Descriptive survey identifies key conflict management strategies for job proficiency in business education lecturers, suggesting authorities enhance teaching conditions.
This study investigated conflict management strategies needed for job proficiency among business education lecturers in Delta state, Nigeria. The study was guided by three research questions and adopted a descriptive survey design. With the aid of a questionnaire, a sample population of 101 respondents were obtained and since the population was manageable, there was no sampling (a census). The reliability of the instrument had the following coefficient result r1 = 0.86, r2 = 0.91and r3 = 0.88 with a research question mean of 0.88 using Cronbach’s alpha. Data collected were analyzed using mean and standard deviation with a decision rule that a mean of 2.5 and above was regarded as agreed, while a mean less than 2.5 was regarded as disagreed, and t-test was employed in analysing the three null hypotheses formulated at 0.05 level of significance. The findings revealed that the causes of conflicts were inadequate teaching materials, demotivating working conditions and unattractive salary conditions, amongst others. The conflict resolution strategies adopted include appropriate leadership styles, structuring the organisation, addressing conflict cause(s), diagnosing and correcting issues. The mostly used conflict resolution strategies were arbitration, mediation and smoothing, amongst others. The hypotheses testing results indicated that their calculated t-values were less than their critical t-values at a significance level of 0.05 and 99 degree of freedom, hence the acceptance of the null hypothesis. The study recommends that authorities should provide adequate teaching materials and facilities, lecturers’ involvement in decision making, lecturers’ motivation, arbitration, smoothing and mediation methods as conflict resolution strategies among business education lecturers in public tertiary institutions for job proficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oghenekome et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: