Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Percxeption Conflict
Percxeption Conflict
www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm
IJCMA
25,3
Conflict in context
Perceptions of conflict, employee outcomes
and the moderating role of discretion and
social capital
276
Ariel Avgar, Eun Kyung Lee and WonJoon Chung
School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the moderating effect of discretion and social
capital on the relationship between individual perceptions of team conflict and employee-level
outcomes. The authors propose that both employee discretion and unit-level social capital influence the
negative effects of perceived conflict on employee stress and turnover intentions. They argue that an
individuals perceptions of these central organizational characteristics are likely to alter the
consequences associated with conflict and the manner in which individuals respond to it.
Design/methodology/approach This study empirically tests the moderating effects of discretion
and unit-level social capital on the relationship between individuals perception of team conflict and
employee-level outcomes. Analysis was conducted with survey data from a sample of health care care
providers in 90 units across 20 nursing home organizations. We applied hierarchical linear modeling
analyses to test our hypotheses.
Findings Results demonstrate that employee discretion moderates the relationship between
perceived task conflict and job stress. Unit-level social capital was shown to moderate the relationship
between perceived relationship conflict and employee turnover intentions. Our findings also document
a varied moderation effect at low to moderate levels of conflict versus high levels of conflict. This
finding suggests that the moderating role of contextual variables is more nuanced and complex than the
existing conceptual frameworks acknowledge.
Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the research on conflict and conflict
management by extending a multilevel approach to the effect of conflict and by providing new insights
regarding the contextual manner in which conflict affects workplace outcomes.
Practical implications The effects of discretion and unit-level social capital on how conflict is
metabolized by organizations and their members varied. Contextual factors matter differently for
different individual level outcomes. In attempting to manage the consequences associated with
workplace conflict, organizations and their managers must consider different contextual factors.
Originality/value This study contributes to the research on conflict and its management in
organization by providing new insights regarding the contextual manner in which conflict affects
organizational and individual outcomes. This study provides support for the claim that the relational
and task-related context under which employees experience conflict affects employee stress levels and
the extent to which they report their intentions to leave the organization.
Keywords Social capital, Stress, Turnover intentions, Task conflict, Discretion
International Journal of Conflict Paper type Research paper
Management
Vol. 25 No. 3, 2014
pp. 276-303
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1044-4068
Over the past three decades, organizational conflict research has provided a wealth of
DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-03-2012-0030 empirical evidence regarding the functional and dysfunctional effects of conflict on
central group and organizational performance outcomes (Amason, 1996; De Dreu and Conflict in
van Vianen, 2001; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Lovelace et al., 2001).
According to this stream of research, certain types of conflict hinder group and
context
organizational performance, while others enhance such outcomes (De Dreu, 1997; Jehn,
1997). More specifically, task-related conflict has been conceptually and empirically
linked to positive effects on various measures of team effectiveness and productivity
(Amason, 1996; De Dreu and van de Vliert, 1997; Jehn, 1997). Relationship, or 277
interpersonal-centered conflict, on the other hand, has been shown to negatively affect
team performance and individual well-being (Chen and Chang, 2005; De Dreu and van
Vianen, 2001; Simons and Peterson, 2000).
Although previous research has focused on the functional distinctions between task
and relationship conflict, both types are likely to have negative consequences for
employees and their organizations. Researchers have documented the positive role of
workplace conflict under what has, arguably, been a limited set of circumstances (De
Dreu, 2008). Thus, for example, the positive effects of task conflict have been, for the
most part, documented in the absence of relationship-related conflict, in circumstances
where group members are willing to settle for suboptimal decision alternatives and
when the team climate is characterized by high trust and psychological safety (De Dreu,
2008, p. 9). According to this argument, the effects of conflict on outcomes are highly
contingent on the context in which it develops.
At its core, the contingency perspective asserts that the extent to which different
types of conflicts have functional or dysfunctional consequences for teams and their
members is the product of, among other things, a set of contextual factors (Avgar, 2010;
De Dreu and Weingart, 2003b; De Dreu and West, 2001; Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold et al.,
2003). For example, the effect of conflict on team performance may be contingent on the
extent to which team members rely on collaborative, rather than contentious,
communication to resolve differences (Lovelace et al., 2001). The perspective has
received increasing attention in the conflict management literature (De Dreu and
Weingart, 2003b; De Wit et al., 2012; for one of the first conceptual discussions of the
contingent effects of conflict on outcomes see Jehn and Bendersky, 2003). Nevertheless,
much of the research regarding the moderating roles of some key contextual variables
has been conceptual in nature and the empirical studies that have examined the effects
of moderating variables mostly focused on the co-occurrence of other conflict types
(Shaw et al., 2011; De Wit et al., 2012). In a recent meta-analysis, De Wit et al. (2012)
documented that the negative relationship between task conflict and group performance
exacerbated when there is a high correlation between the two types of conflict,
confirming the findings by De Dreu and Weingart (2003a).
A review of literature also indicates that there has been a tendency to downplay the
potential negative effects of conflict (task and relationship) on individual-level outcomes
such as employee health, well-being and job satisfaction (for some exceptions, see De
Dreu et al., 2004; Spector and Jex, 1998). Thus, the existing conflict research has been
disproportionately focused on the consequences of conflict on team and organizational
performance measures (De Dreu and van Vianen, 2001; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a;
Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Peterson and Behfar, 2003; Porter and Lilly, 1996). Conflict,
however, often takes an emotional toll on employees and is accompanied by anxiety and
an overall decrease in well-being (De Dreu, 2008; Jehn, 1994). Research examining
the effects of contextual variables on the relationship between conflict and
IJCMA employee-centered outcomes, can, therefore, contribute both to the existing knowledge
regarding workplace conflict and to the practical methods through which it can be
25,3 addressed.
This paper addresses these gaps in the literature by examining two central
organizational variables discretion and social capital and the manner in which they
moderate the relationship between perceptions of conflict and two employee-centered
278 outcomes job stress and turnover intentions. We argue that key organizational
characteristics are likely to alter the consequences associated with conflict and the
manner in which individuals respond to it (also see Jehn, 1995). In particular, employee
discretion and unit-level social capital are important task-related and relational factors
that are likely to affect employees interpretation of conflict episodes at work and the
degree to which they are affected by them.
As such, we maintain that different contextual factors are likely to have a significant
moderating effect on different types of conflict (task and relationship). More specifically,
we argue that factors that affect both the manner in which employees conduct their
work, like employee discretion, as well as the relational context in which they work, like
unit-level social capital, will moderate the effects of task and relationship conflict on
individual-level outcomes. Thus, we argue that discretion, which represents a key
task-related variable and social capital, which captures the relational ties within a work
unit, will, respectively, affect employees ability to solve task-related problems (Karasek
and Theorell, 1990) and address interpersonal tensions.
In this study, we examine the extent to which individuals perceptions of their own
work-related discretion and the reported levels of unit social capital moderate the effects
of conflict perceptions on employee outcomes. In doing so, we provide empirical
evidence regarding the effects of conflict perceptions on individual employees and
important organizational factors that influence their associated consequences. This
study contributes to conflict and conflict management literature, as this is one of a few
to solely focus on the effects of conflict perceptions on employee outcomes as well as the
first to explore the moderating roles of organizational factors at different levels of
analysis based on a multilevel approach.
Methodology
Data
Data for this study were collected as part of a larger demonstration project funded by the
State of New York that included the introduction of health information technology in 20
New York City area nursing homes. The Quality Care Oversight Committee established
for this project selected these nursing homes after a rigorous process intended to ensure
a diverse sample of organizations as well as adherence to basic preparedness
requirements. Survey data were collected in 15 of the nursing homes receiving the
technology and 5 nursing homes that were serving as control facilities. The Appendix
Employee Outcomes
Task Conflict
Job Stress
Relationship
Turnover
Conflict
Intentions
Figure 1. Note: White boxes indicate individual-level constructs, and the shaded box
Hypothized model indicates a unit-level construct
includes a table providing key details regarding the selected nursing homes in terms of Conflict in
size, occupancy rate and geographic location. Our study included employees in all of the
20 organizations. Data collected as part of this research provided a unique opportunity
context
to examine additional research questions regarding the organization of work in the
health-care setting. In addition to technology-related variables, our survey instrument
included a large number of variables related to work arrangements and employee
attitudes and perceptions, which allows us to test the hypotheses developed above. 285
The survey data for this paper were collected between June 2008 and July 2009. The
survey was administered by telephone through the Cornell University Survey Research
Institute (SRI). Employees in the nursing homes received a letter from the researchers
describing the general background for the study and our goal of better understanding
the nature of work in their organization. We emphasized the voluntary nature of the
study and guaranteed absolute confidentiality. Employees were provided a toll-free
telephone number they could call if they did not wish to be contacted by SRI. In addition,
SRI interviewers provided this general information again when contacting employees
by phone.
Survey interviews lasted an average of 30 minutes and included approximately 100
items covering work design and structure, employee attitudes and perceptions and
employee background information. We included in the sample for this study all frontline
staff from the 20 participating organizations that fell into six occupational categories:
(1) registered nurses (RNs);
(2) licensed practical nurses (LPNs);
(3) certified nurses assistants;
(4) social workers;
(5) therapists; and
(6) other allied professionals which included diverse support occupations.
Measures
Dependent variables.
Job stress: We measured individual employees stress using two items derived
from Motowidlo et al.s (1986) subjective stress measure. The items used were My
job is extremely stressful and I feel a great deal of stress because of my work
IJCMA Each item was measured on a 5-point response scale that ranged from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Cronbachs alpha for these items was 0.73.
25,3
Turnover intentions: This variable was measured using a single item in which
employees were asked their intention to leave their current organization adapted
from Colarelli (1984). The item is I often think about leaving this nursing home,
and a 5-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)
286 was used.
Independent variables.
Perception of task conflict: Task conflict was measured using three items adapted
from Jehn and Mannix (2001). Respondents were asked to answer items regarding
task conflict within their unit. Specifically, they were asked to indicate the degree
to which there is disagreement about the work being done, conflict about the work
one does and the extent to which there are differences of opinions in the units. Each
item used the scale of (1) to (4) where (1) is not at all and (4) is to large extent.
Cronbachs alpha for task conflict was 0.76. We focused on individuals
perceptions of team task conflict for theoretical reasons under the assumption that
team members can perceive conflict differently. Intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC) 1 for this measure was 0.01 and F(89, 754) 1.07, p 0.10, justifying our
measurement of task conflict at the individual level.
Perception of relationship conflict: Relationship conflict was also measured using
three survey items adapted from Jehn and Mannix (2001). The items were included
questions about the amount of friction, tension and personality in their own unit.
Sample item was How much friction is there among members in your work unit?
and How much tension is there between members in your unit? The items used
the scale of (1) to (4), where (1) is not at all and (4) is to large extent. Cronbachs
alpha for relationship conflict was 0.80. Like task conflict, we also measured
relationship conflict at the individual level. ICC 1 for this measure was 0.02 and
F(89, 757) 1.20, p 0.10, again justifying our measurement of relationship conflict at
the individual level.
Employee discretion: We measured individuals discretion using a single item in
which employees were asked about whether they have sufficient amount of
discretion in making work-related decisions on their job. The exact item was I
have a great deal of discretion in making work-related decisions., and a 5-point
response scale was used ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Unit-level social capital: Social capital literature has focused on the sharing and
exchange of knowledge as key attributes of social capital (Avgar, 2010;
Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Youndt and Snell, 2004). As noted above, social
capital is defined as the resources embedded within interpersonal relationships
(Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2001; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Consistent with the
conceptualization in the literature, we asked respondents to report the levels of
information sharing, overall level of communication and the extent to which they
exchange and share ideas with people within their unit and those in other units.
Five items adapted from Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) were used to measure
the extent to which individuals are engaged in the interactions of sharing and
exchanging ideas with other employees. One additional item measures the
frequency of communication with other employees about work issues. Sample items Conflict in
include Employees in my unit share information freely with each other, and
Employees in my unit exchange ideas with employees from other parts of the nursing
context
home. Each item used a 5-point response scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1)
to strongly agree (5). Cronbachs alpha for social capital was 0.69. Individual members
perception of social capital was aggregated to the unit-level. Tests for aggregation to
the team level yielded acceptable values (within-group agreement or rwg(j); median 287
rwg(6) 0.85, mean rwg(6) 0.88; ICC 1 0.03; F(89, 702) 1.29, p 0.05).
Control variables. We controlled for several demographic characteristics such as age and
tenure (in years), gender (0 female, 1 male), education (1 less than high school to
7 doctorate degree), employment status (1 full time, 2 part time), work shift (1
day, 2 evening, 3 night), additional employment (1 no, 2 yes), union
membership (1 no, 2 yes) and professional affiliation (e.g. LPNs or RNs) because
those may account for any differences in overall attitudes and experience in the
organization or in the unit. For example, individuals age and organizational tenure have
been important predictors of turnover intention (Rhodes, 1983; Cotton and Tuttle, 1986;
van Breukelen et al., 2004), and union membership has been related to employees
intention to quit and stress levels (Hammer and Avgar, 2007; Iverson and Currivan,
2003; Freeman and Medoff, 1984).
Results
Confirmatory factor analyses. We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses
using AMOS 19 to insure that the six variables task conflict, relationship conflict,
discretion, social capital, job stress and turnover intention can be loaded as distinct
factors. The results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the six-factor model
fits well with the data (a model 2 367.840, df 91; confirmed fit index 0.914;
goodness-of-fit index 0.941; incremental fit index 0.915; root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) 0.063). With the appropriate RMSEA values ( 0.08,
suggested by Jreskog and Srbom, 1993), these results qualify the evidence of
discriminant validity of our measures.
We are aware of potential concerns over same-source bias such as inflation of
relationship among variables measured by self-reports (Podsakoff and Todor, 1985;
Spector, 1994). However, as Conway and Lance (2010) noted, self-reports are clearly
appropriate for job satisfaction and other individual-level perceptions (Chan, 2009;
Skinner, 1957, for a review). In a similar vein, regarding conflict measures, we focused on
subjective perceptions of conflict in the workplace rather than on an objective measure.
Turnover intention and stress are often measured with self-reported items (Chen et al.,
2011; Cohen et al., 1983). Together with the demonstration of distinctive confirmatory
factor analysis results, we argue that nature of our variables could partially reduce
potential concerns associated with common method bias.
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the variables are reported in Table I. Task
conflict and relationship conflict were highly correlated (p 0.01), consistent with the
finding in previous conflict research (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a). Meanwhile, both
task conflict and relationship conflict were significantly related to stress (p 0.01) and
turnover intention (p 0.01), suggesting direct effects of task conflict and relationship
conflict on outcome variables.
25,3
288
Table I.
variablesa
IJCMA
Control variables
Age 49.05 11.05
Gender 0.11 0.31 0.029
Union membership 0.73 0.44 0.127** 0.018
Additional employment 0.31 0.46 0.084* 0.025 0.178**
Organizational tenure 8.88 8.17 0.524** 0.024 0.249** 0.161**
Education 3.13 1.27 0.149** 0.126** 0.441** 0.098** 0.191**
Full time employment 1.24 0.43 0.168** 0.011 0.244** 0.413** 0.284** 0.120**
Work shift 1.76 0.80 0.088* 0.010 0.128** 0.032 0.056 0.085* 0.044
Task conflict 1.76 0.71 0.081* 0.032 0.019 0.038 0.026 0.025 0.049 0.059
Relationship conflict 1.65 0.71 0.134** 0.004 0.007 0.009 0.016 0.063 0.027 0.060 0.756**
Discretion 3.09 1.13 0.158** 0.069 0.189** 0.008 0.105** 0.148** 0.072* 0.099** 0.009 0.034
Social capitalb 3.55 0.35 0.094** 0.086* 0.121** 0.023 0.111** 0.121** 0.023 0.057 0.006 0.008 0.061
Job stress 3.06 1.08 0.017 0.055 0.082* 0.091** 0.106** 0.014 0.166** 0.038 0.301** 0.270** 0.041 0.017
Turnover intentions 2.41 1.15 0.090* 0.037 0.038 0.001 0.013 0.025 0.030 0.044 0.239** 0.189** 0.101** 0.044 0.387**
Notes: a b
Listwise N 797 (individual level); N 90 (unit-level); social capital was aggregated to the unit level; * p 0.05; ** p 0.01.All significance tests are two-tailed
Given the multi-level nature of the data and the nesting of individuals within their 90 Conflict in
work units within 20 nursing homes, we applied hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)
analyses to test our hypotheses (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002; Raudenbush et al., 2001).
context
HLM simultaneously calculates estimates for the effect of both unit-level and nursing
home-level variables while maintaining the appropriate level of analysis. HLM is
especially well-suited for estimating the cross-level interaction of a unit-level moderator,
social capital, on individual-level relationships. (i.e. H3 and 4; Hofmann et al., 2000). We 289
first ran a null model that included only control variables (with no predictors included)
for the main employee outcomes in the paper job stress and turnover intentions and
found significant level 2 variance. This result demonstrates that there is sufficient
between-unit variance in outcome variables, justifying HLM as the appropriate analytic
technique. Following past conventions that recommended by Hofmann and Gavin
(1998), we grand mean-centered all level 1-independent variables, except demographic
dummies.
First, our results provide support for the direct, negative effect of task and
relationship conflict on key individual level outcomes. With regard to the relationship
between task conflict and stress, higher levels of perceived task conflict within the unit
were related to increased levels of individuals reported stress (r 0.44, p 0.001) as
shown in Model 2 of Table II. Perceptions of task conflict also had a negative effect on
turnover intentions. Higher levels of perceived task conflict are related to increased
levels of employee turnover intentions (r 0.39, p 0.001) as shown in Model 7 of
Table II. Similarly, relationship conflict had negative effects on both job stress and
turnover intentions, such that higher levels of perceived relationship conflict results in
increased levels of job stress and turnover intentions (see Model 3 of Table II for job
stress and Model 8 for turnover intentions).
H1 and 2 proposed that discretion moderates the relationships between task conflict
and job stress and turnover intentions. The results of the HLM analyses reported in
Model 4 in Table II indicate that discretion interacted significantly (r 0.08, p 0.05)
with task conflict in affecting the direct effect on employees job stress. Simple slope
tests[2] confirmed that both slopes for high levels of discretion (r 0.51, t 4.88, p
0.001) and low levels of discretion (r 0.36, t 3.44, p 0.001) are significantly
different from zero[3]. Both slopes fell outside the region of significance for moderator
effects, which ranged from 31.66 to 2.95, also indicating that both slopes were
significantly different from the mean slope of task conflict with job stress. Nevertheless,
in contrast to our hypothesis, discretion had a positive, not negative, moderating effect.
We plotted the interactions graphically to illustrate the specific form of the interaction
effect. The plot (see Figure 2) suggests that the relationship between task conflict and
stress is strengthened when discretion is high, which goes against the hypothesized
direction of the interaction effect. Nevertheless, a careful examination of Figure 2
illustrates that the interactive effect of task conflict and discretion on employee stress is
disordinal in nature. At low levels of task conflict, individuals with high levels of
discretion reported lower levels of job stress than individuals with low discretion.
However, at high levels of task conflict, individuals with high levels of discretion
reported higher levels of stress than similar individuals with low discretion. Therefore,
the buffering effect of discretion seems to hold only when low levels of perceived task
conflict were reported. With regards to H2, we did not find support for the moderating
a
25,3
290
Table II.
IJCMA
turnover intentions
moderation effect of
discretion and social
linear modeling for the
Results of hierarchical
Intercept 3.301** 3.260** 3.215** 3.294** 3.221** 2.387** 2.346** 2.815** 2.849** 2.849**
Level 1: Individual variables
Controlb
Age 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.012* 0.008* 0.009* 0.010* 0.009*
(0.004) (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
Gender 0.193 0.161 0.185 0.136 0.184 0.125 0.099 0.158 0.070 0.136
(0.100) (0.096) (0.096) (0.095) (0.097) (0.138) (0.135) (0.138) (0.134) (0.137)
Union membership 0.045 0.024 0.033 0.010 0.031 0.006 0.008 0.002 0.022 0.017
(0.106) (0.102) (0.097) (0.100) (0.097) (0.101) (0.099) (0.098) (0.097) (0.098)
Additional employment 0.055 0.046 0.058 0.052 0.058 0.022 0.002 0.020 0.009 0.029
(0.088) (0.082) (0.086) (0.085) (0.086) (0.102) (0.096) (0.101) (0.099) (0.100)
Organizational tenure 0.013* 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.002
(0.006) (0.005) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.007) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006)
Full-time employment 0.336** 0.318** 0.319** 0.316** 0.323** 0.082 0.107 0.092 0.123** 0.086
(0.094) (0.091) (0.093) (0.090) (0.093) (0.109) (0.106) (0.105) (0.105) (0.106)
Independent variables
Task conflict 0.437** 0.438** 0.395** 0.394**
(0.049) (0.050) (0.053) (0.052)
Relationship conflict 0.391** 0.402** 0.311** 0.343**
(0.038) (0.043) (0.053) (0.056)
Moderator
Discretion (D) 0.024 0.107*
(0.033) (0.453)
Moderation
Task conflict D 0.077* 0.018
(0.033) (0.043)
Level 2: Unit variablesa
Moderator
Social capital (SC) 0.205 (0.213) 0.002 (0.222)
Cross-level moderation
Relationship Conflict SC 0.225 (0.222) 0.573* (0.244)
Notes: N 857 (individual-level); N 90 (unit-level); a All estimates were calculated with robust standard error; b
education level, professional affiliation and work shift dummies were
created and included in the model; * p 0.05; ** p 0.01; all significance tests are two-tailed
5 Conflict in
4.5 context
4
3.5
Job Stress
Low Discretion
3
High Discretion
291
2.5
2
Figure 2.
1.5 Interaction graph of
discretion with task
1
conflict on job stress
Low Task Conflict High Task Conflict
role of discretion on the relationship between task conflict and turnover intentions (r
0.02, ns.).
H3 and 4 proposed that unit-level social capital moderates the relationships between
relationship conflict and employee stress and turnover intentions. We expected that
unit-level social capital will weaken the positive relationship between relationship
conflict and turnover intentions. Results of our HLM analyses, reported in Model 10 in
Table II, indicate that unit-level social capital did, in fact, moderate the relationship
between relationship conflict turnover intentions. Nevertheless, we find that this
interaction amplified the effect of relationship conflict on turnover intentions (r 0.57,
p 0.05). Using simple slope tests, we confirmed that when a unit had high levels of
reported social capital, relationship conflict was positively and significantly related to
unit members turnover intentions (r 0.92, t 1.96, p 0.001). However, when a unit
had low levels of reported social capital, relationship conflict was not significantly
related to unit members turnover intentions (r 0.23, t 0.098, p 0.33), which
indicates that, in such situations, individuals experiencing high relationship conflict and
low relationship conflict reported similar levels of turnover intentions. Confirming these
results, the regions of significance ranged from 3.39 to 0.32, indicating that relationship
conflict had a positive effect on turnover intentions at high levels of reported unit social
capital. It can be concluded that the relationship between relationship conflict and turnover
intentions is amplified under conditions of high levels of unit-level social capital. H4 was,
therefore, not supported in terms of the direction of the moderation effect. The plot for high
and low levels of both relationship conflict and social capital appears in Figure 3. With
respect to H3, no support was found for a moderating role of unit-level social capital on the
relationship between relationship conflict and employee stress (r 0.22, ns.).
4.5
4
Turnover Intentions
3.5
Notes
1. Of the 857 individuals included in our sample, 420 were surveyed one year prior to this survey
as part of the larger research project.
2. Simple slopes were calculated at 1 SD above and below the mean of discretion.
3. We also computed confidence bands for simple slope following Preacher et al. (2006) and
using their suggested online tool (available at www.quantpsy.org/interact/hlm2.htm). The
results were consistent with simple slope tests.
4. We thank the anonymous reviewer for raising this issue. As shown in the results, the
moderation effect between the perception of relationship conflict and unit-level social capital
on job stress was not supported (p 0.10), failing to provide support for the potential
moderated mediation model.
IJCMA References
25,3 Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. (2002), Social capital: prospects for a new concept, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40.
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.
296 Amason, A.C. and Sapienza, H.J. (1997), The effects of top management team size and interaction
norms on cognitive and affective conflict, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 495-516.
Avgar, A.C. (2010), Negotiated capital: conflict, its resolution, and workplace social capital, The
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 236-259.
Avgar, A.C. and Lee, E.K. (2011), Social capital in negotiation: leveraging the power of relational
wealth, in Benoliel, M. (Ed), Negotiation Excellence: Successful Deal Making, World
Scientific Publishing, Hackensack, NJ, pp. 1-23.
Avgar, A.C., Pandey, N. and Kwon, K. (2012), Discretion in context: a moderated mediation model
of the relationship between discretion and turnover intentions, Industrial Relations: A
Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 106-128.
Ayoko, O.B. and Pekerti, A.A. (2008), The mediating and moderating effects of conflict and
communication openness on workplace trust, The International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 297-318.
Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Hrtel, C.E. (2008), The influence of team emotional intelligence
climate on conflict and team members reactions to conflict, Small Group Research, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 121-149.
Batt, R. (2004), Who benefits from teams? Comparing workers, supervisors, and managers,
Industrial Relations, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 183-212.
Batt, R. and Valcour, P.M. (2003), Human resources practices as predictors of work-
family outcomes and employee turnover, Industrial Relations, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 189-220.
Beehr, T.A., Jex, S.M., Stacy, B.A. and Murray, M.A. (2000), Work stressors and coworker support
as predictors of individual strain and job performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 391-405.
Bond, F.W. and Bunce, D. (2003), The role of acceptance and job control in mental health, job
satisfaction, and work performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 6,
pp. 1057-1067.
Bouty, I. (2000), Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges
between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 50-65.
Breaugh, J.A. (1998), The development of a new measure of global work autonomy, Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 119-128.
Carnevale, P.J. and Probst, T.M. (1998), Social values and social conflict in creative problem
solving and categorization, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5,
pp. 1300-1309.
Chan, D. (2009), So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad?, in Lance, C.E. and
Vandenberg, R.J. (Eds), Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine,
Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences, Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 311-338.
Chen, G., Polyhart, R.E., Thomas, H.C., Anderson, N. and Bliese, P.D. (2011), The power of Conflict in
momentum: a new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and
turnover intentions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 159-181. context
Chen, M. and Chang, Y. (2005), The dynamics of conflict and creativity during a projects life
cycle: a comparative study between service-driven and technology-driven teams in
Taiwan, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 127-150.
Chen, M.J. and Ayoko, O.B. (2012), Conflict and trust: the mediating effects of emotional arousal 297
and self-conscious emotions, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 19-56.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. and Mermelstein, R. (1983), Global measure of perceived stress, Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 385-396.
Colarelli, S.M. (1984), Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job
previews, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 633-642.
Coleman, J.S. (1988), Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 94 Supplement, pp. 95-120.
Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. (2010), What reviewers should expect from authors regarding
common method bias in organizational research, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 325-334.
Cotton, J. and Tuttle, J. (1986), Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with implications
for research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Creed, W.E.D. and Miles, R.E. (1996), Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework linking
organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls, in
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 16-39.
Curseu, P.L., Janssen, S.E.A. and Raab, J. (2012), Connecting the dots: social network structure,
conflict, and group cognitive complexity, High Education, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 621-629.
De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N. and Dimov, D. (2009), When good conflict gets better and bad
conflict becomes worse: the role of social capital in the conflict-innovation relationship,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 283-297.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (1997), Productive conflict: the importance of conflictmanagement and conflict
issues, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and van de Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 9-23.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2006), When too much and too little hurts: evidence for a curvilinear
relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams, Journal of Management,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 83-107.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2008), The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: food for pessimistic thought,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Gelfand, M.J. (2008), Conflict in the workplace: sources, dynamics, and
functions across multiple levels of analysis, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and Gelfand, M.J. (Eds),
The Psychology of Cconflict and Conflict Management in Organizations, Lawrence
Erlbaum, New York, NY, pp. 3-54.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and van de Vliert, E. (1997), Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage Publications,
London.
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.
IJCMA De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003a), Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied
25,3 Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741-749.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003b), A contingency theory of task conflict and
performance in groups and organizational teams, in West, M.A., Tjosvold, D. and
Smith, K.G. (Eds), International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative
Working, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 151-166.
298
De Dreu, C.K.W. and West, M.A. (2001), Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of
participationin decision making, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6,
pp. 1191-1201.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Harinck, S. and van Vianen, A.E.M. (1999), Conflict and performance in groups
and organizations, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 369-414.
De Dreu, C.K.W., van Dierendonck, D. and Dijkstra, M.T.M. (2004), Conflict at work and individual
well-being, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 6-26.
De Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L. and Jehn, K.A. (2012), The paradox of introgroup conflict: a
meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 360-390.
Dijkstra, M.T.M., van Dierendonck, D., Evers, A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2005), Conflict and
well-being at work: the moderating role of personality, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 87-104.
Dougherty, D. (1992), Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms,
Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 179-202.
Dougherty, T.W., Bluedorn, A.C. and Keon, T.L. (1985), Precursors of employee turnover: a multiple
sample casual analyses, Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 259-271.
Duffy, M.K., Shaw, J.D. and Stark, E.M. (2000), Performance and satisfaction in conflicted
interdependent groups: when and how does self-esteem make a difference?, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 772-782.
Fenlason, K.J. and Beehr, T.A. (1994), Social support and occupational stress: effects of talking to
others, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 157-175.
Ferres, N., Connell, J. and Travaglione, A. (2005), The effect of future redeployment on
organizational trust, Strategic Change, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 77-92.
Fiske, A.P. (1992), The four elementary forms of sociability: framework for a unified theory of
social relations, Psychological Review, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 689-723.
Freeman, R. and Medoff, J. (1984), What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books, New York, NY.
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, The International Journal
of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 32-55.
Frone, M.R. (2000), Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: testing a model among
young workers, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 246-255.
Giebels, E. and Janssen, O. (2005), Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: the buffering
effect of third-party help, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 137-155.
Granovetter, M. (1973), The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78 No. 6,
pp. 1360-1380.
Grawitch, M.J., Munz, D.C., Elliott, E.K. and Mathis, A. (2003), Promoting creativity in temporary
problem-solving groups: the effects of positive mood and autonomy in problem definition
on idea-generating performance, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 7 Conflict in
No. 3, pp. 200-213.
Guerra, J.M., Martinez, I., Munduate, L. and Medina, F.J. (2005), A contingency perspective on the
context
study of the consequences of conflict types: the role of organizational culture, European
Journal of Work an Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-176.
Hackman, J.R. and Lawler, E.E. (1971), Employee reactions to job characteristics, Journal of
Applied Psychology Monograph, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 259-286. 299
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), Development of the job diagnostic survey, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 159-170.
Hammer, T. and Avgar, A.C. (2007), Its a Paradox: Union Workers Less Satisfied but Less Likely
to Quit (ILR Impact Brief #21), School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
Hansen, M.T. (1999), The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge
across organization subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Harris, K.J., James, M.L. and Boonthanom, R. (2005), Perceptions of organizational politics and
cooperation as moderators of the relationship between stress and intent to turnover,
Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 26-42.
Heaney, C.A., Price, R.H. and Rafferty, J. (1995), Increasing coping resources at work: a field
experiment to increase social support, improve work team functioning, and enhance
employee mental health, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 335-352.
Hoffman, D., Griffin, M. and Gavin, M. (2000), The application of hierarchical linear modeling to
organizational research, in Klein, K. and Kozlowski, S. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research,
and Methods in Organizations, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 467-511.
Hofmann, D.A. and Gavin, M.B. (1998), Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models:
implications for research in organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 623-641.
Iverson, R.D. and Currivan, D.B. (2003), Union participation, job satisfaction, and employee
turnover: an event-history analysis of the exit-voice hypothesis, Industrial Relations,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 101-105.
Janssen, P.P.M., De Jonge, J. and Bakker, A.B. (1999), Specific determinants of intrinsic work
motivation, burnout, and turnover intentions: a study among nurses, Journal of Advanced
Nursing, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1360-1369.
Jehn, K.A. (1994), Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of
value-based intragroup conflict, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 223-238.
Jehn, K.A. (1995), A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-282.
Jehn, K.A. (1997), Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: increasing performance
through value-based intragroup conflict, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and van de Vliert, E. (Eds),
Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage Publications, London, pp. 87-100.
Jehn, K.A. and Bendersky, C. (2003), Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency
perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship, in Kramer, R.M. and Staw, B. (Eds),
Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 187-242.
Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict
composition on team performance, The International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-73.
IJCMA 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
25,3 No. 2, pp. 238-251.
Jehn, K.A., Rupert, J. and Nauta, A. (2006), The effects of conflict asymmetry on mediation
outcomes: satisfaction, work motivation and absenteeism, The International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 96-109.
300 Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S. and Thatcher, S.M.B. (2010), The effects of conflict asymmetry on work
group and individual outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3,
pp. 596-616.
Jex, S.M. (1998), Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Research, and Implications for Managerial
Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Jreskog, K.G. and Srbom, D. (1993), Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command
Language, Scientific Software, Chicago, IL.
Kang, S.C., Morris, S.S. and Snell, S.A. (2007), Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and
value creation: extending the human resource architecture, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 236-256.
Karasek, R.A. (1979), Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job
redesign, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 285-308.
Karasek, R.A. and Theorell, T. (1990), Healthy Work, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Lankau, M.J. and Scandura, T.A. (2002), An investigation of personal learning in mentoring
relationships: content, antecedents and consequences, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 779-791.
Laschinger, H.K. and Leiter, M. (2006), The impact of nursing work environments on patient
safety outcomes: the mediating role of burnout engagement, Journal of Nursing
Administration, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 259-267.
Lin, N. (2001), Social Capital, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L. and Weingart, L.R. (2001), Maximizing cross-functional new product
teams innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 779-793.
Maertz, C.P. and Griffeth, R.W. (2004), Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: a
theoretical synthesis with implications for research, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 667-683.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.
Motowidlo, S.J., Packard, J.S. and Manning, M.R. (1986), Occupational stress: its causes and
consequences for job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 618-629.
Moye, N.A. and Langfred, C.W. (2004), Information sharing and group conflict: going beyond
decision making to understand the effects of information sharing on group performance,
The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 381-410.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-268.
Neuman, E. and Avgar, A. (2012), Blind spots and mirages: a dyadic approach to the study of
team conflict, CM Division, Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management, Boston,
MA.
ODriscoll, M.P. and Beehr, T. (1994), Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as Conflict in
predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 141-155. context
Parasuraman, S. and Alutto, J. (1984), Sources and outcomes of stress in organizational settings:
toward the development of a structural model, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 330-350.
Parayitam, S., Olson, B.J. and Bao, Y. (2010), Task conflict, relationship conflict and 301
agreement-seeking behavior in Chinese top management teams, The International Journal
of Conflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 94-116.
Payne, G.T., Moore, C.B., Griffis, S.E. and Autry, C.W. (2011), Multilevel challenges and
opportunities in social capital research, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 491-520.
Pelled, L.H. (1996), Demographic diversity, conflict, and workgroup outcomes: an intervening
process theory, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631.
Peterson, R.S. and Behfar, K.J. (2003), The dynamic relationship between performance feedback,
trust, and conflict in groups: a longitudinal study, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 92 Nos 1/2, pp. 102-112.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Todor, W.D. (1985), Relationships between leader reward and punishment
behavior and group processes and productivity, Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 55-73.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Porter, T.W. and Lilly, B.S. (1996), The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on project
performance, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 361-376.
Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J. and Bauer, D.J. (2006), Computational tools for probing interactions in
multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis, Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 437-448.
Prosser, D., Johnson, S., Kuipers, E., Szmukler, G., Bebbington, P. and Thornicroft, G. (1997),
Perceived sources of work stress and satisfaction among hospital and community mental
health staff and their relationship to mental health, burnout and job satisfaction, Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Putnam, R.D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon &
Schuster, New York, NY.
Quick, J.C., Quick, J.D., Nelson, D.L. and Hurrell, J.J. Jr. (1997), Preventive Stress Management in
Organizations, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S., Cheong, Y.F. and Congdon, R. (2001), HLM5: Hierarchical Linear
and Nonlinear Modeling, 2nd ed, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
Rhodes, S.R. (1983), Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: a review and
conceptual analysis, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 328-367.
Riketta, M. (2005), Organizational identification: a meta-analysis, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 358-384.
Schneider, B. (1987), The people make the place, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 437-453.
Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L. and Blum, T.C. (2009), Interactive effects of growth need strength, work
context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 489-505.
IJCMA Shaw, J.D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M.K., Scott, K.L., Shih, H.A. and Susanto, E. (2011), A contingency model of
conflict and team effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 391-400.
25,3 Sheppard, B.H. and Sherman, D.M. (1998), The grammars of trust: a model and general
implications, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 422-437.
Sheridan, J.E. and Abelson, M.A. (1983), Cusp catastrophe model of employee turnover,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 418-436.
302 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.
Skinner, B.F. (1957), Verbal Behavior, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
Spector, P.E. (1988), Development of the work locus of control scale, Journal of Occupational
Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 335-340.
Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a
controversial method, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 385-392.
Spector, P.E. (2006), Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.
Spector, P.E. and Bruk-Lee, V. (2008), Conflict, health, and well-being, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and
Gelfand, M.J. (Eds), The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY, pp. 267-188.
Spector, P.E. and Jex, S.M. (1998), Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strains: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative
workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 356-367.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A. (2005), The influence of intellectual capital on the types of
innovative capabilities, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463.
Sullivan, S.E. and Bhagat, R.S. (1992), Organizational stress, job satisfaction and job performance:
where do we go from here?, Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 353-374.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), The social identity theory of intergroup behavior, in
Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
Thoits, P.A. (1986), Social support as coping assistance, Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 416-423.
Thompson, C.A. and Prottas, D.J. (2006), Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 100-118.
Tjosvold, D. (2008), The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 19-28.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C. and Yu, Z. (2003), Conflict management and task reflexivity for team in-role
and extra-role performance in China, The International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 141-163.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-476.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T. (2000), Implications of leader-member exchange
(LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: relationships as social capital
for competitive advantage, in Ferris, G. (Ed), Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 137-185.
van Breukelen, W., van der Vlist, R. and Steensma, H. (2004), Voluntary employee turnover: Conflict in
combining variables from the traditional turnover literature with the theory of planned
behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 893-914. context
Wall, V.D. and Nolan, L.L. (1986), Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in
task-oriented groups, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1033-1052.
Youndt, M.A. and Snell, S.A. (2004), Human resource configurations, intellectual capital, and
organizational performance, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 337-360. 303
Zand, D.E. (1972), Trust and managerial problem solving, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 229-239.
Zangaro, G.A. and Soeken, K.L. (2007), A meta-analysis of studies of nurses job satisfaction,
Research in Nursing and Health, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 445-458.
Appendix
Demographics
Facility name Number of beds Number of residents Occupancy rate County/Borough
Corresponding author
Ariel Avgar can be contacted at: avgar@illinois.edu