Generational Workforce. Managing Generation Y},  		 			Wynn Solutions 		.  		 \url{http://www.managing-generation-y.com}  		2009.  	 
\bibitem[Poole et al. ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		‘Organizational communication in the 21st century’.  		 			M S Poole 		,  		 			L L Putnam 		,  		 			D R Seibold 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management Communication Quarterly: McQ}  		1997. 11  (1)  p. 127.  	 
\bibitem[Ishfaq Ahmed, Muhammad Musarrat Nawaz, Muhammad Zeeshan haukat and Ahmad Usman ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Personality Does Affect Conflict Handling Style: Study of Future Managers’.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance}  		Ishfaq Ahmed, Muhammad Musarrat Nawaz, Muhammad Zeeshan haukat and Ahmad Usman (ed.)  		2010. 1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gelles ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Poverty and violence toward children’.  		 			R J Gelles 		.  	 	 		\textit{American behavioral scientist}  		1992. 35  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Antonioni ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles’.  		 			D Antonioni 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Conflict Management}  		1998. 9  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Havenga ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Relationships between gender/age-status differences and conflict management styles in small business’.  		 			W Havenga 		.  	 	 		\textit{SA Journal of Human Resource Management}  		2006. 6  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Tomchek and Dunn ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘Sensory processing in children with and without autism: a comparative study using the short sensory profile’.  		 			S D Tomchek 		,  		 			W Dunn 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Journal of occupational therapy}  		2007. 61  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Filbeck and Smith ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Team building and conflict management: Strategies for family businesses’.  		 			G Filbeck 		,  		 			L L Smith 		.  	 	 		\textit{Family Business Review}  		1997. 10  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Vilaseca ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		‘The shareholder role in the family business: Conflict of interests and objectives between nonemployed shareholders and top management team’.  		 			A Vilaseca 		.  	 	 		\textit{Family Business Review}  		2002. 15  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Nauta and Kluwer ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘The use of questionnaires in conflict research’.  		 			A Nauta 		,  		 			E Kluwer 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Negotiation}  		2004. 9  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rahim ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict’.  		 			Afzalur Rahim 		,  		 			M 		.  	 	 		\textit{International journal of conflict management}  		2002. 13  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Voki? and Sontor ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		 			N P Voki? 		,  		 			S Sontor 		.  		\textit{Conflict management styles in Croatian enterprises-The relationship between individual characteristics and conflict handling styles. FEB Working Series},  				2009.  	 	 (Faculty of Economics and Business-Zagreb) 
\bibitem[Jehn et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups’.  		 			K A Jehn 		,  		 			G B Northcraft 		,  		 			M A Neale 		.  	 	 		\textit{Administrative science quarterly}  		1999. 44  (4)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
