Workplace Conflict

I would like you to describe a conflict that you have experienced in your professional life. Please use the terms from this week’s reading to describe both the source and the outcome of the conflict. After reading this material, would you have managed this conflict in a different way?

Minimum of 300 words in APA format with only the references that are attached please. If you use direct quotes please use quotation marks.

Managing conflict at work:
comparison between younger

and older man

age

rial employees
Dannii Y. Yeung

Department of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, Hong Kong, and

Helene H. Fung and Darius Chan
Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,

Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Abstract
Purpose – This study aimed to examine younger and older employees’ use of five conflict strategies to
handle an actual conflict incident with other employees. With reference to the socioemotional selectivity
theory, this study tests whether older employees, as compared with younger employees, would use
more avoiding to handle conflicts with supervisors but less dominating to handle conflicts with
subordinates. Moreover, this study investigates whether the interaction effect between role of the
conflict partner and age would be explained by goal interdependence. Furthermore, it also tests whether
the negative effect of avoiding on interpersonal relations and job satisfaction would be moderated by
age.
Design/methodology/approach – The three hypotheses were tested in a sample of 280 Chinese
managerial and executive employees aged between 22 and 66 years. Participants were asked to recall
their behavioral responses to an actual conflict incident with other employees.
Findings – Results showed that relative to younger employees, older employees utilized more
avoiding to deal with conflicts with supervisors and less dominating with subordinates. Such age
differences in avoiding and dominating strategies were found to be explained by cooperative and
independent goals held by the participants in the conflict incident. In addition, the negative effect of
avoiding on interpersonal relations was only shown among younger employees but not among older
employees.
Originality/value – This finding suggests that the use of passive strategies is not always harmful to
working adults, largely depending on the age of the users.

Keywords Older workers, Avoiding, Conflict strategies, Dominating

Paper type Research paper

Conflict is almost unavoidable in human interactions. Unlike other life domains, we have
little direct control over which partners to interact with in the workplace (Davis et al.,
2009). With a growing number of older employees in the workforce, negative stereotypes

This study was supported by Hong Kong University Grant Council under General Research Grant
(Project No.: CityU153411) awarded to Dannii Y. Yeung.

Authors’ Note: Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (Form C): Used with permission from
the © Center for Advanced Studies in Management. Further use or reproduction of the instrument
without written permission is prohibited.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm

IJCMA
26,

342

Received 17 June 2014
Revised 26 September 2014
Accepted 23 October 2014

International Journal of Conflict
Management
Vol. 26 No. 3, 201

pp. 342-

364

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-06-2014-0044

about older workers (Hedge et al., 2006; Posthuma and Campion, 2009) may hinder an
effective resolution when conflict arises. Therefore, it is crucial to employers and senior
management to find out whether older employees handle workplace conflict in similar
ways as their younger counterparts to enhance team effectiveness and work
relationships.

Socioemotional selectivity theory (SST) posits that older adults emphasize
emotionally meaningful goals to a greater extent than do younger adults (Carstensen,
2006; Fung and Carstensen, 2004). The emphasis on emotional goals and interpersonal
closeness may motivate older employees to handle workplace conflicts differently.
Previous research has demonstrated age differences in behavioral responses to
interpersonal tensions (Birditt et al., 2005; Blanchard-Fields et al., 2004; Charles et al.,
2009; Yeung et al., 2012) and conflicts at work (Davis et al., 2009). In general, compared
with younger adults, older adults utilize more passive strategies (such as avoiding) and
fewer destructive strategies (such as dominating) to manage the conflict. However, these
studies did not take into consideration of the role of the conflict partner, which may also
influence one’s selection of conflict strategies (Nguyen and Yang, 2012; Rahim, 1986).
With reference to the age-related changes in goal orientation, it is speculated that
compared with younger working adults, older employees would use more avoiding to
handle conflicts with supervisors but less dominating with subordinates. Moreover,
with reference to the theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1990; Tjosvold,
1998), this study investigates whether the interaction effect between role of the conflict
partner and age would be explained by goal interdependence. Furthermore, this study
also tests whether the negative effect of avoiding on interpersonal relations and job
satisfaction would be moderated by age.

Conflict strategies at work
Conflict occurs when there is a disagreement between two or more parties (Rubin et al.,
1994), or when an individual perceives incompatible needs, goals, desires or ideas with
another person (De Dreu and Gelfand, 2008; Deutsch, 1990). The present study focuses
on interpersonal conflict at work, specifically conflict with supervisors, peers or
subordinates. The following review focuses mainly on conflict strategies in the
workplace, plus findings obtained from research on aging to support the speculated
effect of age on conflict strategies.

In the literature on conflict management, individuals’ responses to interpersonal
conflicts can be categorized into five types by the degree of attempts to satisfy one’s
personal concern and attempts to satisfy the concern of other parties (Blake and Mouton,
1964; Rahim, 1983): integrating, avoiding, dominating, obliging and comprising.
Integrating is adopted when the person has a strong concern of both self and others,
such as problem solving, exchange of information and open discussion to reach an
effective solution. Avoiding is demonstrated when the person has a weak concern about
both self and other’s outcomes, such as withdrawal or sidestepping situations.
Dominating is observed when a person attempts to satisfy his/her own concern, such as
the use of forcing behaviors to win his/her position. Obliging is shown when the person
attempts to satisfy concern of the other party, such as playing down the differences
between parties, accommodating and yielding. Compromising is demonstrated when
the person has an intermediate level of concerns for self and others to reach a mutually
acceptable agreement (Rahim, 2011; Thomas, 1990).

343

Workplace
conflict and

age

The selection of conflict strategies varies by role of the conflict partner. In Rahim’s
(1986) study measuring conflict styles of 1,219 managers, employees were more likely to
apply obliging to handle conflict with superiors and compromising with peers. When
resolving conflict with subordinates, they tended to use integrating as primary styles
and avoiding as backup styles. Lee’s (1990) experimental study also showed that Korean
managers tended to use compromising with peers; however, they adopted avoiding with
superiors and dominating with subordinates. Drory and Ritov (1997) assessed the choice
of conflict management styles toward a hypothetical interpersonal conflict in an
organization. They demonstrated that employees working in Israel tended to use more
obliging but fewer integrating and dominating strategies when the conflict partner was
perceived as having greater power. Nguyen and Yang (2012) measured conflict
management strategies of Chinese employees in a hypothetical conflict at work. When
respondents played a role as supervisor, they used more direct and asserting strategies
to resolve the conflict with their subordinate. When they played a role as subordinate,
they were more likely to handle the conflict with the supervisor by utilizing indirect and
harmony-preserving strategies (e.g. avoiding the conflict situation or pretending to obey
the command of supervisor but secretly pursue their own goal). Both direct and indirect
conflict strategies were used to handle conflict with peers.

Findings of the past studies suggest that the selection of conflict strategies is affected
by role of the conflict partner; however, no consistent pattern of relationship has
emerged. On the one hand, such differences could be due to cultural variations in conflict
management; for instance, Asians were more likely to use avoiding or compromising to
manage conflict, whereas Americans prefer direct confrontation or dominating
(Friedman et al., 2006; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991; Leung and Chan, 1999; Ma, 2007; Oetzel,
1998). On the other hand, prior research on aging has consistently shown age differences
in responses to interpersonal tensions (Birditt and Fingerman, 2005; Birditt et al., 2005;
Blanchard-Fields et al., 2004; Fingerman et al., 2008), so it is also plausible that such
mixed findings could be due to the age range across samples. For instance, respondents
in Rahim’s (1986) study are older and more experienced than those in Nguyen and
Yang’s (2012) research, as the average organizational experience of these two samples
was above 17 years and 9 years, respectively, which might have influenced their
selection of conflict strategies.

Given that past research on workplace conflict was largely conducted in samples of
younger employees or with a narrow age range (Chen and Tjosvold, 2007; Chow and
Ding, 2002; DeChurch et al., 2007; Martin and Bergmann, 1996; Rahim et al., 2001; Yuan,
2010), it remains unclear whether younger and older workers would manage workplace
conflict with supervisors, peers and subordinates differently. The findings of Davis
et al.’s (2009) study indeed provide some preliminary support to such speculation. In
particular, based on the ratings of coworkers of the target participants, their study
revealed that in comparison to younger workers, older workers were more likely to be
rated as displaying more passive avoidant responses to workplace conflict, such as
yielding, delaying responses or adapting. Moreover, the participants who aged 55 years
and above were perceived as exhibiting fewer active destructive behaviors, such as
arguing vigorously and expressing anger, than their younger counterparts. However,
younger and older workers did not differ in the use of active constructive strategies,
such as perspective taking and creating solution, when dealing with subordinates, but
older workers used these strategies to a greater extent when dealing with peers and

IJCMA
26,3

344

supervisors. On the one hand, these findings suggest that employees of different age
groups vary in their ways to handle workplace conflicts. On the other hand, they also
imply that the use of various conflict strategies toward supervisors, peers or
subordinates can be influenced by age of the users.

Nevertheless, Davis et al.’s (2009) study solely relied on the ratings of coworkers to
assess the use of conflict strategies between younger and older workers, which may be
biased by the age-related stereotypes of the raters. This study therefore aims to
investigate the effect of age on handling real-life conflicts with supervisors, peers or
subordinates from the perspective of the persons who use the strategies. In light of the
findings of Lee (1990) and Nguyen and Yang (2012), it is expected that compared with
younger employees, older employees would use more avoiding to handle conflict with
supervisors but less dominating with subordinates (H1). These predictions are
consistent with the proposition of SST: in face of negative events, the use of passive
strategies such as avoidance and behavioral disengagement helps older adults to
regulate their emotions, whereas the employment of direct confrontation can only help
the persons to tackle the problem but cannot reduce the negative emotions
(Blanchard-Fields et al., 2004; Yeung et al., 2012). Thus, older workers are more likely to
use avoiding and less dominating to manage workplace conflict than younger workers.
For the other three conflict strategies, it is expected that both age groups would use them
to a similar extent when handling conflict with other employees.

A great deal of attention has been paid toward workplace conflict in the West (see
Poitras, 2010 for a meta-analysis), with limited research in Chinese populations. Past
cross-cultural studies on conflict management suggest that Chinese employees,
regardless of age, are more likely to adopt non-confrontational strategies (such as
avoiding or compromising) than their Western counterparts (Bazerman et al., 2000;
Tang and Kirkbride, 1986). The Chinese sample, therefore, provides an ideal context to
test the first hypothesis (i.e. whether the use of conflict strategies varies by age and role
of the conflict partner). The effect of age on avoiding, if found, would be quite robust
because such an effect is shown in a sample of working adults with greater preferences
for non-confrontational conflict approaches.

Goal interdependence
The theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1990; Tjosvold, 1998) stresses that
one’s goal orientation in a conflict situation influences how he/she interacts with the
conflict partner and the choice of conflict strategies. Three types of goal interdependence
are identified, including cooperative, competitive and independent goals (Deutsch, 1994;
Tjosvold, 1998; Tjosvold et al., 1983). Most of conflict situations are regarded as a
mixture of these three goal orientations, which influences one’s strategy selection to
resolve the conflict (Janssen and van de Vliert, 1996; Tjosvold, 1998). Individuals with
cooperative goals believe their goals are positively linked to that of the conflict partner.
Others’ goal attainment helps them to achieve their own goals. As a result, they are more
likely to adopt constructive strategies to handle the conflict, such as integrating and
compromising. Individuals with competitive goals perceive their goals are negatively
related to that of the conflict party. Others’ goal attainment makes them less likely to
achieve their own goals. Therefore, they tend to use destructive strategies such as
dominating to manage the conflict incident. Independent goal occurs when individuals
perceive their goals are unrelated to that of the conflict partner. Others’ goal attainment

345

Workplace
conflict and
age

does not affect their own goal attainment. Consequently, they may use more passive
strategies to deal with the conflict situation, for example, by avoiding discussion of the
conflict issue with coworkers.

According to the theory of cooperation and competition, variations in conflict
responses can be attributed to the type of goal interdependence that people hold in a
conflict situation. With reference to the proposition of SST, older adults’ emphasis of
emotional goals and interpersonal closeness (Carstensen, 2006) may motivate them to be
more cooperative but less competitive and independent with their conflict partners,
which, in turn, affects their ways to handle the conflict incident. To explore the
underlying mechanism of the age by role of conflict partner interaction effects on
avoiding and dominating as proposed in H1, it is expected that such interaction effects
would be mediated by the three types of goal interdependence (H2). In particular, it is
anticipated that the age-related increase in avoiding with supervisors and the
age-related decrease in dominating with subordinates, if found, would be explained by
a higher cooperative goal and lower independent and competitive goals.

Outcomes of conflict strategies
The use of conflict strategies has been demonstrated to be predictive of individual and
organizational outcomes. In general, integrating is associated with an effective
management of conflict, whereas dominating and avoiding are related to ineffective
conflict resolution (Gross and Guerrero, 2000; Janssen and van de Vliert, 1996; Rahim,
2011). For instance, clinical employees who used avoiding or dominating styles felt more
stressful and reported a higher level of relationship conflict, and a reverse pattern was
found for those with integrating style (Friedman et al., 2000). DeChurch et al.’s (2007)
experimental study also showed that the use of competing strategies produced greater
levels of task and relationship conflicts and lowered satisfaction with the conflict
outcomes. Moreover, health-care employees experienced greater psychological strain
and exhaustion when they handled interpersonal conflicts passively, such as engaging
in avoidance and yielding behaviors (Dijkstra et al., 2009). Romer et al. (2012) further
revealed that when leaders of insurance companies displayed more forcing and avoiding
behaviors in task conflict, a higher level of conflict stress was observed among their
subordinates. In sum, the use of avoiding and dominating strategies is associated with
a wide range of negative work-related outcomes, such as reduced job satisfaction (De
Dreu and Weingart, 2003; De Dreu et al., 2004), lower job performance (Rahim et al., 2001;
Shih and Susanto, 2010) and poorer psychosocial well-being (Aranda and Lincoln, 2011;
De Dreu et al., 2004).

Even though past research has demonstrated the negative consequences of avoiding
strategy on work-related outcomes and psychological well-being, older adults’ use of
passive strategies is indeed consistent with their developmental goal orientation that
emphasizes on emotional goals and interpersonal closeness (Carstensen, 2006;
Blanchard-Fields et al., 2004). Therefore, greater use of passive strategies should
contribute positively to their well-being, or at least has less harmful effect. Yeung and
Fung (2012) have tested a similar idea in the relationship between passive emotion
regulatory strategy and work-related outcomes. In the Western literature, the use of
suppression as an emotion regulatory strategy is often associated with more negative
emotions but fewer position emotions (Gross, 1998; Gross and John, 2003). However,
Yeung and Fung’s study demonstrated that when older insurance employees displayed

IJCMA
26,3

346

a high level of emotional suppression at work, higher sales productivity and fewer
negative emotions were observed. This finding reveals a beneficial effect of using
passive strategies among older adults. It is therefore anticipated that the negative effect
of avoiding strategy would only be shown in younger employees but not in older
employees. To our best knowledge, such an idea has never been tested before. The third
hypothesis of the present study thus tests whether the negative effect of avoiding on
interpersonal relations and job satisfaction would be moderated by age (H3).
Interpersonal relations and job satisfaction were selected as outcome variables because
past studies revealed that behavioral responses to interpersonal conflict influence one’s
relationship quality (Birditt et al., 2009; Friedman et al., 2000, 2006) and well-being at
work (Aryee et al., 1999; Chan et al., 2008; De Dreu et al., 2004).

The present study
Empirical studies in the aging literature have demonstrated that older adults actively
shape their behaviors to match their developmental goals. With a growing number of
older employees in the labor force, it is essential to understand their ways to handle
workplace conflict to promote an effective communication in organizations and to
achieve high quality of work outcomes. Although SST and theory of cooperation and
competition have received much empirical support in the aging and organizational
psychology literatures, respectively, the few prior studies examining age differences in
conflict strategies in the workplace (Davis et al., 2009; Rahim, 1986) did not
systematically integrate the two theoretical frameworks to make predictions. This
study aims at filling this gap by examining age variations in conflict strategies with
other employees and assessing the mediating role of goal interdependence. To address
the problem of low generalizability of hypothetical conflict scenarios, which have been
commonly used in prior research (Chan and Goto, 2003; Friedman et al., 2006; Nguyen
and Yang, 2012), this study would measure the use of conflict strategies in an actual
conflict incident at work. It also investigated the moderating effect of age on the
relationship between avoiding and interpersonal relations and job satisfaction.

Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 280 Chinese managerial and executive employees aged between
22 and 66 years (M � 42.03, SD � 9.918). Among them, 53.9 per cent were female and
66.1 per cent were married. About 44 per cent of participants had a bachelor degree, 3

per cent had a master or doctoral degree and the remaining had secondary school
education. The average tenure in the current organization was 11.466 years (SD �
10.355) and 79 per cent worked in the private sector.

Procedure
Ethical approval of the study was first obtained from the affiliated university of the first
author. Invitation letters with a detailed description of the study objectives were sent to
human resources department of public and private organizations to obtain permission
to collect data from their managerial and executive employees. Twenty-four
organizations agreed to join this study. The questionnaire package was distributed to
the target participants through internal mail. Participation was totally voluntary, and
informed consent was obtained by asking the participant to read and sign the consent
form on the first page of the survey package. The interested employees completed the

347

Workplace
conflict and
age

questionnaire by themselves, and then returned it in a post-by-pay envelope to the
researchers. Confidentiality was ensured. A supermarket cash voucher worth HKD10

(�US$13) was given to each participant in appreciation of his/her participation.

Measures
All measurement scales were first translated into Chinese by a bilingual translator and
then back-translated into English by another translator. Discrepancies were resolved
between the translators and the first author.

Personal conflict incident at work. To assess one’s responses to workplace conflict,
participants were asked to recall a real-life conflict incident, with other employees. They
were instructed to write a few sentences to describe a conflict incident that they had
experienced with other employees in the past six months. They were also asked to report
gender and role of the conflict partner (1 � supervisor, 2 � peer and 3 � subordinate),
and their perceived severity of the conflict (1 � not at all to 5 � extremely). The variable,
role of the conflict partners, was transformed to two dummy variables (D1 � supervisor
and D2 � peer), with subordinate as the comparison group. Among the sample, 87 of
respondents reported a conflict incident with their supervisor, 88 with peer and 105 with
subordinate. Based on the description by the participants, causes of the conflict incident
were categorized into six groups by referencing to prior research on workplace conflicts
(Jehn, 1995; Pearson et al., 2002; Tjosvold and Chia, 1989): different viewpoints and
opinions about the task being performed (23.7 per cent), interpersonal incompatibilities
(20.1 per cent), quality of work (23.4 per cent), work scheduling (15.5 per cent), rigid rules
and procedures (11.2 per cent) and insufficient resources (6.1 per cent). Younger and
older employees did not differ in their report of a conflict incident with supervisors,
peers or subordinates {X2(2) � 1.462, ns}, sex of the conflict partner {X2(2) � 2.367, ns}
and the nature of the conflict incident {X2(5) � 2.795, ns}.

Conflict strategies. Participants’ behavioral responses to handle the conflict incident
with other employees were assessed by Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-I

(ROCI-II, Form C; Rahim, 1983). This scale consists of 28 items to assess five conflict
strategies with colleagues, including avoiding (six items; “I attempt to avoid being put
on the spot and try to keep my conflict with the conflict partner to myself”), dominating
(five items; “I use my influence to get my ideas accepted”), integrating (seven items”; “I
try to integrate my ideas with those of the conflict partner to come up with a solution
acceptable to us”), compromising (four items; “I try to find a middle course to resolve an
impasse”) and obliging (six items; “I generally try to satisfy the needs of the conflict
partner”). This scale has been shown to have high internal consistency and test–retest
reliability (DeChurch et al., 2007; Rahim, 1983). Permission to use this instrument was
obtained from the Center for Advanced Studies in Management. Participants rated these
items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 � strongly disagree to 5 � strongly
agree, with higher scores indicating greater use of the conflict strategy. The Cronbach’s
alphas (�) of the five conflict strategies were 0.700, 0.820, 0.862, 0.606 and 0.915. Because
the internal consistency of compromising was not satisfactory (� � 0.70), therefore it
was excluded from the following statistical analyses.

Goal interdependence. Tjosvold et al.’s (1983) measure of goal interdependence was
adapted to assess participants’ motives to resolve the conflict incident. This scale
consists of 19 items to measure the linkage of goals between the respondent and conflict
partner, with 7 items assessing cooperative goal (e.g. “I learn a lot from working together

IJCMA
26,3

348

with the conflict partner”), 7 items for competitive goal (e.g. “The conflict partner seems
to get in the way of my growth and development”) and 5 items for independent goal (e.g.
“The conflict partner and I work separately”). Participants rated these items on a
five-point Likert scale (1 � strongly disagree to 5 � strongly agree). The alphas of the
three goal interdependence were 0.888, 0.852, and 0.819.

Interpersonal relations. The positive relations with others subscale of Ryff’s (1989)
psychological well-being scale was used to measure participants’ interpersonal relations
in the present study. The Chinese version of this study has been validated among Hong
Kong Chinese by Cheng and Chan (2005). This subscale consists of 4 items, for example,
“I often feel lonely because I have few close friends with whom to share my concerns”.
Participants rated these items on a five-point Likert scale (1 � strongly disagree to 5 �
strongly agree), with higher scores denoting a warm and trusting relationship with
others. The internal reliability was high, with � � 0.734.

Job satisfaction. Kunin’s (1955) single-item faces scale was used to measure the
participants’ overall job satisfaction. Unlike other measures of job satisfaction that
consisted of mainly cognitive components of job attitudes, this faces scale measure
assesses both cognitive and affective components in job satisfaction (Brief, 1998; Fisher,
2000). Previous studies have demonstrated the predictive validity of this single-item
scale by showing its significant correlations with other job measures such as job
performance (Yeung and Fung, 2012; Yeung et al., 2015) and state affect at work (Fisher,
2000). Participants were asked to choose one of the seven faces that could best describe
how they felt about their job in general. Higher scores indicate a higher level of job
satisfaction.

Demographic variables including age, gender, education, marital status and
organizational tenure were also recorded.

Results
Use of conflict strategies across age and conflict partner
Correlation analyses were computed to show the relationships among major variables
(Table I). To test the first hypothesis, MANCOVA was conducted to examine whether
the use of the four conflict strategies would be varied by age and role of the conflict
partner, with gender and organizational tenure of the respondent and perceived severity
of the conflict incident as covariates. Age was measured as a continuous variable in this
study. To assess the effect of age on conflict strategies across conflict partners in
MANCOVA, the continuous variable of age was recoded into a categorical variable by
dividing the sample two age groups, younger employees (40 years and below) and older
employees (41 years and above). This categorization of older and younger employees
has been used in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and also past research on
age and work behaviors (Ng and Feldman, 2008; Yeung and Fung, 2009, 2012).

Table II presents means and standard deviations of the four conflict strategies
toward conflict partners between younger and older employees. Results of MANCOVA
revealed that the age by role of the conflict partner interaction effect was significant, F
(8, 536) � 2.249, Wilks’ � � 0.936, p � 0.023, �2 � 0.032. Subsequent univariate
analyses showed that the age by role of the conflict partner interaction effect was
significant on avoiding {F (2, 271) � 3.236, p � 0.041, �2 � 0.023} and dominating {F (2,
271) � 3.189, p � 0.043, �2 � 0.023}, but was not significant for integrating {F (2, 271) �
1.240, ns} or obliging {F (2, 271) � 0.057, ns}. Relative to the conflict with subordinates,

349

Workplace
conflict and
age

Table I.
Correlation analyses
among major
variables

M
aj

or
va

ri
ab

le
s

1
2

3
4

5
6

7
8

9
10

A
ge

–
G

en
de

r
�

0.
20

0*
**

–
Se

ri
ou

sn
es

s
of

th
e

co
nfl

ic
t

0.
20

6*
**

�
0.

15
5*

*
–

A
vo

id
in

g
0.

01
9

0.
03

8
�

0.
01

1
–

D
om

in
at

in
g

0.
01

6
�

0.
00

7
�

0.
00

9
�

0.
02

9
–

In
te

gr
at

in
g

0.
09

7
�
0.
09

1
�

0.
05

5
�

0.
14

*
0.

21
4*

**
–

O
bl

ig
in

g
�

0.
08

1
0.

03
6

�
0.

15
4*

*
0.

33
2*

**
�

0.
23

8*
**

0.
12

1*
–

In
de

pe
nd

en
t

go
al

�
0.

01
3

�
0.

00
8

�
0.

01
8

0.
02

0
0.

19
4*

**
0.

37
5*

**
0.

06
1

–
C

oo
pe

ra
ti

ve
go

al
0.

04
6

�
0.

02
2

�
0.

00
9

0.
03

2
0.

08
8

0.
29

1*
**

0.
09

6
0.

54
8*

**
–

C
om

pe
ti

ti
ve

go
al
�
0.
01
3
0.
00

9
0.

05
2

0.
22

8*
**
0.
12

1*
�

0.
15

1*
0.

05
6

�
0.

01
7

�
0.

27
7*

**
–
In
te

rp
er

so
na

lr
el

at
io

ns
hi

p
0.

09
3

0.
00

4
�

0.
09
8
�
0.
22

6*
*

0.
14
1*
0.

23
7*

**
�

0.
06

1
0.

06
3

�
0.

05
4

�
0.
01
8

–
Jo

b
sa

ti
sf

ac
ti

n
0.

09
7

�
0.

05
0

�
0.

03
4

�
0.

19
7*

**
0.

11
2

0.
21

6*
**
�
0.

06
5

0.
08
6
0.

02
4

�
0.

03
2

0.
30

1*
**

N
o
te

s:
*

p
�

0.
05

;
**

p
�
0.
01
;
**

*
p

�
0.

00
1

IJCMA
26,3

350

older employees were more likely to utilize avoiding with their supervisors than were
their younger counterparts. When dealing with subordinates, older employees utilized
less dominating than younger employees. Figure 1 illustrates the use of avoiding and
dominating strategies across age groups and conflict partners. Moreover, the main
effect of role of the conflict partner was also observed in obliging {F (2, 271) � 18.785,
p � 0.001, �2 � 0.122} and dominating {F (2, 271) � 3.712, p � 0.026, �2 � 0.027}. In
particular, employees, regardless of age, were more likely to use obliging to resolve the
conflict with supervisors than with peers and subordinates, whereas they tended to
utilize dominating strategies to handle the conflict with subordinates than with

Table II.
Use of conflict

strategies across age
groups and conflict

partners

Conflict partner
Younger employees Older employees

Mean SD Mean SD

Avoiding
Supervisor 3.119 0.689 3.433 0.747
Peer 3.081 0.711 3.119 0.450
Subordinate 3.157 0.603 3.031 0.598

Dominating
Supervisor 3.031 0.730 3.129 0.728
Peer 3.195 0.697 3.404 0.727
Subordinate 3.517 0.615 3.212 0.767

Integrating
Supervisor 3.571 0.725 3.670 0.603
Peer 3.755 0.719 3.720 0.678
Subordinate 3.599 0.707 3.870 0.484

Obliging
Supervisor 3.159 0.855 3.167 0.930
Peer 2.586 0.847 2.626 0.753
Subordinate 2.514 0.790 2.478 0.705

Figure 1.
Use of conflict

strategies across age
groups and conflict
partners

351

Workplace
conflict and
age

supervisors. Main effect of age group was not found in the four conflict strategies.
Gender and organizational tenure did not have any significant effect on the use of the
five conflict strategies, while the main effect of the perceived severity of the conflict
incident was only significant on obliging (B � �0.146, SE � 0.044, p � 0.001).

The mediating effect of goal interdependence
H2 was tested by a moderated mediation analysis, in particular, the interaction
effect between role of the conflict partner (the independent variable) and age (the
moderator) on each conflict strategy (the dependent variable) would be mediated by
goal interdependence (the mediator) (Preacher et al., 2007). Hayes’s (2012) SPSS
macro of moderated mediation analysis was used to test the mediating effect of three
goal orientations on the relationship among role of conflict partner, age and the
conflict strategy (avoiding and dominating). Based on the suggestion of Hayes and
Preacher (2014), two sets of moderated mediation analysis were conducted for each
conflict strategy, each with one dummy variable of role of the conflict partner as the
independent variable and the other dummy variable as the covariate in the model.
The three goal orientations were inputted to the model as mediators. Age was
entered to the analysis as a continuous variable. All predictors were centered on the
mean of the respective variable. Tables III and IV summarize the results of
moderated mediation analyses on avoiding and dominating, respectively. The upper
part of the tables shows that the main effects of role of the conflict partner and age
and their interaction effect on each goal orientation. Results showed that both role of
the conflict partner and age significantly predicted independent and cooperative
goals but not competitive goal. In particular, older employees were more likely to
hold a cooperative goal orientation and less likely to have an independent goal than
were younger employees in the conflict situation. When the conflict partner was
supervisor or peer, the level of independent goal orientation was higher, whereas a
reverse pattern was observed for cooperative goal orientation. The interaction effect
on each goal orientation was not significant.

The middle part of the tables presents the main effects of role of the conflict partner,
age and three goal orientations and the interaction effect of role of the conflict partner
and age on conflict strategies. Results demonstrated that role of the conflict partner as
supervisor and independent and competitive goals were predictive of both avoiding and
dominating strategies. Cooperative goal was predictive of the use of dominating but not
avoiding strategies. The interaction effect between role of the conflict partner as
supervisor and age on avoiding (B � 0.019, SE � 0.008, p � 0.05) remained significant
even after controlling for the three goal orientations. In particular, the conditional direct
effect of role of the conflict partner as supervisor on avoiding was significantly stronger
at 1 standard deviation (SD) above the mean of age (B � 0.380, SE � 0.123, p � 0.01) and
the mean (B � 0.192, SE � 0.093, p � 0.05) than 1 SD below the mean (B � 0.005, SE �
0.122, ns). However, the interaction effect between role of the conflict partner and age on
dominating was not significant.

The lower part of the tables shows the conditional indirect effects of role of the
conflict partner on DV through goal interdependence across age. Results showed that
there was a significant indirect effect of role of the conflict partner on avoiding through
independent goal across age groups. For dominating, there was a significant indirect
effect of role of the conflict partner through independent and cooperative goals across

IJCMA
26,3

352

Table III.

Results of moderated

mediation analysis
on avoiding

P
re

di
ct

or
s

C
on

fl
ic

t
pa

rt
ne

r
�

Su
pe

rv
is

or
C

on
fl

ic
t

pa
rt

ne
r

�
P

ee
r

B
SE

t
B

SE
t

D
V

:I
nd

ep
en

de
nt

go
al
C
on

st
an

t
�

0.
29

3*
**

8
�

3.
77

4
�

0.
28

3*
**

0.
07

7
�

3.
66

2
R

ol
e

of
co

nfl
ic

t
pa
rt
ne

r
(R

C
P

)
0.

42
8*

**
0.

11
6

3.
70

5
0.

50
2*

**
0.

11
4

4.
40

0
A

e
�

0.
01

2*
0.

00
6

�
2.

02
7

�
0.

01
9*

*
0.
00
6

�
3.

26
9

R
C

P
�

A
ge
�
0.

00
3

0.
01

0
�

0.
31

4
0.

01
9†

0.
01

0
1.

84
7

C
ov

ar
ia

te
😮

th
er

du
m

m
y

of
R

C
P

0.
50

6*
**

0.
11

5
4.

40
3

0.
41

3*
**
0.
11

5
3.

58
6

D
V

C
oo

pe
ra

ti
ve
go
al
C
on
st
an

t
0.

21
4*
**
0.

06
2

3.
44

2
0.
21
4*
**
0.
06
2
3.
44

5
R

C
P
�
0.

28
8*

*
0.

09
2

�
3.
11
6
�
0.

40
2*

**
0.
09
2

�
4.

37
4

A
ge
0.
01

5*
*

0.
00
5
3.

24
4

0.
01
5*
*
0.
00
5
3.

18
8

R
C
P
�
A
ge
�
0.
00
3
0.
00
8
�

0.
39

2
�

0.
00

3
0.

00
8
�
0.

32
3

C
ov
ar
ia
te
😮
th
er
du
m
m
y
of
R
C
P
�
0.

40
0*

**
0.
09
2
�
4.

34
8

�
0.

28
5*

*
0.
09
3
�
3.

07
1

D
V

:C
om

pe
ti
ti
ve
go
al
C
on
st
an
t
0.

03
3

0.
06
1
0.

54
7

0.
03
2
0.
06
1

0.
52

7
R

C
P
�
0.

08
6

0.
09
0
�

0.
95

7
�
0.
00
3
0.

09
0

�
0.
03
4
A
ge
�
0.

00
2

0.
00
5
�

0.
32

1
�
0.
00
1
0.

00
5

�
0.

13
7

R
C
P
�
A
ge
0.
01
0
0.
00
8

1.
25

6
0.

00
7

0.
00

8
0.

91
5

C
ov
ar
ia
te
😮
th
er
du
m
m
y
of
R
C
P
�
0.
00
9
0.
09
0
�
0.
09
6
�
0.
09
6
0.

09
1

�
1.

06
0

D
V

:A
vo

id
in

g
C

on
st

an
t

3.
09

4*
**

0.
06

3
49

.3
21

3.
08

4*
**
0.
06

3
48

.7
36

R
C

P
0.

19
2*

0.
09

2.
06

2
0.
00
5
0.
09
5
0.

05
1

In
de
pe
nd
en
t
go
al

0.
13

5*
0.

05
5

2.
45

5
0.

12
8*

0.
05

6
2.

28
6

C
oo
pe
ra
ti
ve
go
al
0.
09

7
0.

06
5

1.
50

2
0.
09
2
0.
06

5
1.

41
5

C
om
pe
ti
ti
ve
go
al

0.
17

3*
*

0.
06

5
2.

64
9

0.
18

7*
*

0.
06
6
2.

84
3

A
ge
�
0.

00
4

0.
00
5
�

0.
87

4
0.
00
2
0.
00
5
0.

46
1

R
C
P
�
A
ge
0.
01

9*
0.

00
8

2.
36

0
�
0.
00
1
0.
00
8
�
0.
06
5
C
ov
ar
ia
te
😮
th
er
du
m
m
y
of
R
C
P
�
0.
00
9
0.
09
4
�
0.
09
9
0.

19
0*

0.
09

4
2.

00
9

(c
on

ti
nu

ed
)

353

Workplace
conflict and
age

Table III.
P
re
di
ct
or
s
C
on
fl
ic
t
pa
rt
ne
r
�
Su
pe
rv
is
or
C
on
fl
ic
t
pa
rt
ne
r
�
P
ee
r
B
SE
t
B
SE
t
C
on

di
ti

on
al

di
re

ct
ef

fe
ct

of
R
C
P

on
A

vo
id

in
g

at
va

lu
es

of
ag

e
�

1
SD

0.
00
5
0.

12
2

0.
04

1
0.

01
0

0.
12
3
0.

08
1

M
ea

n
0.
19
2*
0.
09

3
2.

06
1
0.
00
5
0.

09
5

0.
05
1
�
1
SD

0.
38

0*
*

0.
12

3
3.

07
8

�
0.

00
0

0.
12
5
�
0.
00
3
C
on
di
ti
on
al

in
di

re
ct

ef
fe

ct
of

R
C

P
on

A
vo
id
in

g
(t

hr
ou

gh
go

al
in

te
rd

ep
en

de
nc

e)
at

va
lu

es
of

ag
e

E
ff

ec
t

B
oo

t
SE

B
oo

t
L

L
95

%
C

I
B

oo
t

U
L

95
%

C
I

E
ff
ec
t
B
oo
t
SE
B
oo
t
L
L
95
%
C
I
B
oo
t
U
L
95
%
C
I
In
de
pe
nd
en
t
go
al

�
1

SD
0.

06
2
0.
03
5
0.
01
0
0.
15
2
0.

04
0

0.
02
9
0.
00
1
0.
12

4
M

ea
n

0.
05
8
0.

03
1

0.
01
1
0.

13
8

0.
06
4
0.

03
5

0.
00
6
0.

14
9

�
1
SD
0.
05
4
0.
03
4
0.
00
8
0.
15
3
0.
08
8
0.
04
8
0.
00
6
0.
20
0
C
oo
pe
ra
ti
ve
go
al
�
1

SD
�

0.
02
5
0.
02
2
�
0.
09
0
0.
00

3
�

0.
03
5
0.

02
8

�
0.

10
7

0.
00

8
M

ea
n
�
0.
02
8
0.
02
3
�
0.
08
4
0.
00
6
�
0.

03
7

0.
02
8
�
0.
09
7
0.
01
3
�
1
SD
�
0.
03
1
0.
02
7
�
0.

10
4

0.
00
5
�
0.
04
0
0.

03
0

�
0.

11
0

0.
01
3
C
om
pe
ti
ti
ve
go
al
�
1
SD
�
0.
03
2
0.
02
7
�
0.

11
1

0.
00
3
�
0.
01
4
0.
02
8
�
0.

08
4

0.
03

6
M

ea
n
�
0.

01
5

0.
01
7
�
0.
06
2
0.
01
0
�
0.
00
1
0.
01
9
�
0.
04
0
0.

03
8

�
1
SD
0.
00
2
0.
02
0
�
0.
03
6
0.

04
8

0.
01
3
0.
02
4
�
0.
02
8
0.
07
1
N
o
te

s:
B

oo
ts

tr
ap

sa
m

pl
e

si
ze

�
5,

00
0;

L
L

�
lo

w
er

lim
it

;
U

L
�

up
pe

r
lim

it
;

C
I

�
co

nfi
de

nc
e

in
te

rv
al

;
*

p
�
0.
05
;
**
p
�
0.
01
;
**
*
p
�
0.

00
1;

an
d

†
p

�
0.
07
IJCMA
26,3

354

Table IV.

Results of moderated

mediation analysis
on dominating

P
re
di
ct
or
s
C
on
fl
ic
t
pa
rt
ne
r
�
Su
pe
rv
is
or
C
on
fl
ic
t
pa
rt
ne
r
�
P
ee
r
B
SE
t
B
SE
t
D
V
:I
nd
ep
en
de
nt
go
al
C
on
st
an
t
�
0.
29
3*
**
0.
07
8
�
3.
77
4
�
0.
28
3*
**
0.
07
7
�
3.
66
2
R
ol
e
of
co
nfl
ic
t
pa
rt
ne
r
(R
C
P
)
0.
42
8*
**
0.
11
6
3.
70
5
0.
50
2*
**
0.
11
4
4.
40
0
A

ge
�

0.
01
2*
0.
00
6
�
2.
02
7
�
0.
01
9*
*
0.
00
6
�
3.
26
9
R
C
P
�
A
ge
�
0.
00
3
0.
01
0
�
0.
31
4
0.
01
9†
0.
01
0
1.
84
7
C
ov
ar
ia
te
😮
th
er
du
m
m
y
of
R
C
P
0.
50
6*
**
0.
11
5
4.
40
3
0.
41
3*
**
0.
11
5
3.
58
6
D
V

:C
oo

pe
ra
ti
ve
go
al
C
on
st
an
t
0.
21
4*
**
0.
06
2
3.
44
2
0.
21
4*
**
0.
06
2
3.
44
5
R
C
P
�
0.
28
8*
*
0.
09
2
�
3.
11
6
�
0.
40
2*
**
0.
09
2
�
4.
37
4
A
ge
0.
01
5*
*
0.
00
5
3.
24
4
0.
01
5*
*
0.
00
5
3.
18
8
R
C
P
�
A
ge
�
0.
00
3
0.
00
8
�
0.
39
2
�
0.
00
3
0.
00
9
�
0.
32
3
C
ov
ar
ia
te
😮
th
er
du
m
m
y
of
R
C
P
�
0.
40
0*
**
0.
09
2
�
4.
34
8
�
0.
28
5*
*
0.
09
3
�
3.
07
1
D
V
:C
om
pe
ti
ti
ve
go
al
C
on
st
an
t
0.
03
3
0.
06
1
0.
54
7
0.
03
2
0.
06
1
0.
52
7
R
C
P
�
0.
08
6
0.
09
0
�
0.
95
7
�
0.
00
3
0.
09
0
�
0.
03
4
A
ge
�
0.
00
2
0.
00
5
�
0.
32
1
�
0.
00
1
0.
00
5
�
0.
13
7
R
C
P
�
A
ge
0.
01
0
0.
00
8
1.
25
6
0.
00
7
0.
00
8
0.
91
5
C
ov
ar
ia

te
:O

th
er
du
m
m
y
of
R
C
P
�
0.
00
9
0.
09
0
�
0.
09
6
�
0.
09
6
0.
09
1
�
1.
06
0
D
V

😀
om

in
at
in
g
C
on
st
an

t
3.

30
2*

**
0.

07
0

47
.3

00
3.

30
0*

**
0.
07
0
47
.3

29
R

C
P
�
0.

21
1*

0.
10

4
�

2.
03

3
0.
03
0
0.
10
4
0.

28
9

In
de
pe
nd
en
t
go
al
0.
22

5*
**

0.
06

1
3.

66
0

0.
21
6*
**
0.
06

2
3.

51
3

C
oo
pe
ra
ti
ve
go
al

0.
36

1*
**
0.
07

2
5.

03
3

0.
35

8*
**
0.
07

2
4.

98
9

C
om
pe
ti
ti
ve
go
al
0.
18
1*
0.

07
3

2.
49

1
0.

18
6*

0.
07

2
2.

56
9

A
ge
�
0.
00
5
0.
00
5
�

0.
94

3
�
0.
00
5
0.
00
5
�
0.

88
7

R
C
P
�
A
ge
0.
00
8
0.
00
9

0.
89

8
0.
00
7
0.
00
9
0.

78
3

C
ov
ar
ia
te
😮
th
er
du
m
m
y
of
R
C
P
0.
02
3
0.

10
5

0.
22
2
�
0.
21

7*
0.

10
4
�
2.

08
5

(c
on
ti
nu
ed
)

355

Workplace
conflict and
age

Table IV.
P
re
di
ct
or
s
C
on
fl
ic
t
pa
rt
ne
r
�
Su
pe
rv
is
or
C
on
fl
ic
t
pa
rt
ne
r
�
P
ee
r
B
SE
t
B
SE
t
C
on
di
ti
on
al
di
re
ct
ef
fe
ct
of
R
C
P

on
D

om
in

at
in

g
at

va
lu
es
of
ag
e
�
1
SD
�
0.
29

0*
0.

13
5

�
2.

14
5

�
0.

03
9

0.
13
6
�
0.
28

5
M

ea
n
�
0.
21
1*
0.
10
4
�
2.
03
3
0.
03
0
0.
10
4
0.
28
9
�
1
SD
�
0.
13
2
0.
13
7
�
0.

95
9

0.
09
9
0.
13
7

0.
72

1
C
on
di
ti
on
al
in
di
re
ct
ef
fe
ct
of
R
C
P
on
D
om
in
at
in
g

(t
hr

ou
gh

go
al
in
te

rd
ep

en
de

nc
e)

at
va
lu
es
of
ag

e
E

ff
ec

t
B
oo
t

SE
B

oo
t
L
L
95
%
C
I
B
oo

t
U

L
95
%
C

I
E

ff
ec
t
B
oo
t
SE
B
oo
t
L
L
95
%
C
I
B
oo
t
U
L
95
%
C
I
In
de
pe
nd
en
t
go
al
�
1
SD
0.

10
3

0.
04
8
0.
03
2
0.
22
6
0.

06
8

0.
04
3
0.
00
7
0.
18

0
M

ea
n
0.
09
6
0.

04
4

0.
03
1
0.

20
3

0.
10
9
0.

04
5

0.
03
7
0.

21
4

�
1
SD
0.

08
9

0.
05
2
0.
01
7
0.
22
4
0.
14
9
0.
06
0
0.
05
1
0.
28
5
C
oo
pe
ra
ti
ve
go
al
�
1
SD
�
0.
09
3
0.
04
8
�
0.

20
6

�
0.

01
6

�
0.

34
0.

05
8

�
0.

27
3

�
0.

04
3

M
ea

n
�

0.
10
4
0.
03
9
�
0.

19
5

�
0.
04
0
�
0.

14
4

0.
04
5
�

0.
24

8
�
0.
07
0
�
1
SD
�
0.
11
6
0.
05
2
�
0.
23
8
�
0.
03
2
�
0.
15
3
0.

05
3

�
0.

27
8

�
0.
07
0
C
om
pe
ti
ti
ve
go
al
�
1
SD
�
0.
03
4
0.
02
8
�
0.
11
4
0.
00
4
�
0.
01
4
0.

02
9

�
0.
08
8
0.
03

3
M

ea
n
�
0.
01
6
0.
01
8
�
0.
06
4
0.
01
0
�
0.
00
1
0.
01
9
�
0.
03
8
0.

04
1

�
1
SD
0.
00
3
0.
02
1
�
0.
03
7
0.
05
0
0.
01
3
0.

02
5

�
0.
02
5
0.
08
0
N
o
te
s:
B
oo
ts
tr
ap
sa
m
pl
e
si
ze
�
5,
00
0;
L
L
�
lo
w
er
lim
it
;
U
L
�
up
pe
r
lim
it
;
C
I
�
co
nfi
de
nc
e
in
te
rv
al
;
*
p
�
0.
05
;
**
p
�
0.
01
;
**
*
p
�
0.
00
1;
an
d
†
p
�
0.
07
IJCMA
26,3

356

age groups. These results suggest that the age by role of the conflict partner interaction
effect on avoiding was partly mediated by independent goal, whereas such an
interaction effect on dominating were fully mediated by independent and cooperative
goals.

The moderating effect of age on avoiding and interpersonal relations and job
satisfaction
Hayes’s (2012) SPSS macro of moderation analysis was used to test the third hypothesis
on the moderating effect of age on the relationships between avoiding and interpersonal
relations and job satisfaction. Gender of participants and integrating strategy were
inputted as covariates because of their significant correlation with age and outcome
variables. Results showed that the moderating effect of age on avoiding and
interpersonal relations was significant (B � 0.013, SE � 0.007, p � 0.05). In particular,
the negative effect of avoiding on interpersonal relations was only significant for
workers at the mean and 1 SD below the mean of age (B � �0.224, SE � 0.065 and B �
0.352, SE � 0.092, respectively, p � 0.001) but not those at 1 SD above the mean (B �
0.096, SE � 0.092, ns), implying that the negative effect of avoiding was only shown
among younger employees but not among older employees. However, this beneficial
effect was not found on job satisfaction (B � �0.001, SE � 0.011, ns). Additional
analyses showed that age did not moderate the effects of other three conflict strategies
on interpersonal relations nor job satisfaction.

Discussion
The present study integrates two theoretical frameworks, namely, SST (Carstensen,
2006) and theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1990; Tjosvold, 1998), to
examine the underlying mechanism of the age by role of conflict partner interaction
effect on the use of conflict strategies. Consistent with prior literature on age-related
changes in behavioral responses to everyday problems and interpersonal tensions
(Birditt et al., 2005; Blanchard-Fields et al., 2004; Fingerman et al., 2008), the present
study also demonstrates the age-related increase in the use of passive strategies and the
age-related reduction in destructive strategies when handling conflict with other
employees. Specifically, older employees used more avoiding when dealing with
supervisors and less dominating when dealing with subordinates than did younger
employees. Results of this study also reveal that such age differences in avoiding and
dominating strategies can be explained by goal interdependence in the conflict incident.
Furthermore, in support of our prediction, the negative effect of avoiding on
interpersonal relations is only shown among younger employees but not among older
employees. These findings advance the current literature by showing that the effect of
conflict strategies on work-related outcomes is not universal, largely depending on the
age of the users. Specifically, when older adults select the type of conflict strategies that
is congruent with their developmental goals, the negative consequences of passive
strategies on psychosocial well-being, which are commonly found in younger
population, would be weakened or eliminated.

Age and conflict strategies at work
The majority of past studies on workplace conflict were conducted in samples of
younger workers or with a narrow age range (Chen and Tjosvold, 2007; Chow and Ding,
2002; Rahim et al., 2001). The present study advances the literature by examining the use

357

Workplace
conflict and
age

of conflict strategies in a sample of Chinese working adults with a wider age range (22
and 66 years). By recalling an actual conflict incident at work, age differences in
handling conflict with supervisors, peers or subordinates were assessed. Results
showed that older employees used avoiding to a greater extent than did younger
employees when the conflict partner was supervisor, whereas they employed less
dominating when the conflict target was subordinate. These patterns of conflict
strategies are consistent with past research among Asian samples (Lee, 1990; Nguyen
and Yang, 2012), in which Asian employees utilized more dominating when dealing the
conflict with subordinates and used more indirect and harmony-preserving strategies
like avoiding to resolve the conflict with supervisors. However, the present study
reveals that the effect of role of the conflict partner on conflict strategies would further
be moderated by age of the participants. Fingerman et al. (2008) also found older and
younger adults displayed different behavioral responses toward social partners of
different ages. Similarly, the current study reveals that younger and older employees
vary in their use of conflict strategies when dealing with employees of different statuses,
even after taken into consideration of their working experiences in the organization.
Specifically, with age, there is an increased use of passive strategies such as avoiding
with supervisors and a decreased use of active destructive strategies such as
dominating with subordinates. Despite the significant interaction effects, the mean age
differences in avoiding and dominating strategies are not large. However, Chinese
working adults in general tend to utilize non-confrontational conflict approaches than
their Western counterparts (Tang and Kirkbride, 1986) in face of interpersonal conflicts.
The significant variations in these two conflict strategies between younger and older
employees found in the present study indeed suggest that the effect of age on conflict
management is quite robust, even in a sample of cultural norms of indirect strategies.

Younger and older employees displayed a similar pattern of using the constructive
strategies, i.e. integrating, to handle conflict with supervisors, peers or subordinates.
Inconsistent with the past studies (Davis et al., 2009), this study did not find an
age-related increase in the use of obliging at work. Such discrepancy may be due to the
use of observer ratings in Davis et al.’s study to assess employees’ responses to
workplace conflict. Future studies should examine the age by role of the conflict partner
interaction effect by using both subjective and objective measures of behavioral
responses to workplace conflict.

The role of goal interdependence in workplace conflict
According to the theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1990; Tjosvold, 1998),
the selection of conflict strategies is determined by one’s goal orientation in a conflict
situation. Cooperative goals are associated with greater use of constructive strategies,
whereas competitive and independent goals are correlated with destructive and passive
strategies, respectively (Alper et al., 1998; Tjosvold, 1998). The present study tested the
mediating role of the three types of goal interdependence, including cooperative,
competitive and independent goals, in avoiding and dominating strategies between age
groups and role of the conflict partner. With reference to the proposition of SST
(Carstensen, 2006), we expected that older employees, who focus on emotional goals and
interpersonal closeness, hold a more cooperative but less competitive and independent
goal in the face of a conflict with other employees than do younger employees. Results
support our prediction; in particular, older employees held a more cooperative but less

IJCMA
26,3

358

independent goal than younger employees in an interpersonal conflict at work. These
age differences in goal interdependence were shown to explain for the age by role of the
conflict partner interaction effect on avoiding and dominating. Specifically, the age by
role of the conflict partner interaction effect on dominating was mediated by cooperative
and independent goals, whereas the age by role of the conflict partner interaction effect
on avoiding was partially explained by independent goals. These findings are in
alignment of the prediction of SST that emphasis of emotional goals and interpersonal
closeness motivates older employees to be more cooperative and interdependent with
their conflict partners, which, in turn, influences their selection of avoiding and
dominating strategies to handle the conflict at work.

Effect of avoiding among older employees
Past studies have consistently shown that avoidance is an ineffective conflict
management strategy and is often associated with negative consequences such as poor
relationship quality, lower job satisfaction, psychological strain or escalatory conflict
outcomes (e.g. Birditt et al., 2009; DeChurch et al., 2007; Dijkstra et al., 2009). However,
the use of passive strategies by older adults is indeed congruent with their
developmental goals that focus on emotional closeness. It was expected that the
negative consequences of avoiding were only prevalent among younger employees
because they focused on knowledge acquisition and development of social relationships,
while the negative effect may not be found among older employees. The current study
therefore tested this prediction to investigate whether the negative effect of avoiding on
interpersonal relations and job satisfaction would be moderated by age. Results
partially support our prediction. In particular, the negative effect of avoiding on
interpersonal relations was only shown among younger employees but not among older
employees, suggesting that the use of avoiding by older adults does not harm their
interpersonal relations. In support of the findings of past studies (Yeung and Fung, 2012;
Yeung et al., 2015), this study provides further evidence to the prediction of SST that
positive psychosocial outcomes would be observed when an individual’s behaviors are
congruent with their developmental goals. This finding also offers insights to the
general assumption of an age-invariant effect of conflict strategies on work-related
outcomes. Future research should therefore take age into account when examining
responses to workplace conflict.

Yet, the moderating effect of age was not found in the relationship between avoiding
and job satisfaction. This suggests that greater use of avoiding strategies is associated
with lower job satisfaction for both younger and older employees; however, they do not
exert any negative impact on interpersonal relations of older employees. Given that past
research have consistently found that job satisfaction strongly correlates with
work-related outcomes and psychological well-being (Fisher, 2003; Judge et al., 2001),
future studies should examine the long-term association between job satisfaction and
interpersonal relations to better understand well-being of older employees at work.

Limitations and future directions
When interpreting results reported above, a few limitations should be considered. First,
this project was conducted among managerial and executive employees, whose conflict
management might be different from that of junior-level employees. Past studies have
demonstrated that one’s selection of conflict strategies might be affected by the

359

Workplace
conflict and
age

perceived power of the conflict partner (Drory and Ritov, 1997); thus, the result pattern
found in this study might not generalize to junior-grade workers such as clerical or
blue-collar workers. Second, this study relied on self-reported ratings to assess conflict
strategies, without ratings from the conflict partner or other employees. Future studies
should adopt both subjective and objective assessments of conflict responses to
minimize the potential errors in recalling the conflict incident and the use of conflict
strategies. Third, age of the conflict partner was not recorded in the present study.
Fingerman et al. (2008) have shown that the use of conflict strategies varied with the age
of social partners, suggesting the possibility of intergenerational differences in conflict
management. Future studies should investigate the phenomenon in both
intergenerational and intragenerational dyads to fully understand conflict management
across adulthood. Fourth, in addition to the effects of age and role of the conflict partner,
other forces at work would also influence one’s selection of conflict strategies, such as
the organizational culture to manage conflict (Leung and Chan, 1999), intergroup
dynamics (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and perceived future interaction opportunities with
the conflict partner (Fingerman et al., 2008). Future studies should include these factors
to have a more comprehensive assessment of the effect of age on conflict management.
Fifth, in view of the mandatory retirement age in Hong Kong (that is 60 and 65 years for
public and private sectors, respectively), it is an open question whether pre-retirees’ goal
orientation is different from that of employees aged between 40 and 59 years. Further
studies should compare conflict styles and goal orientations as well as their effects
among employees in different life stages.

To conclude, this project advances our understanding of conflict management in a
sample of employees of a wider age range. Even though Chinese adults, regardless of
age, show a greater preference for non-confrontational conflict strategies, the current
study demonstrates that older employees utilize more avoiding with supervisors and
less dominating with subordinates than their younger counterparts. The age by role of
the conflict partner interaction effect on avoiding and dominating could be accounted for
by independent and cooperative goals. In addition, the negative effect of avoiding on
interpersonal relations was only shown in younger employees but not older employees,
suggesting that the use of this strategy is not always harmful, largely depending on age
of the users.

References
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K.S. (1998), “Interdependence and controversy in group decision

making: antecedents to effective self-managing teams”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 33-52.

Aranda, M.P. and Lincoln, K.D. (2011), “Financial strain, negative interaction, coping styles, and
mental health among low-income Latinos”, Race and Social Problems, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 280-297.

Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1999), “Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well-being: the
moderating influences of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents
in Hong Kong”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 259-278.

Bazerman, M.H., Curhan, J.R., Moore, D.A. and Valley, K.L. (2000), “Negotiation”, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 279-314.

Birditt, K.S. and Fingerman, K.L. (2005), “Do we get better at picking our battles? Age group
differences in descriptions of behavioral reactions to interpersonal tensions”, The Journals

IJCMA
26,3

360

of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, Vol. 60 No. 3,
pp. P121-P128.

Birditt, K.S., Fingerman, K.L. and Almeida, D.M. (2005), “Age differences in exposure and
reactions to interpersonal tensions: a daily diary study”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 330-340.

Birditt, K.S., Rott, L.M. and Fingerman, K.L. (2009), “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say
anything at all: coping with interpersonal tensions in the parent-child relationship during
adulthood”, Journal of Family Relationship, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 769-778.

Blake, R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Pub, Houston.
Blanchard-Fields, F., Stein, R. and Watson, T.L. (2004), “Age differences in emotion-regulation

strategies in handling everyday problems”, Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences
and Social Sciences, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. P261-P269.

Brief, A.P. (1998), “Job satisfaction reconsidered”, Attitudes in and Around Organizations, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 9-47.

Carstensen, L.L. (2006), “The influence of a sense of time on human development”, Science, Vol. 312
No. 5782, pp. 1913-1915.

Chan, D.K.S. and Goto, S.G. (2003), “Conflict resolution in the culturally diverse workplace: some
data from Hong Kong Employees”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 441-460.

Chan, K.W., Huang, X. and Ng, P.M. (2008), “Managers’ conflict management styles and employee
attitudinal outcomes: the mediating role of trust”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 277-295.

Charles, S.T., Piazza, J.R., Luong, G. and Almeida, D.M. (2009), “Now you see it, now you don’t: age
differences in affective reactivity to social tensions”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 645-653.

Chen, Y.F. and Tjosvold, D. (2007), “Co-operative conflict management: an approach to strengthen
relationships between foreign managers and Chinese employees”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 271-294.

Cheng, S.T. and Chan, A.C.M. (2005), “Measuring psychological well-being in the Chinese”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1307-1316.

Chow, I.H. and Ding, D. (2002), “Moral judgment and conflict handling styles among Chinese in
Hong Kong and PRC”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 666-679.

Davis, M.H., Kraus, L.A. and Capobianco, S. (2009), “Age differences in responses to conflict in the
workplace”, The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, Vol. 68 No. 4,
pp. 339-355.

De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88
No. 4, pp. 741-749.

De Dreu, C.K.W. and Gelfand, M.J. (2008), The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in
Organizations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY.

De Dreu, C.K.W., van Dierendonck, D. and Dijkstra, M.T.M. (2004), “Conflict at work and
individual well-being”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 6-26.

DeChurch, L.A., Hamilton, K.L. and Haas, C. (2007), “Effects of conflict management strategies on
perceptions of intragroup conflict”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 66-78.

361

Workplace
conflict and
age

Deutsch, M. (1990), “Sixty years of conflict”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 237-263.

Deutsch, M. (1994), “Constructive conflict resolution: principles, training and research”, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 13-32.

Dijkstra, M.T.M., De Dreu, C.K.W., Evers, A. and van Dierendonck, D. (2009), “Passive responses
to interpersonal conflict at work amplify employee strain”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 405-423.

Drory, A. and Ritov, I. (1997), “Effects of work experience and opponent’s power on conflict
management styles”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 148-161.

Fingerman, K.L., Miller, L. and Charles, S. (2008), “Saving the best for the last: how adults treat
social partners of different ages”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 399-409.

Fisher, C.D. (2000), “Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction?”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 185-202.

Fisher, C.D. (2003), “Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated?
Possible sources of a commonsense theory”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24
No. 6, pp. 753-777.

Friedman, R., Chi, S.C. and Liu, L.A. (2006), “An expectancy model of Chinese–American
differences in conflict-avoiding”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 76-91.

Friedman, R.A., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C. and Tsai, J.C. (2000), “What goes around comes around:
the impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress”, International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 32-55.

Fung, H.H. and Carstensen, L.L. (2004), “Motivational changes in response to blocked goals and
foreshortened time: testing alternatives to socioemotional selectivity theory”, Psychology
and Aging, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 68-78.

Gross, J.J. (1998), “Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences
for experience, expression, and physiology”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 224-237.

Gross, J.J. and John, O.P. (2003), “Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
implications for affect, relationships, and wellbeing”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 348-

362

Gross, M.A. and Guerrero, L.K. (2000), “Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: an
application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 200-226.

Hayes, A.F. (2012), “Process: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]”, available at: www.afhayes.
com/public/process2012 (accessed 20 January 2014).

Hayes, A.F. and Preacher, K.J. (2014), “Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical
independent variable”, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
Vol. 67, pp. 451-470.

Hedge, J.W., Borman, W.C. and Lammlein, S.E. (2006), The Aging Workforce: Realities, Myths, and
Implications for Organizations, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Janssen, O. and van de Vliert, E. (1996), “Concern for the other’s goals: key to (de-) escalation of
conflict”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 99-120.

Jehn, K. (1995), “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-282.

IJCMA
26,3
362

http://www.afhayes.com/

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), “The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.

Kunin, T. (1955), “The construction of a new type of attitude measure”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 65-77.

Lee, C.W. (1990), “Relative status of employees and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: an
experimental study with Korean managers”, International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 327-340.

Leung, K. and Chan, D.K.S. (1999), “Conflict management across culture”, in Adamopoulos, J. and
Kashima, Y. (Eds), Social Psychology and Cultural Context: Essays in Honor of Harry C.
Triandis, Sage, CA, pp. 177-188.

Ma, Z. (2007), “Conflict management styles as indicators of behavioral pattern in business
negotiation”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 260-279.

Martin, G.E. and Bergmann, T.J. (1996), “The dynamics of behavioural response to conflict in the
workplace”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 4,
pp. 377-387.

Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2008), “The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 392-423.

Nguyen, H.H.D. and Yang, J. (2012), “Chinese employees’ interpersonal conflict management
strategies”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 382-412.

Oetzel, J.G. (1998), “The effects of self-construals and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles”,
Communication Reports, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 133-144.

Pearson, A.W., Ensley, M.D. and Amason, A.C. (2002), “An assessment and refinement of Jehn’s
intragroup conflict scale”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 110-126.

Poitras, J. (2010), “Meta-analysis of the impact of the research setting on conflict studies”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 116-132.

Posthuma, R.A. and Campion, M.A. (2009), “Age stereotypes in the workplace: common
stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp. 158-188.

Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 185-227.

Rahim, M.A. (1983), “A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 368-376.

Rahim, M.A. (1986), “Referent role and styles of handling interpersonal conflict”, The Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 126 No. 1, pp. 79-86.

Rahim, M.A. (2011), Managing Conflict in Organizations, 4th ed., Transaction Publishers, New
Brunswick, NJ.

Rahim, M.A., Antonioni, D. and Psenicka, C. (2001), “A structural equations model of leader power,
subordinates’ styles of handling conflict, and job performance”, International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 191-211.

Römer, M., Rispens, S., Giebels, E. and Euwema, M.C. (2012), “A helping hand? The moderating
role of leaders’ conflict management behavior on the conflict-stress relationship of
employees: how leaders’ management behavior affects employee conflicts”, Negotiation
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 253-277.

363

Workplace
conflict and
age

Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt, D.G. and Kim, S.H. (1994), Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement,
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Ryff, C.D. (1989), “Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological
well-being”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 1069-1081.

Shih, H.A. and Susanto, E. (2010), “Conflict management styles, emotional intelligence, and job
performance in public organizations”, International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 147-168.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour”, in
Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.

Tang, S.F.Y. and Kirkbride, P.S. (1986), “Developing conflict management skills in Hong Kong: an
analysis of some cross-cultural implications”, Management Education and Development,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 287-301.

Thomas, K.W. (1990), “Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations”, in Dunnett, M.D. and
Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed.,
Consulting Psychologist Press, CA, pp. 651-717.

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H.S., Lin, S.L. and Nishida, T. (1991),
“Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: a study in five
cultures”, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 275-296.

Tjosvold, D. (1998), “Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: accomplishments and
challenges”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 285-313.

Tjosvold, D., Andrews, I.R. and Jones, H. (1983), “Cooperative and competitive relationships
between leaders and subordinates”, Human Relations, Vol. 36 No. 12, pp. 1111-1124.

Tjosvold, D. and Chia, L.C. (1989), “Conflict between managers and workers: the role of
cooperation and competition”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 235-247.

Yeung, D.Y. and Fung, H.H. (2009), “Aging and work: how do SOC strategies contribute to job
performance across adulthood?”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 927-940.

Yeung, D.Y. and Fung, H.H. (2012), “Impacts of suppression on emotional responses and
performance outcomes: an experience-sampling study in younger and older workers”, The
Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, Vol. 67 No. 6.

Yeung, D.Y., Fung, H.H. and Chan, D.K.-S. (2015), “Positive effect of social work-related values on
work outcomes: the moderating role of age and work situation”, The Journals of
Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, Vol. 70, pp. 235-246.

Yeung, D.Y., Fung, H.H. and Kam, C. (2012), “Age differences in problem solving strategies: the
mediating role of future time perspective”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 38-43.

Yuan, W. (2010), “Conflict management among American and Chinese employees in multinational
organizations in China”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17,
pp. 299-311.

Corresponding author
Dannii Y. Yeung can be contacted at: dannii.yeung@cityu.edu.hk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

IJCMA
26,3
364

mailto:dannii.yeung@cityu.edu.hk

mailto:permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Managing conflict at work: comparison between younger and older managerial employees

Conflict strategies at work
Goal interdependence
Outcomes of conflict strategies
The present study
Method
Participants
Procedure
Measures
Personal conflict incident at work
Conflict strategies
Goal interdependence
Interpersonal relations
Job satisfaction

Results
Use of conflict strategies across age and conflict partner
The mediating effect of goal interdependence
The moderating effect of age on avoiding and interpersonal relations and job satisfaction
Discussion
Age and conflict strategies at work
The role of goal interdependence in workplace conflict
Effect of avoiding among older employees
Limitations and future directions
References

The effect of team empowerment
on team performance

A cross-cultural perspective on the
mediating roles of knowledge sharing and

intra-group conflict
Xueting Jiang and Hector R. Flores

Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,

Massachusetts, USA

Ronrapee Leelawong
SCG Chemicals Co. Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand, and

Charles C. Manz
Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,

Massachusetts, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Based on extant literature on empowerment and team management, this paper aims to
examine the effect of power distance and collectivism on the relationship between empowerment and
team performance through the mechanisms of knowledge sharing and intra-group conflict.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper conceptualizes a model depicting the relationship
between team empowerment and team performance across cultures.
Findings – The authors argue that team empowerment can increase both knowledge sharing and
intra-group conflict in working teams. Knowledge sharing facilitates team performance, while
intra-group conflict impairs team performance in the long run. Team empowerment yields different
team performance across cultures due to the respective moderating effects of power distance and
collectivism.
Originality/value – This paper explicates the moderating roles of power distance and collectivism on
the relationship between empowerment, knowledge sharing, intra-group conflict and team
performance. The authors suggest that the effectiveness of team empowerment is contingent on the
cultural context that the team operates in.

Keywords Knowledge sharing, Collectivism, Power distance, Team performance,
Intra-group conflict,

Team empowerment

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
Empowerment has been of great interest in the field of organization studies for decades
(Spreitzer et al., 1997). In general, it has been studied from two aspects: structural and
psychological (Spreitzer, 1996). Structural empowerment emphasizes the social
structural context of empowerment and looks at how subordinates are granted
opportunities to share formal authority or control over organizational resources (Biron
and Bamberger, 2010; Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 2007). On the other hand,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-40

.htm

IJCMA
27,1

Received 5 July 2014
Revised 23 October 2014
24 November 2014
Accepted 12 December 2014

International Journal of Conflict
Management
Vol. 27 No. 1, 2016
pp. 62-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-07-2014-0048

psychological empowerment emphasizes an individual’s perception and experience of
being empowered (Lee and Koh, 2001) and looks at how subordinates are intrinsically
motivated to perform their responsibilities to affect their organization (Chen et al., 2007;
Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Mathieu et al., 2006). At the
individual level, empowerment refers to an integration of both the “behavior of a
supervisor” and the “psychological state of a subordinate” (Lee and Koh, 2001, p. 685).
At the team level, team empowerment represents team members’ perceptions on four
dimensions:

(1) their potency to perform tasks effectively;
(2) their sense of meaningfulness in their work;
(3) their autonomy to make task-related decisions; and
(4) their impact upon task outcomes.

In a highly empowered team, its members receive administrative autonomy to share
leadership responsibilities, allocate resources, initiate decisions and regulate work
processes (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Manz and Sims, 1987).

The managerial practices of empowered teams were prevalent when the notion of
empowerment emerged in the organizational literature in the late 19

s (Appelbaum
et al., 1999; Anderson, 1997; Lawler et al., 2001; Kanter, 1977; Manz and Sims, 1987;
Singh, 1998; Spreitzer, 2007). A work team is known for the interdependence and social
interactions among its members to achieve common goals (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003;
Mathieu et al., 2008). Considerable empirical work has suggested that empowerment is
positively related to team performance (Harter et al., 2002; Laschinger et al., 2004; Seibert
et al., 2004; Spreitzer, 1996; Srivastava et al., 2006). It has been argued that empowerment
can have a positive effect on team performance because a highly empowered team offers
a platform for members to make collective decisions through their participation in
negotiated decision-making (Yukl, 2009). The proliferation of team empowerment
provides team members with more opportunities to share ideas and knowledge (Locke
et al., 1997). Early studies on team empowerment and team performance tend to reflect
a positive view of the mediating effect of knowledge-sharing on the relationship between
empowerment and team performance (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999, 1997; Srivastava et al.,
2006). However, the downsides of empowered teams have not been sufficiently explored
by extant research. For instance, a highly empowered team might be more susceptible to
intra-group conflict, which has a detrimental effect on team performance (Bergman et al.,
2012; Langfred, 2007; Kotlyar and Karakowsky, 2006). Given a situation that calls for
team empowerment, the effectiveness and success of an empowered team depend on the
extent that team members can adapt to team structural changes and maximize the
benefits of power and knowledge sharing and minimize intra-group conflict (Kirkman
and Shapiro, 1997; Langfred, 2007; Stewart et al., 2011) (Figure 1).

Cross-cultural management scholarship has revealed that individuals’ behaviors are
embedded in their specific cultural contexts, which may differ across nations (Bochner
and Hesketh, 1994; Hofstede, 1993, 19

). For instance, national cultures influence
individual actions by constructing a collection of strategies in which certain patterns of
actions are supported, while others are rejected (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1989). We
argue that team empowerment is not an exception, although the effect of cultural
dimensions has not been sufficiently explored (Alves et al., 2006; Neck and Houghton,

Effect of team
empowerment

2006; Pearce and Conger, 2003). In addition, perceptions of team performance might
vary across cultures and make different teams to focus their efforts on different
outcomes. For example, cultural differences in a highly individualist society can lead a
group to focus more on task-related outcomes, whereas its counterpart in a highly
collectivistic society can focus more on the social aspects of team performance (Stewart
and Barrick, 2000). Our focus in this paper is to discuss how team empowerment
influences team performance in different cultural contexts (Figure 2). Previous
researchers have suggested that national cultures may influence individuals’ behavior
of conflict management and knowledge sharing (Doucet et al., 2009; Michailova and
Hutchings, 2006; Tjosvold et al., 1998). This paper examines the effect of power distance
and collectivism on the relationship between empowerment and team performance
through the mechanisms of knowledge sharing and intra-group conflict for teams that in
their composition reflect the specific cultural preferences of the culture in which they are
embedded (for an exception see Boros et al., 2010). Although other cultural dimensions
such as uncertainty avoidance and masculinity–femininity may also affect conflict
management and knowledge sharing (Michailova and Hutchings, 2006; van

Team empowerment

Knowledge Sharing

Intra-group
Conflict

Team Performance

Notes: Extant research does not explore the effect of the cultural context on
the relationship between team empowerment and knowledge sharing, and
the relationship between team empowerment and intra-group conflict is
underexplored
Source: Kirkman and Rosen (1999), Srivastava et al. (2006)

Figure 1.
Traditional model

Team empowerment
Knowledge Sharing
Intra-group
Conflict
Team Performance

Power Distance

Collec�vism

P2 +

P3 +

Notes: The effects of power distance and collectivism on the relationship
between team empowerment and knowledge sharing are explicated; an
argument is made for the relationship between team empowerment and
intra-group conflict, and the effects of power distance and collectivism on
the relationship between team empowerment and intra-group conflict are
proposed

Figure 2.
Proposed model

IJCMA
27,1

Oudenhoven et al., 1998), we only include power distance and collectivism in our
analysis. There are several reasons that motivate us to focus on these two dimensions
only. First, the dimensions of power distance and individualism-collectivism, from
Hofstede’s (1980) framework of cultural dimensions, have been widely used to
understand differences in management practices across cultures (Chow et al., 2000;
Tjosvold and Sun, 2010). Second, the power distance dimension, which focuses on
people’s expectation and acceptance of power inequality in a society, is essential to
structural and psychological empowerment in teams. Third, how team members
evaluate group and individual benefits and how they work interdependently is subject
to individuals’ mindsets of social roles and responsibilities in a team. Team members’
cognitive and behavioral tendencies can be captured by Hofstede’s (1980, 2001)
individualism-collectivism dimension to understand the consequent team outcomes.
Last, the dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and masculinity versus femininity are
still controversial in terms of content and replicability and have not been convincingly
replicated in both Eastern and Western countries (Minkov and Hofstede, 2014). The
dimension of long-term versus short-term orientation is strongly connected to Chinese
Confucius values and national economic growth, which might be less reliable to predict
individual behaviors in teams (Hofstede and Minkov, 2010).

This research serves as a conceptual cross-cultural analysis of team empowerment
and team performance. We focused our systematic literature review on the literatures on
knowledge sharing, conflict management and culture studies at team levels over the
past 20 years. Most studies included in our analysis are publications in high-tier
academic journals. We strived to include the most relevant and most important articles.
When there was a need to choose a citation over another, we chose seminal pieces
instead of subsequent articles, unless the subsequent articles added significantly to our
understanding.

Overall, building on extant literature in empowerment and cross-cultural studies, we
delineate a framework depicting the relationship between team empowerment and team
performance across cultures. Figure 2 portrays how our focal constructs are
interconnected. Specifically, team empowerment is positively related to both knowledge
sharing and intra-group conflict. Knowledge sharing leads to increased team
performance, while intra-group conflict impairs team performance. In addition, team
empowerment yields different team performance outcomes across cultures because of
the respective moderating effects of power distance and collectivism on the relationship
between team empowerment and knowledge sharing as well as on the relationship
between team empowerment and intra-group conflict. Power distance inhibits
knowledge sharing and fosters intra-group conflict. In contrast, collectivism inhibits
intra-group conflict and facilitates knowledge sharing.

Theoretical foundations and propositions
In the following sections, we review the empowerment, knowledge sharing and team
performance relationship to show that team empowerment is positively related to team
performance through the mechanism of knowledge sharing. Then, we argue for the
moderating roles of power distance and knowledge sharing on this relationship.
Subsequently, we review the empowerment, intra-group conflict and team performance
relationship to show that team empowerment is negatively related to team performance

Effect of team
empowerment

through the mechanism of intra-group conflict. Then, we argue for the moderating roles
of power distance and knowledge sharing on this relationship.

Empowerment, knowledge sharing and team performance
Previous literature suggests that empowering leadership and empowerment in various
organizational settings can promote team performance (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999;
Srivastava et al., 2006). Many scholars have addressed the team empowerment-
performance relationship by looking at the mediating effect of knowledge sharing
(Manz and Sims, 1995; Rosen et al., 2007; Srivastava et al., 2006). Knowledge acquisition
(i.e. problem understanding and communication) is an important predictor of both
financial and non-financial team performance (Politis, 2003). Increased knowledge
sharing facilitates a more comprehensive consideration of alternatives and a better
utilization of a team’s existing knowledge (Stasser and Titus, 1985). Wegner (19

)
stated that knowledge sharing fosters the creation of shared mental models and the
development of transactive memory (i.e. the knowledge of “who knows what” in a team).
Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch’s (2009) meta-analysis also suggested the importance of
information sharing to team performance. Thus, knowledge sharing among team
members can positively influence team performance.

Srivastava et al. (2006) found that empowering leadership could enhance team
knowledge sharing through the guidance and coaching of empowering leaders. The
increased opportunities for idea sharing are inherent in participative decision-making.
Zárraga and Bonache (2005) found that a high care atmosphere among team members
engenders both the creation and the transfer of knowledge. They argued that a “high
care” atmosphere is enhanced when the team is empowered. Rosen et al. (2007, p. 267)
identified six common barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams and presented six
“best practices” to overcome the knowledge-sharing barriers. They addressed the
importance of “a psychologically safe team culture” and advocated that the leaders
should shape the culture of the team so that every team member can raise their voice and
participate in decision-making when the task is progressing.

In addition, an atmosphere of trust in an empowered team is known to facilitate
knowledge sharing (Renzl, 2008; Rosen et al., 2007). The full engagement of team
members can enhance trust within a group, which in turn enhances knowledge sharing.
Recent research on leadership, team empowerment and knowledge sharing suggests
that interpersonal-trust in empowered teams is positively related to knowledge
acquisition (Carmeli et al., 2010; Gagné, 2009; Politis, 2003, 2001; Zhang and Bartol,
2010). Foss et al. (2009) found that feedback in the form of formal evaluations and
recognition schemes was positively related to the motivation to share knowledge.
Nurturing efficient feedback contributes to developing trust among team members.
Abrams et al. (2003) offered a set of ten team-member behaviors that promote trust
among the team. Many of their proposed behaviors mirror the consequences of team
empowerment. For instance, the authors proposed that a team should establish and
ensure a shared vision and goals to promote benevolence and competence (Abrams et al.,
2003). This proposition is consistent with two of Kirkman and Rosen’s (1999) key
dimensions of team empowerment, i.e. sharing a sense of the meaningfulness of their
task and group potency (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999). According to these conceptual
arguments, we posit that team empowerment can enhance knowledge sharing because
the mutual feedback is highly encouraging and a high care atmosphere engenders trust

IJCMA
27,1

among team members. The preceding analysis can be summarized as follows: team
empowerment leads to high team performance through the beneficial effect of
knowledge sharing.

Team empowerment, power distance and knowledge sharing
Power has been described as the potential ability of a person to influence others
(Anderson and Brion, 2014). Thus, a major power holder has more potential influence on
others than a minor power holder. Structurally, empowerment can be viewed as pushing
power from the top-down throughout the hierarchy to subordinates in an organization
(Hollander and Offermann, 1990). The structural attempts to empower team members,
such as equalizing social status or hierarchical positions within a team, generally aim to
increase team members’ psychological perception of being empowered. However, these
structural empowering practices may or may not succeed in psychologically
empowering team members completely in all cultural or organizational settings (Alves
et al., 2006; Randolph and Sashkin, 2002; Sagie and Aycan, 2003).

Power distance is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of
institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is
distributed unequally” (Hofstede and Bond, 19

, p. 419). In different national cultures,
the distribution of power within society can range from relatively equal (i.e. in a low
power distance culture) to extremely unequal (i.e. in a high power distance culture)
(Hofstede, 2001, 1980). In a high power distance society, the less powerful individuals are
more likely to accept autocratic or paternalistic power relations. They tend to
acknowledge and accept that power is based on social status or hierarchical positions.
House et al. (2004) found that power distance is negatively related to participative
leadership. Pearce and Conger’s (2003) review of shared leadership also argued that
power distance might limit the effective function of shared leadership across cultures.

It has been noted that team empowerment and individual psychological
empowerment are highly correlated (Bandura, 1997; Chen et al., 2007). However, there
may be differences in individual psychological empowerment among group members
(Wu et al., 2010). These differences in individual psychological empowerment can be
exaggerated in a high power distance society as a result of people’s acceptance of
inequality. Although in a high power distance culture, team members may be
structurally treated as equal, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for all team
members to perceive an equal level of individual psychological empowerment. This
diversity of perceived empowerment may occur in a team composed of members from
different hierarchical levels within the organization, or with different tenures, or from
different socioeconomic statuses. We argue that these social-structural differences
might result in implicit power inequalities among team members. For example, in a high
power distance society like China, people readily accept a large degree of power
inequality, and can easily turn a relationship between equal partners in a team into a
junior-senior structural relationship if there are cues to a status difference in other areas
of life (King and Bond, 1985). This implicit inequity may generate intra-group cliques
and lead to mistrust and divergence within the group and hinder knowledge sharing.

There are generally three reasons that prevent team members from sharing
knowledge in a high power distance society. First, the existence of power inequality in a
team can undermine the atmosphere of information exchange among team members
(Follett, 1924). The less powerful team members tend to restrain their proactive

Effect of team
empowerment

arguments with major power holders when the less powerful individuals are mindful of
their behaviors that might imply threats to the powerful (Eylon and Au, 1999; Rousseau
and Garcia-Retamero, 2007). Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) found that the concern
about loss of one’s face is prevalent in high power distance cultures. Face refers to “the
public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (Brown and Levinson,
1987, p. 61). The concept of face is universally salient and applicable in both Western
and Asian cultures (Kirkbride et al., 1991). Face is determined by a person’s
socio-structural status (Oetzel et al., 2003). It is a widely accepted social norm to respect
powerful individuals in high power distance societies. Challenging a relatively powerful
individual in public can be interpreted as a violation of social norms, leading to
embarrassment and shame for that person (Kim and Nam, 1998). The powerful individual
may retaliate against the challenger for face loss. As the less powerful individuals can
foresee the potential negative consequences of arguing with powerful individuals, the less
powerful individuals tend to avoid in-depth knowledge sharing with the major power
holders to prevent such situations from occurring.

Second, people in a high power distance societies are accustomed to autocratic
leadership and centralization of authority (Pearce and Conger, 2003). Traditionally, in
high power distance societies, the major power holder is expected to have a strong voice
in decision-making. Therefore, the less powerful individuals are de-motivated to
contribute their ideas when they assume that their suggestions account for little in the
final decision. The less powerful individuals spare what they see as futile efforts to
communicate with the major power holders and are anxious not to offend their powerful
counterparts during the interactions.

Third, in high power distance cultures, less powerful team members do not expect to
obtain complete information (Randolph and Sashkin, 2002). The major power holders
often surpass the less powerful members in terms of extensive social networks and
privileged information sources. This expected information asymmetry between the
powerful and the less powerful discourages information sharing within the team, as the
less powerful members surmise that the powerful members already know what is
needed to be known and consequently do not bother to share information even if they
think it is novel. On the other hand, major power holders can obtain information from
exclusive sources and tend not to share it with the less powerful members (Randolph
and Sashkin, 2002). Thus, a high power differential limits information sharing among
team members in a high power distance society and can cripple knowledge sharing even
within an empowered team. The preceding discussion can be summarized in the
following proposition:

P1. The relationship between team empowerment and knowledge sharing among
team members is moderated by power distance in such a way that the positive
influence of team empowerment on knowledge sharing is diminished in high
power distance cultures.

Team empowerment, collectivism and knowledge sharing
Individualism and collectivism are cultural constructs both in origin and in nature (Hui
and Triandis, 1986). Individualism is the degree to which people in a country prefer to
act as individuals rather than as members of groups. In collectivistic cultures, people
define themselves through social roles and hierarchical structures of their group (Clarke
and Micken, 2002). Their personal goals and behaviors correspond to the social norms,

IJCMA
27,1
68

duties and obligations of the group (Chen et al., 1997; Miller, 1994). In collectivistic
cultures, individuals derive satisfaction from group accomplishment (Earley, 1989) and
have less need to ascribe self-identity to personal characteristics (Clarke and Micken,
2002).

Randolph and Sashkin (2002) suggested that people in highly collectivistic cultures
are more likely to exchange and share information that focuses on team efforts rather
than on individual efforts. In other words, team members in highly collectivistic cultures
tend to focus more on group performance than individual performance (Gabrenya et al.,
1985). In highly collectivistic cultures, team members are more willing to share
team-based knowledge and information because they feel responsible for the group’s
well-being. Also, people are unlikely to address and acknowledge individual-based
information in highly collectivistic cultures because an overemphasis on individual
benefits can induce feelings of being separated from the group (Randolph and Sashkin,
2002). Highlighting individualism in highly collectivistic cultures is seen as alienation
from the group and a potential threat to the solidarity and integration of group members.
The fear of being marginalized in collectivistic cultures affects people’s behaviors in
groups. Group awareness in collectivistic cultures may reduce team members’ actions
counter to collective goals such as distorting information or manipulating knowledge
for individual gains. Based on the above discussion, we propose:

P2. The relationship between team empowerment and knowledge sharing among
team members is moderated by collectivism in such a way that the positive
influence of team empowerment on knowledge sharing is increased in
collectivistic cultures.

Team empowerment and intra-group conflict
Conflict can be broadly defined as a perceived incompatibility of interests or goals
between or among parties (Jehn, 1995; Korsgaard et al., 2008; Wall and Callister, 1995).
Two dimensions of conflict are predominantly studied in the organizational literature:
conflict rooted in the substance of the task and conflict derived from the emotional,
affective aspects of the group’s interpersonal relations (Guetzkow and Gyr, 1954). These
conflict dimensions have been studied under different taxonomies, such as “substantive
and affective conflict” (Guetzkow and Gyr, 1954), “task and relationship conflict”
(Pinkley, 1990; Pinkley and Northcraft, 1994) and “cognitive and affective conflict”
(Amason, 1996). According to Jehn’s (1997, 1995) studies on intra-group conflict, task or
cognitive conflict refers to disagreements among team members regarding viewpoints,
opinions and ideas, whereas relationship or affective conflict refers to disagreements
among team members on personal or emotional issues.

Kotlyar and Karakowsky (2006) proposed that in empowered teams, both cognitive
and affective conflict can rise to high levels if there is insufficient coaching or lack of
invasive interventions by external leaders’ in-group activities. Absent from ongoing
support and guidance of an external leader, team members have to deal with high
uncertainty in their procedural directions and thus tend to generate more conflict in their
day-to-day interactions. Langfred (2000) found that individual autonomy can clash with
group autonomy in an empowered team and reduce the cohesiveness and effectiveness
of the team. His follow-up study (Langfred, 2007) suggests that empowered teams are
particularly vulnerable to the detrimental effects of conflict because team members
highly depend on intra-group trust when organizing their work and interacting with

Effect of team
empowerment

each other. As high intra-group trust depends on the majority of team members being
effectively engaged in leadership of the team (Bergman et al., 2012), there is a possibility
that individual team members differ in their perception of empowerment (Chen and
Kanfer, 2006), and some members might fight to control power, which is detrimental to
intra-group trust (Bergman et al., 2012). Some members may also choose to restrict
individual autonomy and interdependence as a response to conflict, thereby
undermining intra-group trust. As intra-group trust declines, empowered teams are
more vulnerable to the negative effects of conflict (Langfred, 2007).

As decision control is transferred from external sources to internal interactions in a
highly empowered team (Manz et al., 1987), supervisors and subordinates are subject to
a challenging adjustment when they have to re-identify and re-differentiate their roles
and responsibilities within and outside of the group (Appelbaum et al., 1999; Stewart
et al., 2011). Solansky (2008) noted that the leadership process and the team process are
closely linked. If more “heads” and “hands” attend to team’s developmental and
functioning needs, leadership functions can be shared by several members, allocated to
individual members or rotated by different members in different times (Yukl, 1999). As
leadership in a empowered team is a shared process involving mutual influence among
members to perform tasks and take responsibilities (Ensley et al., 2003; Katzenbach,
1997; Pearce et al., 2014; Yukl, 1989), the absence or the reduced level of external
leadership may create the need for a new regulatory system that can control and direct
team members’ behaviors toward task completion. This dynamic of supplanting
vertical and hierarchical control may lead to an emergence of “concertive control”
through horizontal and collaborative interactions among empowered team members
(Barker, 1993). The concertive control system is a collective agreement formalized and
implemented by team members to discipline their actions to enhance the quality of
individual and group outputs. Concertive control can be even stronger and more rigid
than bureaucratic control in constraining and rationalizing team members. To achieve
concertive control, team members must reach a “negotiated consensus on how to shape
their behavior according to a set of core values” (Barker, 1993, p. 411). Therefore,
concertive control emerges from a process that integrates individual values and creates
a new formal rationality. In a highly empowered team, team members must take
collective responsibility to synthesize individual idiosyncrasies rather than depend on
instructions and guidance from an external leader. This process tends to be a source of
conflict due to emerging interpersonal incompatibilities in goals setting, job
assignments, expectations and evaluations. Moreover, insufficient communication and
misinterpretation of personal behaviors may also drive animosity and tension in highly
empowered teams (Appelbaum et al., 1999). The above discussion can be summarized as
follows: team empowerment will foster increases in intra-group conflict.

Knowledge sharing and intra-group conflict
As discussed earlier, studies on intra-group conflict, task or cognitive conflict refer to
disagreements among team members regarding viewpoints, opinions and ideas,
whereas relationship or affective conflict refers to disagreements among team members
on personal or emotional issues (Jehn, 1997, 1995). As work team members interact and
begin to express their task-related ideas, they become aware of differences in their
mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Work team members then engage in a process of
discovery eventually challenging each other’s points of view. The process of challenging

IJCMA
27,1
70

each other’s points of view involves arguments and counterarguments through which
more knowledge is increasingly shared (Eisenhardt et al., 1997; Forbes and Milliken,
1999; Janis, 19

; Mitchell et al., 2011, Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Smith et al., 2005). As
discussed previously, for decades, scholars have grappled with the consequences of
conflict inside work teams, and findings are still inconclusive as to the performance
consequences of intra-group conflict (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; de Wit et al., 2012).
However, regardless of the performance consequences of intra-group conflict, one aspect
that comes across in the literature is that heterogeneous teams experience more conflict
than homogeneous teams (Forbes and Milliken, 1999; Janis, 1972).

In a study of 98 teams, Mitchell et al. (2011) found evidence that interaction among
group members with dissimilar preferences, diverse interpretations and different values
was sufficient to trigger behaviors to challenge each other’s opinions and justify
alternative approaches. Forbes and Milliken (1999) found that management boards
composed of members with diverse backgrounds engaged in more debate regarding
goals, decisions, procedures and choices than homogeneous boards because diverse
board members framed the issues differently and arrived at different conclusions about
appropriate courses of action. In contrast, Janis (1972) found that lack of conflict was a
major characteristic of homogeneous groups and a behavior he labeled “groupthink”.
The more knowledge team members have to share as a result of their different values,
diverse experiences, different interpretations and dissimilar approaches, the more likely
that cognitive conflict will arise. In an in-depth study of 12 management teams,
Eisenhardt et al. (1997) found that the four top management teams that experienced the
most conflict were also the most diverse in terms of their experiences, skills and beliefs.
Finally, cognitive conflict also has been found to occur frequently in work groups with
high diversity of functional backgrounds (Pelled et al., 1999). The preceding empirical
findings suggest that as diverse team members share their individual knowledge,
different values, new ideas, diverse experiences, different interpretations and dissimilar
approaches, cognitive conflict increases, and the more knowledge there is to share, the
more likely that cognitive conflict will arise.

Previous researchers have suggested that cognitive and affective conflict can connect
and integrate (Choi and Cho, 2011; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Simons and Peterson,
2000). According to Galtung’s (1996) triadic theory of conflict transformation, conflict is
an emotionally created and driven process (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001). A causal link
between cognitive conflict and affective conflict involves the emotional animosity
brought about by intense task-related disagreements. When individuals confront strong
counter-arguments that challenge their values and attitudes (West, 1975), they tend to
assume that the disagreement is a rejection of their competence (Tjosvold, 1992). Such
challenges, if they occur repetitively, can create dissatisfaction or even hatred among the
team members. Yang and Mossholder (2004) proposed that emotionality influences how
individuals perceive and process cognitive conflict. Strong negative emotions can cause
cognitive conflict to transform into affective conflict. According to affective events
theory (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996), individuals’ behaviors and attitudes in the
workplace are influenced by their emotional reactions to work events (Yang and
Mossholder, 2004). Jameson et al. (2010) suggested that the likelihood of lasting,
satisfactory resolutions of conflict depends inversely on the intensity of the emotions
experienced by the disputants. When cognitive conflict is misinterpreted as personal
attack (Simons and Peterson, 2000), team members rely on their subjective emotional

Effect of team
empowerment

experience and on their individual likes and dislikes rather than on fair and objective
cognitive judgment when evaluating each other’s arguments. Team members tend be
more vulnerable to self-serving bias and other attribution errors (Greer et al., 2008) and
are unable to distinguish cognitive conflict from emotional conflict. The above
discussion can be summarized as follows: knowledge sharing will foster intra-group
conflict in work teams.

Intra-group conflict and team performance
Previous research has led to some controversy surrounding the effects of group conflict
on team performance. In particular, evidence suggests partially constructive and overall
destructive effects. In the early conflict literature, scholars found that low to moderate
levels of cognitive conflict may lead to positive group outcomes because of its
facilitating role in encouraging group members to see and think differently (Amason,
1996; De Dreu et al., 1998; Jehn, 1995; Simons and Peterson, 2000). Affective conflict, on
the other hand, has been generally viewed as being detrimental to team performance
because group members are affected by interpersonal suspicion, mistrust and hostility
that result in low group cohesiveness (Amason, 1996; Amason and Schweiger, 1994;
Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehn and Mannix, 2001). Rahim and Bonoma (1979) found that the
effects of cognitive conflict on decision performance follow an inverted-U shape (the
amount of cognitive conflict above and below a certain optimal level will decrease
performance). They suggested that a moderate amount of conflict could be conducive to
team performance. For example, newly formed teams are likely to undergo a period of
conflict to establish structure, roles and purpose, and this conflict is likely to have a
positive effect on team performance as long as the team works through this conflict and
the conflict does not extend beyond the initial phases of team development (Tuckman,
1965). However, when conflict accumulates to a certain degree, it becomes eventually
detrimental to team performance. The inverted-U shape may be the result of the
relationship between the two types of conflict because cognitive conflict can transform
into affective conflict over time (Amason, 1996; Appelbaum et al., 1999; Mooney et al.,
2007; Simons and Peterson, 2000; Tidd et al., 2004). Thus, its high association with
affective conflict hinders the potential benefits of cognitive conflict. That is, an increase
in cognitive conflict tends to escalate the level of affective conflict that in turn impairs
team performance (Greer et al., 2008; Rahim, 2002).

Most importantly, De Dreu and Weingart’s (2003) meta-analysis on conflict and team
performance reported that both cognitive and affective conflict negatively influence
team performance. They argued that a small amount of conflict can stimulate
information processing, but increased conflict will impede information processing and
interfere with team performance. De Wit et al. (2012) found that intra-group conflict is
negatively related to group performance. Jehn et al. (2008) examined the effects of
cognitive and affective conflict on group outcomes and found that both are negatively
associated with trust, respect and cohesion in teams and both decrease desired group
outcomes. In a qualitative study of 57 autonomous teams, Behfar et al. (2008) suggested
that highly autonomous teams can exhibit productivity decline and coordination
problems because of ineffective resolution to cognitive and affective conflict. Shaw
et al.’s (2010) cross-national study on conflict and team effectiveness suggests that
affective conflict moderates the relationship between cognitive conflict and team
effectiveness. Their analysis revealed an inverted-U-shaped curvilinear relationship

IJCMA
27,1
72

between cognitive conflict and team performance when affective conflict is low and a
negative linear relationship when affective conflict is high. That is, the positive
consequences of cognitive conflict on team performance are completely overcome when
affective conflict is high. Their findings further indicated that high affective conflict not
only cancels out the beneficial effect of cognitive conflict but also accelerates destructive
conflict spirals that result in lower team performance. The preceding discussion leads to
the following summary: intra-group conflict is negatively associated with team
performance.

Team empowerment, power distance and intra-group conflict
As discussed before, a public violation of social norms and a person’s self-image can
cause loss of face. Kim and Nam (1998) suggested that losing one’s face leads to one’s
experience of embarrassment or shame, resulting in negative consequences. Conflict in
teams tends to arise as a negative consequence of emotional anti-social behaviors such
as taking revenge, strong criticism and trying to find scapegoats. More succinctly,
conflict is caused by loss of face or strong external attribution of failure (Kim and Nam,
1998). Extant literature indicates that face loss in high power distance cultures causes
more frequent occurrence of negative behaviors and stronger external attribution of
failure than in low power distance cultures (Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey, 1988;
Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998). We posit that the effects of these emotional anti-social
behaviors on conflict can be magnified in high power distance cultures. In other words,
conflict in high power distance societies is more strongly related to the negative
emotional consequences of face loss than in lower power distance societies because
people place a higher value on face preservation. Kim and Nam (1998) found that
people’s sensitivity about face-saving or concern about face increases as their social
hierarchical status rises. Face loss may lead to high frequency and severity of negative
consequences in a high power distance culture, as people possess large differences in
social hierarchical status. Furthermore, respect for face is a way to secure social bonds.
Conversely, face loss or disrespect for face is a reflection of broken social bonds
(Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998). As in high power distance cultures, people place
greater importance on face preservation than in low power distance cultures, broken
social bonds are more likely to result in antisocial behaviors and arouse more intense
affective conflict (Kim and Nam, 1998).

In addition, we argue that in high power distance societies, the absence of a formal
leader leaves a greater power vacuum than in low power distance societies and that team
members with higher organizational ranking or longer tenure would feel compelled to
fill the vacuum and to resume the centralization of authority (Pearce and Conger, 2003).
However, if lower-status members have bought into the idea of empowerment, they
would resist, at least initially, the higher-status members’ attempts to centralize
authority. In these types of societies, the powerful team members would tend to use
identity and relational shaming styles to prompt compliance from the less powerful
members (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998). This enforcement of compliance can cause
personal embarrassment and result in mistrust and affective conflict within the group.
The powerful team members may try to exert “control of the agenda” behavior to
exclude opponents from the decision-making process (Walsh et al., 1981). This
intentional exclusion may appear to avert open conflict by silencing the opponents, but
the dominance exerted over the opposing members can create resentment. Gehani and

Effect of team
empowerment

Gehani (2007) suggested that the domination of one party over another breeds
subsequent resentful reactions from the suppressed party and drives the escalation of
intra-group conflict. Therefore, based on the preceding analysis we offer the following
proposition:

P3. The relationship between team empowerment and the occurrence and severity
of intra-group conflict is moderated by power distance in such a way that the
positive influence of team empowerment on intra-group conflict is reinforced in
high power distance cultures.

Team empowerment, collectivism and intra-group conflict
As discussed in the preceding section, early research on cross-cultural psychology and
sociology addressed the importance of face in social interactions in highly collectivistic
cultures (Gabrielidis et al., 1997; Kim and Nam, 1998; Oetzel, 1998; Oetzel et al., 2001).
Kim and Nam (1998) proposed that collectivism is positively correlated with the concern
for face. Earley (1997, p. 120) in his general model of organizational behavior across
cultures suggested that face is the central concern of social interactions. He argued that
face is exchanged and maintained through a regulatory process of harmony related to
“people’s expectations of others and reactions to various social interactions within an
organization”.

In highly collectivistic cultures, people value social relationships and emphasize
interpersonal harmony (Gabrenya and Hwang, 1996). An individual’s behavior that
violates group harmony will result in his or her exclusion from the group. Such
exclusion is an indicator of social rejection and induces an explicit loss of face to both the
individual and the group (Leung and Bond, 2004). According to face-negotiation theory
and subsequent research (Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey and
Kurogi, 1998), individualistic and collectivistic cultural patterns influence the
behavioral strategies that individuals select to protect their own face and to challenge or
support the face of others. In highly collectivistic cultures, individuals have more
concern for the face of others than in highly individualistic cultures and tend to favor the
use of indirect and smooth face-preserving strategies in their communication with
others. The use of other-oriented, face-preserving strategies in situations of potential
conflict leads to avoiding, compromising and integrating behaviors as a means of
maintaining interpersonal harmony (Kirkbride et al., 1991; Ting-Toomey and Kurogi,
1998). Thus, cultural values shape individual perceptions of the relative importance
between the “I” (i.e. the self) and the “we” (i.e. the group).

Morris et al. (1998) found that collectivism accounts for differences in managers’
conflict-management styles. Individuals in highly collectivistic cultures are highly
interdependent and relationally connected. This interdependency is positively
associated with high concern for the face of others. Open affective conflict, in highly
collectivistic cultures, can result in mutual threat to the social images of both parties.
Therefore, both parties tend to hide their negative feelings and choose to suspend
interaction as a functional strategy to “cool down” when further interpersonal
exchanges could intensify their conflict (Rispens et al., 2007).

The wisdom of conflict avoidance, compromise and endurance is embedded in highly
collectivistic cultures such as China and Japan (Leung et al., 2002; Randolph and
Sashkin, 2002), and it is consistent with recent research on conflict management. De
Dreu and Van Vianen (2001) argued that proactive interactions (i.e. collaborating and

IJCMA
27,1

contending) could escalate affective conflict. According to their work, conflict avoidance
is the most effective response to resolve affective conflict. Conversely, open argument
can stir up anger and hostility among team members (Jehn et al., 2008).

For example, Tjosvold et al. (1998) found that Chinese managers tend to avoid
conflict due to the relatively high value they place on conformity and tradition. In
contrast, American managers tend to use competition to resolve conflict. Friedman
et al. (2006) examined Chinese-American differences in conflict avoidance by
looking at how people’s expectations of others’ responses motivate their conflict
management approaches. Their findings show that Chinese are more vulnerable to
the negative effects of direct competition as a way to resolve conflict on
interpersonal relationships. Teams can also be subject to internal pressures to avoid
overt and active conflict that can lead to a high level of perceived threat within a
group and result in significant decreases in problem-solving effectiveness (Rempel
and Fisher, 1997). For example, the phenomena of groupthink and the Abilene
Paradox show how members of homogeneous teams, and of teams with a desire to
preserve harmony or a desire to “make each other happy”, can auto-coerce to avoid
conflict and/or to avoid challenging agreement, and these pressures can lead to poor
decision quality (Bernthal and Insko, 1993; Harvey, 1988; Janis, 1972; Mullen et al.,
1994; Rempel and Fisher, 1997). The Chinese tendency toward conflict avoidance
can be explained by their greater concern for maintaining relationships with other
parties. This tendency can be even stronger when Chinese confront other parties
with higher social status.

Face-preserving styles of conflict management are also reported in studies of
Western collectivistic cultures. For example, Gabrielidis et al. (1997) found that Mexican
students have a higher concern for interdependency and interpersonal harmony than
American students. Their findings indicate that Mexican students prefer to use
accommodation and collaboration strategies to resolve conflict with the least animosity
possible. The above discussion leads us to the following proposition:

P4. The relationship between team empowerment and the occurrence and severity
of intra-group conflict is moderated by collectivism in such a way that the
positive influence of team empowerment on intra-group conflict is diminished in
collectivistic cultures.

Conclusion
The main contribution of this paper to the empowerment and conflict literature is in
explicating the moderating roles of power distance and collectivism on the relationship
between empowerment, knowledge sharing, intra-group conflict and team performance.
Moreover, our paper proposes avenues for further research through empirical testing of
the propositions offered herein.

Past studies have found that team empowerment enhances team performance
through an increase in intra-group knowledge sharing. Team empowerment tends to
promote an atmosphere of mutual support that encourages team members to exchange
information and share knowledge with each other. However, team empowerment can
also trigger intra-group conflict, which most extant research has found to be detrimental
to team performance. In this paper, we argued that knowledge sharing within an
empowered team in a high power distance society occurs less frequently than
knowledge sharing within an empowered team in a low power distance society. In

Effect of team
empowerment

addition, we argued that in high power distance cultures, teams tend to have more
frequent and more severe intra-group conflict than teams in low power distance
cultures. These two phenomena stem from an emphasis on face-concern, familiarity
with power-inequity and a corresponding inclination to resume autocracy in high power
distance cultures. Therefore, empowered teams in high power distance cultures are less
likely to have higher team performance than empowered teams in low power distance
cultures.

Further, we discussed how collectivism can promote knowledge sharing and
inhibit intra-group conflict in empowered teams. In collectivistic cultures, there is a
tendency to emphasize group interests over individual benefits. This tendency can
foster extensive sharing of team-based knowledge; and due to face-concern and
attention to group harmony, people in collectivistic cultures are inclined to avoid
intra-group conflict. The combination of extensive knowledge sharing and conflict
avoidance can enable empowered teams in highly collectivistic cultures to perform
more effectively than empowered teams in low collectivistic cultures. It is worth
noting that we do not imply that collectivistic national cultures are superior to
individualistic cultures. In fact, collectivistic contexts that enforce significant
conformity may actually interfere with performance. Rather, we suggest that
organizations located in collectivistic or individualistic nations can encourage the
development of constructive collectivistic values among team members. At the
organizational level, these collectivistic values can be shaped and reinforced
through learning mechanisms such as shared symbols, heroes and rituals (Hofstede
and Hofstede, 1991). This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of conditions
that can limit the influence of empowerment on team performance across cultures.
As such, it sheds light on the implications for managers working in international
settings. Notably, practitioners should be aware that team empowerment can lead to
differences in team performance depending on the cultural context, i.e. similar
empowering practices can lead to very different outcomes. The extent to which
efforts to empower a team can promote group performance depends on how team
members can maximize constructive factors and minimize destructive factors
within their cultural contexts. In Table I, we offer a tentative conceptual framework
representing extreme conditions that organizations can use as guidance to the most
appropriate conditions that enhance the effect of empowerment on team
performance.

Table I shows that the most favorable combination is low power distance and
high collectivism. This combination encourages knowledge sharing while
minimizing conflict because every member’s power is relatively equal and every

Table I.
Typology of possible
interactions of power
distance and
collectivism based on
their effect on
knowledge sharing
(KS) and intra-group
conflict (IGC) in work
teams

Collectivism
Power distance

High Low

High Middle of the road: Productive discussions:

Medium KS
Medium IGC

High KS
Low IGC

Low Aimless arguments: Middle of the road:
Low KS
High IGC

Medium KS
Medium IGC
IJCMA
27,1

member has high commitment to group outcomes. The least favorable combination
is high power distance and low collectivism. In this combination, power is unevenly
distributed and team members have low commitment to group outcomes. Everyone
is looking for number one with the most powerful members outwardly dominating
the least powerful members, and the least powerful members surreptitiously
undermining the ambitions of the most powerful ones. This combination is likely to
be characterized by arguments that do not lead to any productive outcomes either
for the group’s task or for the psychological well-being of the members. In the other
two combinations, the negative effect of one cultural dimension would tend to
neutralize the positive effect of the other cultural dimension, leading to mediocre
results of empowerment. For researchers, the proposed framework offers
opportunities to empirically test hypotheses that can be derived from Table I. For
the practitioner, Table I offers suggestions that can help enhance the effect of team
empowerment on team performance by promoting the development of a low power
distance/high collectivism culture within the work team.

Limitations
Although this paper provides several contributions to the team and conflict literature, it
has several limitations. First, this paper addresses some well-established variables and
their relationships and explains how they may be affected by specific cultural values.
However, the conceptual framework proposed in this paper needs empirical
investigation. Future research could explicate the direction of causality and the specific
mechanisms involved. Second, we did not include many studies on team training, which
may limit our understanding of various factors related to knowledge sharing and
conflict. For example, early research suggests that training in communication and
conflict management skills is important for overcoming destructive conflict in teams
(Edmondson and Nembhard, 2009; Jassawalla et al., 2004). Cabrera and Cabrera (2002)
argued that training programs could enhance intra-team knowledge sharing. Future
research could shed light on the effect of training on the relationship between knowledge
sharing and conflict management and resolution in different cultures. Third, the stage of
team development might account for differences in conflict intensity. Tuckman (1965)
proposed a forming-storming-norming-performing team development model that
suggests that team members in the storming stage tend to be more susceptible to conflict
than in the other stages. Finally, team diversity is known to affect team members’
willingness to share knowledge and their treatment of intra-group conflict (Horwitz and
Horwitz, 2007; Mannix and Neale, 2005; Nemeth, 1992). Our discussion does not address
individual traits, such as age, gender, race, education and personal values and
characteristics, which could be addressed in future studies. Another limitation is that
group diversity of national culture values may also affect conflict resolution style and
knowledge sharing (Boros et al., 2010; Ford and Chan, 2003), which was not considered
in this paper. A potential extension of the present research is to conduct a multilevel
analysis of diversity of cultural values in groups or organizations (Harrison and Klein,
2007; Kozlowski and Klein, 2000). Altogether, these limitations suggest avenues for
further theory development and research on the effects of power distance and
collectivism on the relationship between team empowerment, knowledge sharing,
intra-group conflict and team performance. Finally, a more comprehensive model might
shed light on which cultural values have a greater impact on the links empowerment-

Effect of team
empowerment

knowledge sharing-team performance and empowerment-conflict-team performance.
Such an expanded model could help researchers understand the importance of studying
the empowerment-team performance link in terms of cultural values.

References
Abrams, L.C., Cross, R., Lesser, E. and Levin, D.C. (2003), “Nurturing interpersonal trust in

knowledge-sharing networks”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 64-77.

Alves, J.C., Lovelace, K.J., Manz, C.C., Matsypura, D., Toyasaki, F. and Ke, K.G. (2006), “A
cross-cultural perspective of self-leadership”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 338-359.

Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-148.

Amason, A.C. and Schweiger, D.M. (1994), “Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision
making and organizational performance”, International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 239-253.

Anderson, C. (1997), “Values-based management”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 25-46.

Anderson, C. and Brion, S. (2014), “Perspectives on power in organizations”, The Annual Review
of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 67-97.

Appelbaum, S.H., Abdallah, C. and Shapiro, B.T. (1999), “The self-directed team: a conflict
resolution analysis”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 60-77.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.

Barker, J.R. (1993), “Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 408-437.

Behfar, K., Peterson, R., Mannix, E.A. and Trochim, W. (2008), “The critical role of conflict
resolution in teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management
strategies, and team outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 170-180.

Bergman, J.Z., Rentsch, J.R., Small, E.E., Davenport, S.W. and Bergman, S.M. (2012), “The shared
leadership process in decision-making teams”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 152 No. 1,
pp. 17-42.

Bernthal, P.R. and Insko, C.A. (1993), “Cohesiveness without groupthink the interactive effects of
social and task cohesion”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 66-87.

Biron, M. and Bamberger, P. (2010), “The impact of structural empowerment on individual
well-being and performance: taking agent preferences, self-efficacy and operational
constraints into account”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 163-191.

Bochner, S. and Hesketh, B. (1994), “Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related
attitudes in a culturally diverse work group”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 233-257.

Bodtker, A.M. and Jameson, J.K. (2001), “Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation:
application to organizational conflict management”, International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 259-275.

Boros, S., Meslec, N., Curseu, P.L. and Emons, W. (2010), “Struggles for cooperation: conflict
resolution strategies in multicultural groups”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 539-554.

IJCMA
27,1

Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F. (2002), “Knowledge-sharing Dilemmas”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 687-710.

Carmeli, A., Atwater, L. and Levi, A. (2010), “How leadership enhances employees’ knowledge
sharing: the intervening roles of relational and organizational identification”, Journal of
Technology Transfer, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 1-18.

Chen, C.C., Meindl, J.R. and Hunt, R.G. (1997), “Testing the effects of vertical and horizontal
collectivism: a study of reward allocation preferences in China”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 44-56.

Chen, G. and Kanfer, R. (2006), “Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams”,
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 223-267.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B.L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D. and Rosen, B. (2007), “A multilevel study of
leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 331-345.

Choi, K. and Cho, B. (2011), “Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group
task conflict and group relationship conflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32
No. 8, pp. 1106-1126.

Chow, C.W., Deng, J.F. and Ho, J.L. (2000), “The openness of knowledge management sharing
within organizations: a comparative study of the United States and the People’s Republic of
China”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 65-96.

Clarke, I. and Micken, K.S. (2002), “An exploratory cross-cultural analysis of the values of
materialism”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 65-89.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-4

De Dreu, C.K.W., Giebels, E. and Van de Vliert, E. (1998), “Social motives and trust in integrative
negotiation: disruptive effects of punitive capability”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

No. 3, pp. 408-422.

De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2001), “Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 309-328.

De Wit, F.R., Greer, L.L. and Jehn, K.A. (2012), “The paradox of intragroup conflict: a
meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, 360-390.

Doucet, L., Jehn, K.A., Weldon, E., Chen, X. and Wang, Z. (2009), “Cross-cultural differences in
conflict management: an inductive study of Chinese and American managers”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 355-376.

Earley, P.C. (1989), “Social loafing and collectivism: a comparison of the United States and the
People’s Republic of China”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 565-581.

Earley, P.C. (1997), Face, Harmony, and Social Structure: An Analysis of Organizational Behavior
across Cultures, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Edmondson, A.C. and Nembhard, I.M. (2009), “Product development and learning in project
teams: the challenges are the benefits”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 123-138.

Effect of team
empowerment

Eisenhardt, K.M., Kahwajy, J.L. and Bourgeois, L.J. (1997), “How management teams can have a
good fight”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 77-86.

Ensley, M.D., Pearson, A. and Pearce, C.L. (2003), “Top management team process, shared
leadership, and new venture performance: a theoretical model and research agenda”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 329-346.

Eylon, D. and Au, K.Y. (1999), “Exploring empowerment cross-cultural differences along the
power distance dimension”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 373-385.

Follett, M.P. (1924), Creative Experience, Peter Smith, New York, NY.
Forbes, D.P. and Milliken, F.J. (1999), “Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards

of directors as strategic decision-making groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 489-505.

Ford, D.P. and Chan, Y.E. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study”,
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-27.

Foss, N.J., Minbaeva, D.B., Pedersen, T. and Reinholt, M. (2009), “Encouraging knowledge sharing
among employees: how job design matters”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48 No. 6,
pp. 871-893.

Friedman, R., Chi, S.C. and Liu, L.A. (2006), “An expectancy model of Chinese-American
differences in conflict-avoiding”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 76-91.

Gabrenya, W.K. and Hwang, K.K. (1996), “Chinese social interaction: harmony and hierarchy on
the good earth”, in Bond, M.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Oxford University
Press, Hong Kong.

Gabrenya, W.K., Jr, Wang, Y.E. and Latane, B. (1985), “Social loafing on an optimizing task:
cross-cultural differences among Chinese and Americans”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 223-242.

Gabrielidis, C., Stephan, W.G., Ybarra, O., Dos Santos Pearson, V. and Villareal, L. (1997),
“Preferred styles of conflict resolution: Mexico and the US”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 661-677.

Gagné, M. (2009), “A model of knowledge-sharing motivation”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 571-589.

Galtung, J. (1996), Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, Sage
Publications, Washington, DC.

Gehani, R. and Gehani, R. (2007), “Mary Parker Follett’s constructive conflict: a ‘psychological
foundation of business administration’ for innovative global enterprises”, International
Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 387-404.

Greer, L.L., Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2008), “Conflict transformation: a longitudinal
investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the
moderating role of conflict resolution”, Small Group Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 278-302.

Guetzkow, H. and Gyr, J. (1954), “An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups”, Human
Relations, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 367-382.

Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007), “What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation,
variety, or disparity in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 1199-1228.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 268-279.

IJCMA
27,1
80

Harvey, J.B. (1988), “The Abilene paradox: the management of agreement”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 17-43.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Attitudes,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Hofstede, G. (1993), “Cultural constraints in management theories”, The Executive, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 81-94.

Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1984), “Hofstede’s culture dimensions: an independent validation
using Rokeach’s Value Survey”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 417-433.

Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (1991), Cultures and Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G. and Minkov, M. (2010), “Long-versus short-term orientation: new perspectives”, Asia

Pacific Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 493-504.
Hollander, E.R. and Offermann, L.R. (1990), “Power and leadership in organizations: relationships

in transition”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 179-189.
Horwitz, S.K. and Horwitz, I.B. (2007), “The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a

meta-analytic review of team demography”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 987-1015.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies, Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks.

Hui, C.H. and Triandis, H.C. (1986), “Individualism-collectivism: a study of cross-cultural
researchers”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 225-248.

Jameson, J.K., Bodtker, A.M. and Linker, T. (2010), “Facilitating conflict transformation: mediator
strategies for eliciting emotional communication in a workplace conflict”, Negotiation
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 25-48.

Janis, I.L. (1972), Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-policy Decisions and
Fiascoes, Hutton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Jassawalla, A., Truglia, C. and Garvey, J. (2004), “Cross-cultural conflict and expatriate manager
adjustment”, Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 837-849.

Jehn, K., Greer, L., Levine, S. and Szulanski, G. (2008), “The effects of conflict types, dimensions,
and emergent states on group outcomes”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 465-495.

Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intra group
conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-282.

Jehn, K.A. (1997), “A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-557.

Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), “The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 238-251.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983), Mental Models: Towards A Cognitive Science of Language, Inference,
and Consciousness (No. 6), Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Katzenbach, J.R. (1997), “The myth of the top management team”, Harvard Business Review,

Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 82-92.

Effect of team
empowerment

Kim, J.Y. and Nam, S.H. (1998), “The concept and dynamics of face: implications for organizational
behavior in Asia”, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 522-534.

King, A.Y.C. and Bond, M.H. (1985), “The Confucian paradigm of man: a sociological view”, in
Tseng, W. and Wu, D.Y.H. (Eds), Chinese Culture and Mental Health, Academic Press,
Orlando, FL, pp. 29-46.

Kirkbride, P.S., Tang, S.F.Y. and Westwood, R.I. (1991), “Chinese conflict preferences and
negotiating behaviour: cultural and psychological influences”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 365-386.

Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1997), “A model of work team empowerment”, Research in
Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 131-167.

Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999), “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 58-74.

Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (1997), “The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to
teams: toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 730-757.

Korsgaard, M.A., Jeong, S.S., Mahony, D.M. and Pitariu, A.H. (2008), “A multilevel view of
intragroup conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1222-1252.

Kotlyar, I. and Karakowsky, L. (2006), “Leading conflict? Linkages between leader behaviors and
group conflict”, Small Group Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 377-403.

Kozlowski, S.W. and Bell, B.S. (2003), “Work groups and teams in organizations”, in
Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R. and Klimoski, R.J. (Eds), Comprehensive Handbook of
Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, John Wiley, New York, NY,
Vol. 12, pp. 333-375.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K.J. (2000), “A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes”, in Klein, K.J. and
Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations:
Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 3-90.

Langfred, C.W. (2000), “The paradox of self-management: individual and group autonomy in work
groups”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 563-585.

Langfred, C.W. (2007), “The downside of self-management: a longitudinal study of the effects of
conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 885-900.

Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2004), “A longitudinal analysis of the
impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 527-545.

Lawler, E.E., III, Mohrman, S.A. and Benson, G. (2001), Organizing for High-performance:
Employee Involvement, TQM, Reengineering, and Knowledge Management in the Fortune
1000, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Lee, M. and Koh, J. (2001), “Is empowerment really a new concept?”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 684-695.

Leung, K. and Bond, M.H. (2004), “Social axioms: a model for social beliefs in multicultural
perspective”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 119-197.

Leung, K., Koch, P. and Lu, L. (2002), “A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for
conflict management in Asia”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 201-220.

IJCMA
27,1
82

Locke, E.A., Alavi, M. and Wagner, J.A. (1997), “Participation in decision making: an information
exchange perspective”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 293-332.

Mannix, E. and Neale, M.A. (2005), “What differences make a difference? The promise and reality
of diverse teams in organizations”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 31-55.

Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (1995), Business without Bosses: How Self-managing Teams are
Building High Performing Companies, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1987), “Leading workers to lead themselves: the external
leadership of self-managing work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 106-128.

Manz, C.C., Mossholder, K.W. and Luthans, F. (1987), “An integrated perspective of self-control in
organizations”, Administration and Society, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 3-24.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008), “Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a
review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 410-476.

Mathieu, J.E., Gilson, L.L. and Ruddy, T.M. (2006), “Empowerment and team effectiveness: an
empirical test of an integrated model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1,
pp. 97-108.

Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and DeChurch, L.A. (2009), “Information sharing and team performance: a
meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 535-546.

Michailova, S. and Hutchings, K. (2006), “National cultural influences on knowledge sharing: a
comparison of China and Russia”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 383-405.

Miller, J.G. (1994), “Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individually oriented versus
duty-based interpersonal moral codes”, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 3-39.

Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2014), “A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension
across nationally representative samples from Europe”, International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 161-171.

Mitchell, R., Boyle, B. and Nicholas, S. (2011), “Cross-cultural group performance”, Learning
Organization, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 94-101.

Mooney, A.C., Holahan, P.J. and Amason, A.C. (2007), “Don’t take it personally: exploring
cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 733-758.

Morris, M.W., Williams, K.Y., Leung, K., Larrick, R., Mendoza, M.T., Bhatnagar, D., Li, J.,
Kondo, M., Luo, J. and Hu, J. (1998), “Conflict management style: accounting for
cross-national differences”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 729-748.

Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E. and Driskell, J.E. (1994), “Group cohesiveness and quality of
decision making: an integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis”, Small Group
Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 189-204.

Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.

Neck, C.P. and Houghton, J.D. (2006), “Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: past
developments, present trends, and future possibilities”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 270-295.

83
Effect of team
empowerment

Nemeth, C. (1992), “Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance”, in Worchel, S.,
Wood, W. and Simpson, J.A. (Eds), Group Process and Productivity, Sage, Newbury Park,
pp. 95-111.

Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J. and Wilcox, R. (2001),
“Face and facework in conflict: a cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and
the United States”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 235-258.

Oetzel, J.G. (1998), “The effects of ethnicity and self-construals on self-reported conflict styles”,
Communication Reports, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 133-144.

Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S., Chew, M., Harris, R., Wilcox, R. and Stumpf, S. (2003), “Face and
facework in conflicts with parents and siblings: a crosscultural comparison of Germans,
Japanese, Mexicans, and US Americans”, Journal of Family Communication, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 67-93.

Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (2003), “All those years ago: the historical underpinnings of shared
leadership”, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows
and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-18.

Pearce, C.L., Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr. (2014), Share, Don’t Take the Lead, Information Age
Publishing, Charlotte, NC.

Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), “Exploring the black box: an analysis of work
group diversity, conflict and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 1-28.

Pinkley, R.L. (1990), “Dimensions of conflict frame: disputant interpretations of conflict”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 117-126.

Pinkley, R.L. and Northcraft, G.B. (1994), “Conflict frames of reference: implications for dispute
processes and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 193-205.

Politis, J.D. (2001), “The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 354-364.

Politis, J.D. (2003), “QFD: the role of various leadership styles”, Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 181-192.

Rahim, M.A. (2002), “Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict”, International Journal
of Conflict Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 206-235.

Rahim, M.A. and Bonoma, T.V. (1979), “Managing organizational conflict: a model for diagnosis
and intervention”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 1323-1344.

Randolph, W.A. and M. Sashkin (2002), “Can organizational empowerment work in multinational
settings?”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 102-115.

Rempel, M.W. and Fisher, R.J. (1997), “Perceived threat, cohesion, and group problem solving in
intergroup conflict”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 216-234.

Renzl, B. (2008), “Trust in management and knowledge sharing: the mediating effects of fear and
knowledge documentation”, Omega. The International Journal of Management Science,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 206-220.

Rispens, S., Greer, L.L. and Jehn, K.A. (2007), “It could be worse: a study on the alleviating roles of
trust and connectedness in intragroup conflicts”, International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 325-344.

Rosen, B., Furst, S. and Blackburn, R. (2007), “Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in
virtual teams”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 259-273.

IJCMA
27,1
84

Rousseau, D.L. and Garcia-Retamero, R. (2007), “Identity, power, and threat perception: a
cross-national experimental study”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 51 No. 5,
pp. 744-771.

Sagie, A. and Aycan, Z. (2003), “A cross-cultural analysis of participative decision-making in
organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 453-473.

Seibert, S., Silver, S. and Randolph, W.A. (2004), “Taking empowerment to the next level: a
multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 332-349.

Shaw, J.D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M.K., Scott, K.L., Shih, H. and Susanto, E. (2010), “A contingency
model of conflict and team effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2,
pp. 391-400.

Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1,
pp. 102-111.

Singh, A.K. (1998), “Developing leadership through self-empowerment”, Management Review,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47-56.

Smith, K.G., Collins, C.J. and Clark, K.D. (2005), “Existing knowledge, knowledge creation
capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 346-357.

Solansky, S.T. (2008), “Leadership style and team processes in self-managed teams”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 332-341.

Spreitzer, G. (2007), “Giving peace a chance: organizational leadership, empowerment, and peace”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1077-1095.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 483-504.

Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 679-704.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management
teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.

Stasser, G. and Titus, W. (1985), “Pooling of unshared information in group decision making:
biased information sampling during discussion”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1467-1478.

Stewart, G.L. and Barrick, M.R. (2000), “Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating
role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type”, Academy of management
Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 135-148.

Stewart, G.L., Courtright, S.H. and Manz, C.C. (2011), “Self-leadership: a multilevel review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 185-222.

Tidd, S.T., McIntyre, H.H. and Friedman, R.A. (2004), “The importance of role ambiguity and trust
in conflict perception: unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict linkage”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 364-380.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988), “Intercultural conflict styles: a face negotiation theory”, in Kim, Y. and
Gudykunst, W. (Eds), Theories in Intercultural Communication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 213-235.

Effect of team
empowerment

Ting-Toomey, S. and Kurogi, A. (1998), “Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an
updated face negotiation theory”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 187-225.

Tjosvold, D. (1992), Antecedents of Cooperation and Competition: Evidence from 15
Organizations, Manuscript, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia.

Tjosvold, D., Hui, C. and Law, K.S. (1998), “Empowerment in the manager-employee relationship
in Hong Kong: interdependence and controversy”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 138
No. 5, pp. 624-636.

Tjosvold, D. and Sun, H. (2010), “Using power to affect performance in China: effects of employee
achievement and social context”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 364-381.

Triandis, H.C. (1989), “The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 506-520.

Tuckman, B.W. (1965), “Developmental sequence in small groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63
No. 6, pp. 384-399.

van Oudenhoven, J.P., Mechelse, L. and de Dreu, C.K. (1998), “Managerial conflict
management in five European countries: The importance of power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 439-455.

Wall, J. and Callister, R. (1995), “Conflict and its management”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 515-558.

Walsh, K., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R. and Ranson, S. (1981), “Power and advantage in
organizations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 131-152.

Wegner, D.M. (1986), “Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind”, in
Mullen, B. and Goethals, G.R. (Eds), Theories of Group Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New
York, NY, pp. 185-208.

Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work”, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-74.

West, S.G. (1975), “Increasing the attractiveness of college cafeteria food: a reactance theory
perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 656-658.

Wu, J.B., Tsui, A.S. and Kinicki, A.J. (2010), “Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 90-128.

Yang, J. and Mossholder, K.W. (2004), “Decoupling task and relationship conflict: the role of
intragroup emotional processing”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 589-605.

Yukl, G. (1989), “Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 251-289.

Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.

Yukl, G. (2009), Leadership in Organizations, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Zárraga, C. and Bonache, J. (2005), “The impact of team atmosphere on knowledge outcomes in

self-managed teams”, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 661-681.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:

the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.

IJCMA
27,1
86

Further reading
Robert, C., Probst, T.M., Martocchio, J.J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J.J. (2000), “Empowerment and

continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on
the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 643-658.

About the authors
Xueting Jiang is a doctoral candidate in the Isenberg School of Management at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst. His research interests include empowerment, leadership, teamwork and
conflict management. He has presented his research at the Academy of Management. He has
taught administrative theories, organizational behavior and international management at the
University of Massachusetts Amherst. Xueting Jiang is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: xjiang@som.umass.edu

Hector R. Flores is an assistant professor in the Department of Management and Human
Resources at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. His research interests relate to
socio-political-cultural aspects of the strategy process. Dr Flores obtained his PhD in Strategic
Management from the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Ronrapee Leelawong, PhD, is a focused improvement specialist at the Siam Cement Group PCL
(SCG), since 2011. His responsibilities include both at the holistic level, such as system
developments (e.g. the development of SCG-own management platform), and the hands-on level,
such as projects’ improvements (e.g. cost and defects reduction). He received a doctoral degree in
operations management from the Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts
Amherst, USA.

Charles C. Manz, PhD, is a speaker, consultant and bestselling author of over 200 articles and
scholarly papers and more than 20 books. His work has been featured in The Wall Street Journal,
Fortune, US News & World Report, Success, Psychology Today, Fast Company and several other
prominent news publications. He is the Nirenberg Chaired Professor of Leadership in the Isenberg
School of Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Formerly a Marvin Bower
Fellow at the Harvard Business School, his clients have included 3M, Ford, Xerox, General Motors,
P&G, American Express, the Mayo Clinic, Banc One, the US and Canadian Governments and
many others.

87
Effect of team
empowerment

mailto:xjiang@som.umass.edu

mailto:permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

The effect of team empowerment on team performance

Introduction
Theoretical foundations and propositions
Conclusion
Limitations
References

Assessing the Relationship Between Conflict-Type and Emotions in Top
Management Teams: An Attributions Perspective Within the

Context of Strategic Decision-Making

Kevin J. Hurt
Columbus State University

This study identifies why conflict reactions vary, focusing on the role attributions play on the relationship
between conflict and anger within executive teams. Two attributions were examined: intentionality and
controllability. Intentionality was a significant moderator between cognitive conflict and anger, whereas
controllability marginally moderated the relationship between affective conflict and anger. These findings
provide further evidence that attributions about the actions or comments of an individual can contribute
to subsequent conflict. They also help understand prior mixed results about conflict effects. Cognitive
conflict had a favorable outcome when it was attributed as being constructive and dysfunctional when
attributed as destructive.

INTRODUCTION

Conflict is considered a multi-dimensional and highly emotional construct conveying both
constructive and destructive overtones (Allred, 1999; Amason, 1996; Baron, 1991). Many academicians
and practicing managers encourage conflict within a decision-making context because of the belief that
conflict will lead to higher quality decisions (Amason, 1996; Eisenhardt, 1989; Foxworthy, 2011; Jehn &
Mannix, 2001; Pondy, 1992). However, these higher quality decisions may come at the expense of
member commitment as a direct result of the conflict, which may also foster acrimonious relationships
among team members (Amason, 1996; Amason & Schweiger, 1994). These paradoxical effects can occur
among teams at any level of the organization; however, it is extremely important to consider these effects
at an organization’s highest level of decision-making authority, i.e. the top management team, because the
strategic decisions made by a top management team will have significant influence on an organization’s
performance and long-term value (Mankins & Steele, 2006; Simons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999). If the top
management team is incapable of working together, e.g. if emotions impede team cohesiveness causing
members to get derailed with dysfunctional forms of conflict, the strategic success of the organization
may be jeopardized (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, & Bourgeois III, 1997; Hambrick, 1987).

While numerous forms of conflict have been identified by researchers (e.g. goal, interest, value,
process, affective, cognitive, intrapersonal, intragroup, intergroup) (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Rahim, 1986;
Weider-Hatfield & Hatfield, 1995), conflict has essentially been abridged into two primary types: a)
cognitive (i.e. task-focused), and b) affective (i.e. relationship-focused) based on its perceived utility to an
organization (Amason, Thompson, Hochwarter, & Harrison, 1995; Jehn, 1997). Cognitive conflict is
considered functional to an organization because it inspires creativity and innovation, allows multiple
viewpoints to be openly discussed, and prevents negative behaviors such as groupthink (Amason, 1996;

70 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

Jehn, 1997; Peterson & Behfar, 2003). However, a threshold beyond which cognitive conflict ceases to
have functional effects appears to exist, i.e. higher levels of cognitive conflict may yield negative
consequences (Jehn, 1995). Affective conflict is considered dysfunctional and detrimental because it is
extremely emotional and personalized, promoting distrust, dislike, and lack of receptiveness to other’s
ideas (Amason et al., 1995; Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Mooney, Holahan, & Amason, 2007).
Within teams, dysfunctional conflict is likely to arise when one member attributes another’s actions or
comments as personal criticism, or simply when interpersonal compatibilities exist among members
(Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995).

Top management teams are, by composition, demographically and technically diverse (e.g. member
functional backgrounds, experience, age, tenure, cognitions) (Knight et al., 1999; Yukl, 2006). If top
management teams hope to gain from the benefits of this diversity, e.g. increased innovation and decision
comprehensiveness (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Simons et al., 1999), then team members must embrace
conflict by becoming behaviorally engaged in debate over task-related differences and supporting
conflicting approaches during decision-making processes (Simons et al., 1999). However, conflict
episodes are complex and require an understanding of emotions and subsequent individual attributions,
particularly within a strategic decision-making context (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992). The key to
effective decision-making is not as simple as instigating conflict within the team as conflict’s effects can
be inconsistent in that they may simultaneously lead to both functional and dysfunctional consequences,
dependent upon numerous factors such as conflict-type, emotions, and issue interpretation (Amason &
Schweiger, 1994; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn & Mannix, 2001) (Shook, Payne, & Voges, 2005).

People’s reactions to conflict can vary significantly, from increased creativity and improved decision
quality, to increased impediments to rational thinking during a decision-making process and other acts
that are generally hurtful to others (Baron, 1991; Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1994; Kopelman, Rosette, &
Thompson, 2006; Muchinsky, 2000; Thomas, 1992). These reactions can be exacerbated if an individual
misattributes cognitive conflict as a form of affective conflict (Pelled, 1996). The idea that cognitive
conflict should be encouraged while avoiding affective conflict (Amason & Schweiger, 1994) is certainly
logical; however, that may be harder to achieve in practice because cognitive conflict may lead to
affective conflict (Mooney et al., 2007). Conflict, by its very nature, is among the most emotionally
arousing phenomena and it is the felt emotions, e.g. anger, that make conflict particularly uncomfortable
(Baron, 1991; Bodtker & Jameson, 2001; Thomas, 1992). It is the anger emotion which researchers
underscore as a primary contributor to the dysfuctional effects asssociated with conflict (Amason et al.,
1995; Desivilya & Yagil, 2005; Jehn, 1997). However, every emotion has the potential to be positive,
negative, or both, depending on the context since each emotion has idiosyncratic meaning, varying
sources of causality and subjective experiences attributed to it, which lead to varying inclinations to act
(Lazarus, 2003). Thus, it is apparent that there is a need to understand the role attributions play on the
relationship between conflict-type and emotions. This study addresses that need by focusing on these
relationships within the context of an actual conflict episode experienced by top management team
members during their most recent strategic decision-making processes.

In order to understand the effects of cognitive- and affective-conflict and the subsequent emotional
effects within a top management team, it is important to ascertain what the individuals involved in the
conflict believed to be its cause (Keaveney, 2008). Emotions experienced during episodes of conflict are
often negative though they may at times be positive or neutral (Jackson, 1992). Thus, a person’s
experienced emotion often depends upon the explanation that has been attributed to it (Kelley & Michela,
1980). Thus, the primary question addressed in this study asks: How do individual attributions moderate
the relationship between conflict-type and emotions? In particular, this study focuses on the emotion of
anger since this emotion occurs most frequently during a conflict episode (Allred, 1999). Furthermore, it
is within the sphere of discrete emotions where emotional work experiences can best be understood,
predicted, and have a vital influence on organizational behavior (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Daus, 2002;
Forgas, 2002).

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014 71

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Emotions Within the Context of Conflict

Kleinginna and Kleinginna (1981, p. 355) define emotions as a “complex set of interactions among
subjective and objective factors, mediated by neural-hormonal systems which can (a) give rise to affective
experiences such as feelings of arousal, pleasure/displeasure; (b) generate cognitive processes such as
emotionally relevant perceptual effects, appraisals, labeling processes; (c) activate widespread
physiological adjustments to the arousing conditions; and (d) lead to behavior that is often, but not
always, expressive, goal-directed, and adaptive.” In short, emotions are intense feelings brought about by
some contextual stimulus and typically directed at someone or something (Frijda, 1993; Kopelman et al.,
2006).

Three components of emotional experience include: 1) behavioral/communicative component, which
consists of the way emotional experiences get expressed through verbal and nonverbal cues, 2)
physiological component, comprised of the way emotion makes an individual feel, and 3) cognitive
component, which stresses the role of the mind in appraising a situation in a explicit manner which in turn
makes a person feel a particular emotional state (Bodtker & Jameson, 2001). Perhaps the most dominant
emotion experienced during a conflict episode is that of anger (Allred, 1999; Fitness, 2000). A review of
research on the role of anger in conflict reveals mixed findings, i.e. anger may elicit positive (increased
cooperation), negative (increased competition), or no (neutral) effects (Friedman et al., 2004; Geddes &
Callister, 2007; van Kleef, van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & van Beest, 2008). However, anger towards
others has generally been associated with negative outcomes (Allred, 1999; Fitness, 2000; van Kleef et
al., 2008).

Attribution Inferences

Attribution theory addresses the domains of both perception and motivation and these domains need
not be mutually exclusive (Martinko, 1995). An individual’s behavior and emotions can be attributionally
dependent and may vary based upon whether self or other is to blame (Howard, 1993; Martinko,
Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002; Ployhart, Ehrhart, & Hayes, 2005; Thoits, 1989). Therefore, the
consequences of attributional inferences can affect both an individual’s emotions and behavior (Weiner,
1985).

Attribution theory is an appropriate theoretical lens by which to scrutinize cognitive- and affective-
conflict and emotions in teams and is based on the premise of perceived causation, i.e. people attempt to
understand behavior in terms of its causes, which begets subsequent emotional reactions of the observer
(Betancourt & Blair, 1992; Kelley & Michela, 1980; Martinko, 1995). Two widely accepted causal
dimensions include: a) intentionality (i.e. the extent to which another individual intended to engage in a
particular behavior), and b) controllability (i.e. extent to which the cause of behavior is within an
individual’s control) (Kent & Martinko, 1995b). “Intentionality is most relevant to attributions for the
actions of others” (Martinko, 1995, p. 10).

Interpreting another individual’s behavior involves the cognitive assesment of three factors: 1)
distinctiveness, i.e. the degree to which behavior varies or is the same across situations, 2) consensus, i.e.
the degree to which others would behave as the observed individual in like circumstances, and 3)
consistency, i.e. the degree to which the individual responds in the same way over time (Kelley, 1972).
Although causal inferences can be made in response to both positive and negative events, attributions are
most likely to occur with negative events or when outcomes are disappointing, unexpected, or important
(Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas, 2007; Weiner, 1985; Wong & Weiner, 1981). While the outcome of
conflict is typically considered important, individuals are more likely to consider increased levels of
conflict as a negative event, and it is the negative events that are most associated with attributional
analysis (Taylor, 1991). Mooney et al., (2007) suggest that higher levels of cognitive conflict are bad
because individuals attribute this as a form of personal criticism or political maneuvering, thereby
confusing cognitive conflict as affective conflict.

72 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

Attribution Consequences: Anger
The anger emotion is closely related to the causal dimensions of intentionality and controllability

(Betancourt & Blair, 1992; Weiner, 1985; Weiner, Graham, & Chandler, 1982). When conflicting
behavior between individuals becomes relational and emotionally charged, it can have negative effects on
the parties involved, particularly for the one who has taken the conflict as a personal criticism as is a
common occurrence during episodes of affective or high levels of cognitive conflict (Jehn, 1995;
Parayitam & Dooley, 2009). The characteristics of these forms of conflict can thus be considered
negative, disappointing, and perhaps even unexpected and important, causing the recipient of this conflict
type to engage in attributional analysis, particularly if the person with whom an individual is in conflict
with is considered close (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987). In the case of both cognitive- and affective-
conflict, behaviors that are different or unusual, in discord relative to how others would behave in similar
situations, or inconsistent relative to an individual’s own behavior in similar historical situations should
increase the extent to which an individual will increase their attempt to assess whether another’s actions
were intentional and within their control (Kelley & Michela, 1980).

Assessing the intention of another person’s behavior is one way that people make sense of another’s
actions and it is particularly relevant during conflict episodes (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002;
Martinko, 1995; Thomas, 1992). Actions seen as intentional by a person are judged differently from
actions that were deemed unintentional, i.e., more outward blame will be assigned to actions considerd as
negative and intentional (Gibson & Schroeder, 2003; Kelley & Michela, 1980). Attributing a person’s
negative actions to harmful intention (e.g. purposeful thwarting of another’s goals or undermining of
another’s viewpoints) heightens an individual’s emotional sensitivity producing feelings of anger and
resentment towards others (Crossley, 2006; Harvey & Dasborough, 2006; Kelley & Michela, 1980).
However, if an individual concludes that another’s actions were unintentional, this would reduce the
likelihood of responding aggressively toward the other individual (Allred, 1999; Betancourt & Blair,
1992; De Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer, 2002; Isen, 2001; Matthews & Norris, 2002).
Thus, the following hypotheses are put forth:

H1: The influence of conflict-type on emotions amon top management team members is
moderated by an individual’s attributional inferences such that:

H1a: Destructive intent positively moderates the relationship between cognitive
conflict and anger towards others, whereas constructive intent negatively moderates
the relationship between cognitive conflict and anger towards others.
H1b: Destructive intent positively moderates the relationship between affective
conflict and anger towards others, whereas constructive intent negatively moderates
the relationship between affective conflict and anger towards others.

It is anger that is derived from interpersonal attributions that many conflict researchers refer to when

they surmise that affective conflict leads to dysfunctional organizational consequences (Amason, 1996;
Mooney & Sonnenfeld, 2001; Shook et al., 2005). Since the effects of affective conflict are generally
regarded as negative and often seen as hostile personal criticism within a top management team (Amason,
1996; Jehn, 1995), and because higher levels of cognitive conflict can lead to affective conflict (Mooney
et al., 2007), these types of conflict can also trigger an individual’s tendency to engage in attributional
analysis, i.e. individuals will have an innate desire to establish responsibility by making attributions of
control (Kelley & Michela, 1980).

Ascription of responsibility assigned to someone else for acts that were within their control often
equate to ascriptions of blame and this too can lead to intense anger, particularly when the consequences
of someone else’s actions have hindered or thwarted the goal attainment of another (Gibson & Schroeder,
2003; Weiner, 1985, 1995). In these circumstances, anger is directed at the other (offending) person, i.e. it
is an interpersonal response, which can elicit anti-social responses (Weiner, 2000). Thus, one experiences
greater outwardly directed anger to the extent that one attributes another’s behavior as being negative,
hostile, and within that person’s control (Allred, 1995). It follows then, that one would expect less

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014 73

outwardly directed anger if one attributes another’s comments/actions as being beyond their control, such
as when another is put in a position to have to voice their opinion at a given moment rather than hold their
comments for a one-to-one discussion (Baron, 1988). This would be particularly so if one was to
acknowledge that there was some semblance of truth in the other person’s comments, causing one to
reflect internally (Weiner, 2000). Thus, the following hypotheses are put forth:

H2: The influence of conflict-type on emotions among top management team members is
moderated by an individual’s attributional inferences such that:

H2a: Control-Within positively moderates the relationship between cognitive
conflict, and other-directed anger; whereas Control-Beyond negatively moderates
the relationship between cognitive conflict and anger towards others.
H2b: Control-Within positively moderates the relationship between affective conflict,
and other-directed anger; whereas Control-Beyond negatively moderates the
relationship between affective conflict and anger towards others.

FIGURE 1
MODERATING EFFECTS OF ATTRIBUTIONS

METHODOLOGY

Participants and Research Design

One hundred fifty strategic decision-making teams of mid- to large-sized firms operating in the
United States in both public and private sector organizations were targeted for participation in the study.
Top management team members from eighty four of those firms were willing to take part in the study.
Howerver, twenty of those firms were eliminated from the study due to an insufficient number of
responses received. Useable survey questionnaires were received from 64 teams, comprising a total of
264 individual responses. The rationale for including top management teams from mid-sized firms is
provided by Amason and Mooney (1999) who state that accessibility to top management teams is greater

74 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

for mid-sized firms. Since mid-sized firms comprise a majority of organizations in the United States
(Hufft, 2008) the probability of obtaining a sample size sufficient for this study was increased.

Sampling Procedures

This study combined probability (e.g. simple random sampling) and nonprobability (e.g. snowball)
sampling techniques in order to develop a sample frame. Prospective target firms were identified through
local economic development association membership directories, local and state trade associations, local
chamber of commerce organizations, and through referral from industry executives. Membership
directories that were available online, or made available after discussing the study with association
directors and chamber presidents, were screened to exclude family-owned businesses and sole-
proprietorships. Once target firms were identified, participants were selected using a simple random
number generator in Microsoft Excel.

Survey Procedures

Data collection occurred in phases as outlined by numerous researchers (Amason & Mooney, 1999;
Olson & Parayitam, 2007; Parayitam & Dooley, 2009). During the first phase of data collection, phone
calls were placed to the chief executive officer (CEO, or equivalent title), who received a brief description
of the research. After discussing the study with the CEO, a request for their participation in the research
was made. Additionally, CEO’s were asked if they could refer any other executives or organizations
whom they perceived might also be willing to participate in the study. The process of obtaining sample
subjects by referral is known as snowballing and it is a particularly useful technique for populations that
are difficult to reach (Black, 2012; Faugier & Sargeant, 2008).

Participating CEO’s were asked to identify and describe the organization’s most recent key strategic
decision for purpose of the study. The identification of the most recent strategic decision minimizes bias
in decision selection (Amason & Mooney, 1999). Given the proprietary and sensitive nature of strategic
decisions, the CEO was informed that decision details were not needed by the researcher. Rather, the
CEO was asked to assure that each of the team members answering the survey understood that the
questionnaire was to be completed with the specific strategic decision, identified by the CEO, as the point
of reference. Critical to the research design was the need for each member to recall the same decision
scenario and this aspect of the study was stressed to the CEO’s.

During the next phase of data collection, the CEO and the TMT members he or she identified, were
asked to complete the survey questionnaire. The surveys were distributed to each participating
organization in a sealed envelope containing the following: a) a cover letter written by the researcher
explaining the study and its social and practical usefulness, along with why the respondent’s participation
is important, b) the survey questionnaire, along with instructions on how to complete it, and c)
instructions to place the completed survey in a prepaid postage envelope and mail it back to the researcher
upon completion of the questionnaire.

In sum, survey questionnaires which were focused on an actual and specific strategic decision
identified and described by the CEO, were completed by the CEO and his or her top management team.
These data collection procedures were consistent with past studies of conflict within top management
teams, which have yielded response rates ranging from a low of 15% to a high of 73% (Amason &
Mooney, 1999; Olson & Parayitam, 2007; Parayitam & Dooley, 2009; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).
Response rates in this study were 43% (overall response rate) and 68% (within team response rate).

Measures: Validity and Reliability Assessment

Since the validity and reliability of constructs is of critical importance when conducting research
(Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991), the hypotheses were tested using a survey questionnaire comprised of
measures which have been found to be reliable and valid instruments of the constructs they represent.
Unless otherwise noted, all constructs were measured using multiple-item scales. Given the complexity of
most of the constructs in the study, multiple-item scales were expected to outperform single-item
measures in terms of greater reliability, precision, and scope (Diamantopoulos, Sarstedt, Fuchs,

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014 75

Wilczynski, & Kaiser, 2012; Singleton & Straits, 2005; Spector, 1992). However, the use of a single-item
measure is considered acceptable when assertions are made that “what is being measured is so specific
that the construct and the operationalization are virtually identical” (Sackett & Larson Jr., 1990, p. 468).
Evidence exists that single-item measures perform equally as well as multi-item scales in terms of
predictive validity when the item being measured is concrete (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). In this study,
one construct was measured using a single-item scale (see Table 1).

TABLE 1
RELIABILITY ESTIMATES

Multiple-Item Constructs Items
Cronbach

Alpha

Affective Conflict AC1-AC4 0.903

Cognitive Conflict CC1-CC4 0.867

Anger ANG1-ANG4 0.849

Intent INTNT1-INTNT2 0.882

Single -Item Measure
Control Cntrl1 n/a

Each of the scales used in this study is identified below, including the reliability coefficients from

prior studies using existing multiple-item measurements. In some cases, the wording of an item was
slightly modified to fit the current context. The responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with
anchors ranging from 1-“Very Small Extent” to 5-“Very Large Extent.” The attribution items were
measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale ranging from 1 to 7, which is consistent with other
literature measuring these constructs (Henry & Campbell, 1995; Kent & Martinko, 1995a).

Affective Conflict was measured with four items, originally developed and validated by Jehn (1995),
to measure the degree of relationship/emotional conflict present in work units. The four-item scale
yielded a .92 reliability estimate in her study. For purposes of this study, the items were modified to
reflect the specific conflict context as depicted by the CEO. For example, one question in Jehn’s study
asked “How much tension is there among members in your work unit?” (p.268). For the present study,
this question was modified as, “To what extent was there tension among members when making this
decision?”

Cognitive Conflict was measured with four items, originally developed and validated by Jehn (1995),
to measure the degree of task-focused conflict existing in work units. The scale yielded a .87 reliability
estimate in her study. Some of the cognitive conflict items were modified to reflect the specific conflict
context as depicted by the CEO. For example, one question in Jehn’s study, which asked “How frequently
are there conflicts about ideas in your work unit?” (p. 268) was rendered as, “To what extent did conflict
about ideas among team members frequently occur during the decision-making process?”

Anger was measured using the four-item scale adopted by O’Neill, Vandenberg, DeJoy, and Wilson
(2009). The four-item scale yielded a reliability coefficient of .88. Since anger in the present study was
measured as a directional measure, i.e. determination of whether anger was expressly directed at others
was assessed, the wording of the items was modified accordingly. For example, one of O’Neill et al’s
items asked subjects to report how often they felt annoyed or irritated over the past month. This item was
rendered as, “To what extent did you feel irritated with the other team member(s) because of their
actions/comments?”

76 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

Attributions were measured with items from the Organizational Attributional Style Questionnaire
developed by Kent and Martinko (1995a). The organizational attributional style questionnaire was
developed to measure general attributional styles (Kent & Martinko, 1995a). and has demonstrated a high
degree of validity and consistency (Henry & Campbell, 1995). The reliability of the intent and control
dimensions from the organizational attributional style questionnaire were reported as .80 and .70,
respectively (Kent & Martinko, 1995a). The items from the organizational attributional style were
modified in order to measure a specific situation. For example, rather than using a hypothetical situation
to ask “To what extent is this cause under your control?” the same question was asked in relation to the
specific decision context identified by the CEO. Two items of the organizational attributional style survey
were used to measure intent. For example, one question asked: Were the other members’
comments/actions in the interaction aimed at being Constructive (1)…or Destructive (7). Control was
measured with a single-item measure that asked: Is the cause of the conflict something that is: Not at all
under other’s control (1)…Completely under other’s control (7).

Control Variables were also included in the study, including: gender, age, educational level,
organization size, and team size. Following the example of Parayitam and Dooley (2009), team size was
measured as the number of team members identified by the CEO as participants in the decision-making
process.

Table 1 presents the list of constructs and their corresponding Cronbach alpha scores produced in this
study. All of the multiple-item measures in this study had realiability estimates above Nunnaly’s (1978)
recommended threshold of .70. The correlation of constructs is presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2

CORRELATION OF CONSTRUCTS

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cognitive
Conflict 1.538 0.3047 1
Affective
Conflict 1.537 0.3262 .798** 1

Anger 2.189 0.8671 .450** .545** 1

Intent 0 0.6172 .369** .394** .226** 1

Control 0 2.0463 .155* .135* 0.081 .259** 1

Gender 0.37 0.484 -0.063 -0.024 -0.023 -0.039 0.093 1

Age 2.54 1.035 -0.048 -0.015 .125* -.129* -0.046 -0.107 1

Education 2.45 0.93 -0.112 -0.099 -.186** -0.057 0.028 0.004 0.111 1

Team Size 5.27 1.586 .145* .159** 0.047 0.049 -0.016 0.068 -.131* 0.064 1

Firm Size 3.39 2.096 0.052 0.076 -0.066 -0.007 0.013 0.016 0.003 .333** .353** 1
Note: † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p <.001 RESULTS Tests of Hypotheses

Data were collected with a survey questionnaire mailed to respondents. A hierarchical regression
technique was used to analyze 264 individual responses. Prior to running the main hypothesis tests, a
standard regression analysis was performed using SPSS Regression and SPSS Explore for evaluation of
assumptions.

Results of evaluations of assumptions led to transformation of some variables to reduce skewness and
improve normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of residuals. A square root transformation was used on

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014 77

the measures of affective- and cognitive-conflict. A logarithmic transformation was used on the measure
of intent. These transformations resulted in improved skewness scores. The remainder of the independent
variables were either normal or had very slight skewness. Transforming the variables with minimal skew
resulted in a change of the direction of skew, e.g. from positive to negative or vice-versa. Therefore, these
variables were not transformed.

All variables were analyzed for the presence of outliers. Given that the scales were bound by one and
five, or one and seven, descriptive statistics were generated to assess whether any data entry errors were
made. No values exceeded the range, i.e. the maximum or minimum, of the scales. Finally, since
demographic variables have the ability to influence outcomes (Pelled, 1996), and because the interest of
this study was on the moderating effect of attributions on the relationship between conflict-type on anger,
the respondents demographic information was controlled for in the study.

Moderating Effects of Attributions On the Relationship Between Conflict-Type and Anger

Hypothesis 1 predicted that an individual’s intent attributions would moderate the relationship
between conflict-type and anger towards others. Specifically, H1a predicted that destructive intent would
positively moderate the relationship between cognitive conflict and anger towards others, whereas
constructive intent would negatively moderate the relationship between cognitive conflict and anger
towards others. Similarly, H1b predicted that destructive intent would positively moderate the
relationship between affective conflict and anger towards others, whereas constructive intent would
negatively moderate the relationship between affective conflict and anger towards others.

The regression results demonstrated that the relationship between the independent variable Cognitive
Conflict and the dependent variable Anger-Other was significantly moderated by attributions of Intent (β
= .310, p = .000) at the .001 level (see Table 3). This model accounted for 18% (R2 = .180; AdjR2 = .147)
of the variance in Anger-Other. Furthermore, the interaction term accounted for a significant incremental
increase in the coefficient of determination (∆R2 = .057) at the .01 level.

The interaction effect of intent, which was calculated using the method identified by Aiken & West
(1991), is portrayed graphically in Figure 2. As evidenced in the figure, increasing cognitive conflict
levels led to increased anger towards others when attributions of destructive intent were made. On the
other hand, increasing cognitive conflict levels led to decreased anger towards others when attributions of
constructive intent were made. Given the significant findings in Table 3, and the interactions as portrayed
in Figure 2, hypothesis H1a was supported. The regression results did not reveal a significant moderation
effect of Intent between Affective Conflict and Anger-Other (β = -.156, p = .590). Thus, hypothesis H1b
was not supported.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that an individual’s control attributions would moderate the relationship
between conflict-type and anger towards other individuals. Specifically, H2a predicted a positive
relationship between cognitive conflict and anger towards others when individuals attributed the opposing
parties comments/actions as being within their control, whereas a negative relationship between cognitive
conflict and anger towards others was predicted when individuals attributed the opposing parties
comments/actions as being beyond their control. The results did not reveal a significant moderation effect
of Control between Cognitive Conflict and Anger-Other (β = -.366, p = .453). Thus, hypothesis H2a was
not supported.

Hypothesis H2b predicted a positive relationship between affective conflict and anger towards others
when individuals attributed the opposing parties comments/actions as being within their control, whereas
a negative relationship between affective conflict and anger towards others was predicted when
individuals attributed the opposing parties comments/actions as being beyond their control. The
regression results demonstrated that the relationship between the independent variable Affective Conflict
and the dependent variable Anger-Other was marginally moderated by attributions of Control (β = -.443,
p = .100) at the .10 level. (see Table 4). This model accounted for 34.8% (R2 = .348; AdjR2 = .327) of the
variance in Anger-Other.

78 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

TABLE 3
MODERATING EFFECT OF INTENT ON THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN COGNITIVE CONFLICT AND ANGER

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Cognitive Conflict β β β

(Constant) 7.373 7.731 7.749
Gender -.001 .015 .019
Age 0.172** 0.169** 0.173**
Education -0.162* -0.163* -0.172**
Team Size 0.150* .095 .096
Firm Size -.095 -.091 -.065
Intent .091 -.063
Cognitive Conflict 0.174* .091
Intent x Cognitive Conflict 0.310**
F-Model 3.399** 4.034** 5.504**
R2 0.077 0.123 0.180
AdjR2 0.092 0.147
R2 Change 0.046** 0.057**
Note: † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

FIGURE 2
INTERACTION EFFECTS OF INTENT ATTRIBUTIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN COGNITIVE CONFLICT & ANGER

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014 79

The interaction effects of control, which were calculated using the methods identified by Aiken &
West (1991), are portrayed graphically in Figure 3. As evidenced, when another’s actions/comments
were attributed as being within their control, anger levels increased with greater amounts of affective
conflict, as expected. However, unexpectedly, this same pattern was observed when another’s
actions/comments were attributed as being beyond their control. Given the marginally significant findings
presented in Table 4, and given that only half of the interaction effect was as predicted (see Figure 3),
H2b received partial support.

TABLE 4
MODERATING EFFECT OF CONTROL ON THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN AFFECTIVE CONFLICT AND ANGER

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Affective Conflict β β β

(Constant) 7.901 -0.003 -1.255

Gender -.011 .005 .014

Age 0.158** 0.150** 0.151**

Education -0.199** -0.128* -0.131*

Team Size .093 .014 .013

Organization Size -.033 -.070 -.064

Affective Conflict 0.535** 0.684**

Control .020 0.408
†

Affective Conflict x Control -.443

F-Model 3.492** 18.923** 16.986**
R2 0.063 0.341 0.348
AdjR2 0.323 0.327
R2 Change .278** .10 †

Note: † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; p < .001 DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this study was to establish the moderating effect of intent and control
attributions on the relationship between conflict-type and anger. The attribution of intentionality was
found to be a significant moderator between cognitive conflict and anger. There was no significant
moderating effect of intentionality on the relationship between affective conflict and anger. Destructive
intent positively moderated the relationship between cognitive conflict and anger; whereas constructive
intent negatively moderated this same relationship.

80 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

FIGURE 3
INTERACTION EFFECTS OF CONTROL ATTRIBUTIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN AFFECTIVE CONFLICT & ANGER-OTHER

The significant findings of intent were as expected since destructive intent has been found to
influence agressiveness toward the offending party, i.e. attributions of harmful intent have been linked
with aggressive responses toward the actor (Holm, 1982; Joseph, Kane, Gaes, & Tedeschi, 1976),
particularly when the actor’s actions were deemed aggressive and hostile (De Castro et al., 2002; Nickel,
1974). The findings, as they pertain to constructive intent, were also as expected given that sincerity of an
individual’s actions/comments have been associated with lower intensity anger levels (Baron, 1988). The
interaction in Figure 2 did reveal one unexpected observation, i.e., at lower cognitive conflict levels,
anger towards others was higher under constructive intent. The hypotheses presented here were concerned
with the direction of anger levels after an intent attribution was made and not necessarily the comparative
amount of anger between constructive and destructive intent. However, one might have assumed overall
higher levels of anger in a destructive intent context. One possible explanation for the initial imbalance in
anger levels may be that conflict triggers a preliminary anger emotion, which is a subjective experience
(Lazarus, 2003), and it is not until an intent attribution has been made that anger levels begin to rise or
fall. However, once a constructive intent attribution is made anger levels decrease with increasing
amounts of cognitive conflict. Furthermore, at the highest level of cognitive conflict, anger is in fact
lower in a constructive intent context as compared to destructive intent, and this emotional pattern would
coincide with normal expectations.

The attribution of controllability was found to be a marginally significant moderator between
affective conflict and anger, but no moderating effect was found between cognitive conflict and anger.
When respondents attributed another’s comments/actions as being within their control, anger levels were
intensified as affective conflict increased. This finding was as expected given that controllable causes
have been associated with increased anger levels when ascription of responsibility for the conflict is
placed on an external party, particularly when these same causes have thwarted another individual’s goals
(Gibson & Schroeder, 2003; Schmidt & Weiner, 1988; Weiner, 2000).

A surprise finding in this study was associated with the attribution of controllability that was beyond
control of the individual whose comments/actions were perceived to have initiated the conflict and thus,
an individual’s attributional inferences. It was expected that noncontrollable actions/comments, i.e. those

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014 81

that are beyond another’s control, would lead to less anger towards the other party since noncontrollable
causes often illicit pro-social behaviors or at a minimum, are not typically associated with ascriptions of
responsibility (Weiner, 2000). In this study, however, both controllable and noncontrollable attributions
positively moderated the relationship between affective conflict and anger. One explanation for this
finding may be the type of conflict in which the respondents were engaged. Affective conflict is highly
emotional and since this type of conflict is often associated with personal criticism (Jehn, 1997), it may be
that respondents simply marginalized whether the offending party’s actions/comments were beyond their
control. Once team members engaged in relational conflict, they were destined to experience increased
anger levels as affective conflict intensified.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, the study relied on team members recollection of
historical events, which is susceptible to recollection bias (Viscusi & Zeckhauser, 2005). To prevent
errors associated with the process of recalling events that occurred in the past, CEO’s were asked to
identify the most recent strategic decision made by the team and complete the surveys with that decision
as the frame of reference. In some instances, the CEO’s noted that the timing of the surveys coincided
with the time that a strategic decision was being, or about to be, made. Thus, some responses were
completed immediately after a strategic decision was agreed upon by an organization’s top managers.
Second, survey questionnaires were given to team members by the CEO. While voluntary participation,
unconditional to an individual’s employment, was stressed to the CEO and written in the instruction letter
received by the participants, team members may have felt compelled to answer the survey, which may
have biased their responses. To minimize this possibility, written instructions to the team members
stressed that no personal or other identifying information (e.g. job titles, name of organization) would be
collected in the study. Nevertheless, some members voluntarily provided these specifics. To assure
respondent anonymity, each survey included a self-addressed, stamped envelope so that respondents
could mail the surveys from a non-work location. Finally, the attribution of controllability was captured
with a single-item instrument since it was deemed that the measure and the operationalization of the
construct were indistinguishable. However, a multi-item scale to capture this construct may have provided
greater reliability and precision.

Theoretical Implications

These findings are important because they provide further evidence that attributions about the actions
or comments of an individual can contribute to subsequent conflict since perceived intentionality often
impacts an individuals’ interpretations and subsequent emotional and behavioral reactions (Dasborough &
Ashkanasy, 2002; Kelley & Michela, 1980). Perhaps more importantly, these findings may help
understand prior mixed results about the effects of conflict within an organization. Conflict researchers
have long touted the benefits of cognitive conflict, while warning against the pitfalls associated with
affective conflict (Amason et al., 1995; Baron, 1990). At the same time, strategic researchers have
claimed that high levels of cognitive conflict are necessary for effective decisions, suggesting that low
levels are detrimental to decision outcomes (Eisenhardt et al., 1997). Yet, there is evidence that cognitive
conflict has a threshold beyond which it ceases to have functional effects (Jehn, 1997; Mooney et al.,
2007) and now recent evidence suggests that affective conflict may have unintended positive
consequences (Khanin & Turel, 2009). To complicate matters, one meta-analysis suggests that both forms
of conflict may be detrimental (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Since it is well established that conflict is
highly emotional (Thomas, 1992) and because emotions are known to influence behavior in the
workplace (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), it is important to understand how attributions affect the conflict-
emotion relationship during a strategic decision-making scenario. This study focused on an organization’s
upper echelon executives within a strategic decision-making context and revealed how two attributions,
i.e. intentionality and controllability, impact the relationship between conflict-type and anger. Neither
cognitive, nor affective, conflict had consistent effects on anger. Cognitive conflict had a favorable

82 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

outcome only when it was attributed as being constructive. When cognitive conflict was attributed to
destructive intent, its effects were dysfunctional.

Controllability had an effect on affective conflict, but not cognitive conflict. The findings for
controllable causes were as predicted, whereas non-controllable causes had the opposite effect of what
was expected. These findings provide further support for the avoidance of affective conflict ascribed by
conflict researchers (Amason & Schweiger, 1994; Jehn, 1997; Mooney et al., 2007).

Practical Implications & Future Research

Conflict in a strategic decision-making context is a necessary condition of organizational success and
considered central to team effectiveness because it keeps members self-critical and innovative (Lewicki,
Weiss, & Lewin, 1992; Pondy, 1992; Shook et al., 2005). Since the effects of cognitive conflict can be
positive and negative (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1997; Mooney et al., 2007), executives must
understand how to gain the benefits of cognitive conflict without incurring its dysfunctional effects. Since
conflict is highly emotional (Thomas, 1992) and generally associated with anger (Allred, 1999), CEO’s
may be able to offset the effects of anger in a strategic decision-making conflict scenario by encouraging
team members to preface their comments as constructive intent before randomly making comments that
have the potential of being misattributed to destructive intent. Although affective conflict may possess a
silver lining (Khanin & Turel, 2009), it appears that this type of conflict will result in anger. Thus,
heeding Amason’s (1994) advice to avoid this conflict-type may still be warranted.

This study focused on an organization’s executive team within a strategic decision context. While top
management teams possess many similarities to teams in general, they do differ in their composition in
that they are generally more permanent, and comprised of high-powerful, high-ranking, influential
individuals prone to self-absorbed behavior and interests (Hambrick, 1995; Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
Researchers may want to consider whether these effects are consistent in teams comprised of individuals
with less power and status, as well as those teams that are to be disbanded upon completion of their
objectives.

Finally, researchers may want to consider the effects of another widely accepted attribution, i.e. the
attribution of stability (variation over time), which is also related to the anger emotion (Betancourt &
Blair, 1992; Weiner et al., 1982). The attribution of stability suggests that it is the consistency (i.e.
stability) of a particular action, moreso than its cause, that influences an individual’s behavior (Weiner,
1985). The stability of an attributed cause may contribute more to the magnitude of emotions than to the
direction (Weiner et al., 1982). Thus, it is logical to expect stable attributions of another’s negative
behavior/comments to elicit a greater level of anger.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Allred, K. (1999). Anger and retaliation: Toward an understanding of impassioned conflict in

organizations. In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiations in
organizations (Vol. 7, pp. 27-58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Allred, K. G. (1995). Realizing advantages of organizational interdependencies: The role of
attributionally mediated emotions. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational
perspective (pp. 253-271). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic
decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(1), 123-148.

Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top management team
conflict in strategic decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management (1997-2002),
10(4), 340-359.

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014 83

Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making,
and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 239-253.

Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison, A. W. (1995). Conflict: An Important
Dimension in Successful Management Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and Emotion: The New Frontiers in
Organizational Behavior Research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 307-338.

Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the
composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107-124.

Baron, R. A. (1988). Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent sincerity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 111-127.

Baron, R. A. (1990). Conflict in Organizations. In K. R. Murphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in
organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 197-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive Effects of Conflict: A Cognitive Perspective. Employee Responsibilities &
Rights Journal, 4(1), 25-36.

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 44(2), 175-184.

Betancourt, H., & Blair, I. (1992). A cognition (attribution)-emotion model of violence in conflict
situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 343-350.

Black, K. (2012). Business Statistics For Contemporary Decision Making (7th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Bodtker, A. M., & Jameson, J. K. (2001). Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation:
Application to organizational conflict management. International Journal of Conflict
Management (1997-2002), 12(3), 259.

Crossley, G. D. (2006, 2006/08//). The role of offender motives and victim reactions to social
undermining.

Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-
member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 615-634.

De Castro, B. O., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). Hostile
Attribution of Intent and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta Analysis. Child Development, 73(3), 916-
934.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task Versus Relationship Conflict, Team Performance,
and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-
749.

Desivilya, H. S., & Yagil, D. (2005). The role of emotions in conflict management: the case of work
teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(1), 55-69.

Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for
choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive
validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434-449.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of
Management Journal, 32(3), 543-576.

Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois III, L. (1997). Conflict and Strategic Choice: How top
management teams disagree. California Management Review, 39(2), 42-62.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal,
13, 17-37.

Estrada, C., Isen, A., & Young, M. (1994). Positive affect improves creative problem solving and
influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians. Motivation and Emotion, 18(4),
285-299.

Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (2008). Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
26(4), 790-797.

84 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

Fincham, F., & Bradbury, T. (1987). Cognitive processes and conflict in close relationships: An
attribution-efficacy model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(6), 1106-1118.

Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between
workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21(2), 147-162.

Forgas, J. (2002). Toward understanding the role of affect in social thinking and behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 13(1), 90-102.

Foxworthy, J. (2011). President & CEO, Foxworthy and Associates. Birmingham, AL.
Friedman, R., Brett, J., Anderson, C., Olekalns, M., Goates, N., & Lisco, C. (2004). The positive and

negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: Evidence from electronically mediated disputes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 369-376.

Frijda, N. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions (pp. 381-403). New York: NY: Guildford Press.

Geddes, D., & Callister, R. R. (2007). Crossing the line(s): A dual threshold model of anger in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 721-746.

Gibson, D. E., & Schroeder, S. J. (2003). Who ought to be blamed? The effect of organizational roles on
blame and credit attributions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14(2), 95-117.

Hambrick, D. C. (1987). The Top Management Team: Key to Strategic Success. California Management
Review, 30(1), 88-108.

Hambrick, D. C. (1995). Fragmentation and the Other Problems CEOs Have with Their Top Management
Teams. California Management Review, 37(3), 110-127.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top
Managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.

Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Consequences of employee attributions in the workplace: The
role of emotional intelligence. Psicothema, 18(Sup), 145-151.

Henry, J. W., & Campbell, C. (1995). A comparison of the validity, predictiveness, and consistency of a
trait versus situational measure of attributions. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An
organizational perspective (pp. 35-51). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Holm, O. (1982). The effects of intent, reason, and harm on attribution of aggressiveness. Journal of
Psychology, 110(1), 49.

Howard, N. (1993). The Role of Emotions in Multi-Organizational Decision-Making. The Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 44(6), 613-623.

Hufft, E. M., Jr. (2008). Comparison of the ownership and growth of family businesses and small firms.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the society of business, industry and economics (SOBIE)
annual meetings, Destin, FL.

Isen, A. M. (2001). An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision Making in Complex Situations:
Theoretical Issues with Practical Implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(2), 75-85.

Jackson, S. (1992). Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic issue
processing. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff & J. M. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in strategic management
(Vol. 8, pp. 345-382). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature or conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup
conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238-251.

Joseph, J. M., Kane, T. R., Gaes, G. G., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1976). Effects of effort on attributed intent and
perceived aggressiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 706.

Keaveney, S. M. (2008). The blame game: An attribution theory approach to marketer-engineer conflict
in high-technology companies. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(6), 653-663.

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014 85

Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. Jones, D. Kanouse, R. Nisbett, S. Valins & B.
Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1-26). Mossistown, NJ:
General Learning Press.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31,
457-501.

Kent, R. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1995a). The development and evaluation of a scale to measure
organizational attributional style. In R. L. Kent & M. J. Martinko (Eds.), Attribution theory: An
organizational perspective (pp. 53-75). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Kent, R. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1995b). The measurement of attributions in organizational research. In M.
J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 17-34). Daytona Beach,
FL: St. Lucie Press.

Khanin, D., & Turel, O. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of cognitive and affective conflicts
between venture capitalists and CEOs: From inequity perceptions to behavioral intentions.
Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.

Kleinginna, P., & Kleinginna, A. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a
consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5(4), 345-379.

Knight, D., Pearce, C., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., Smith, K., et al. (1999). Top management team
diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 445-465.

Kopelman, S., Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of
positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 99(1), 81-101.

Lazarus, R. S. (2003). Does the Positive Psychology Movement Have Legs? Psychological Inquiry,
14(2), 93-109.

Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation and third party
intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 209-252.

Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2006). Stop making plans start making decisions. Harvard Business
Review, 84(1), 76-84.

Martinko, M. J. (1995). The nature and function of attribution theory within the organizational sciences.
In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 7). Delray Beach,
FL: St. Lucie Press.

Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of
counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 10(1 & 2), 36-50.

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution
theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 561-585.

Matthews, B. A., & Norris, F. H. (2002). When Is Believing ìSeeingî? Hostile Attribution Bias as a
Function of Self Reported Aggression1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 1-31.

Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J., & Amason, A. C. (2007). Don’t Take It Personally: Exploring Cognitive
Conflict as a Mediator of Affective Conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 733-758.

Mooney, A. C., & Sonnenfeld, J. (2001, 2001/08//). Exploring antecedents to top management team
conflict: The importance of behavioral integration.

Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: the neglect of organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 801.

Nickel, T. W. (1974). The attribution of intent as a critical factor in the relation between frustration and
aggression. Journal of Personality, 42, 482-492.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
O’Neill, O. A., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2009). Exploring relationships among

anger, perceived organizational support, and workplace outcomes. Journaly of Occupational
Health Psychology, 14(3), 318-333.

Olson, B. J., & Parayitam, S. (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity,
conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(2), 196.

86 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

Parayitam, S., & Dooley, R. S. (2009). The interplay between cognitive- and affective conflict and
cognition- and affect-based trust in influencing decision outcomes. Journal of Business Research,
62(8), 789-796.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process
theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615-631.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work
Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.

Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust,
and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 92(1-2), 102-112.

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?
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 259-296.

Pondy, L. R. (1992). Reflections on organizational conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3),
257-261.

Rahim, M. A. (1986). Managing conflict in organizations. New York: Praeger.
Sackett, P. R., & Larson Jr., J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational

psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrail & organizational
psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 419-489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An attribution-affect-action theory of behavior replications of
judgments of help-giving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 610-621.

Shook, C. L., Payne, G. T., & Voges, K. E. (2005). The “What” in Top Management Group Conflict: The
Effects of Organizational Issue Interpretation on Conflict Among Hospital Decision Makers.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(2), 162-177.

Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and
decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6),
662-673.

Singleton, R. A. J., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.

Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization
hypothesis: National Emergency Training Center.

Thoits, P. (1989). The sociology of emotions. Annual review of sociology, 15, 317-342.
Thomas, K. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.

Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organiztional Psychology (2 ed., Vol. 3, pp. 651-717).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

van Kleef, G. A., van Dijk, E., Steinel, W., Harinck, F., & van Beest, I. (2008). Anger in social conflict:
Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future. Group Decision & Negotiation,
17(1), 13-30.

Viscusi, W. K., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2005). Recollection bias and the combat of terrorism. The Journal of
Legal Studies, 34(1), 27-55.

Weider-Hatfield, D., & Hatfield, J. D. (1995). Relationships Among Conflict Management Styles, Levels
of Conflict, and Reactions to Work. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(6), 687-698.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological review,
92(4), 548-573.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York:
NY: The Guilford Press.

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014 87

Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.

Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, anger, and guilt: An attributional analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(2), 226.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 18, 1-74.

Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask” why” questions, and the heuristics of attributional
search. Journal of personality and social psychology, 40(4), 650.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

88 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 11(2) 2014

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Workplace Conflict ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now