VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND LAW

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REPORT

Project Title:

WOMEN LEADERSHIP, CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND TEAM

PERFORMANCE: A STUDY IN VIETNAM

Field of Study: Organizational Behavior

Major: Business - Business and Administration

Ho Chi Minh City, March 2023

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY - HO CHI MINH CITY

 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND LAW

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REPORT

Project Title:

WOMEN LEADERSHIP, CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND TEAM

PERFORMANCE: A STUDY IN VIETNAM

Group members:

No. Name Student ID Major Responsibility Email

International Leader duycv204021c@st.uel.edu.

1 Cao Văn Duy K204021000 Economics vn

International Member linhnht204021c@st.uel.edu

2 Nguyễn Hoài Thùy Linh K204020088 Economics .vn

International Member
Nguyễn Hồng Bảo tramnhb204021c@st.uel.ed
3 K204020110 Economics
Trâm u.vn

International Member hannnb204021c@st.uel.edu

4 Nguyễn Ngọc Bảo Hân K204020079 Economics .vn

International Member khangnm204021c@st.uel.e

5 Nguyễn Minh Khang K204020082 Economics du.vn

Ho Chi Minh City, March 2023

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 6
1.1. Rationale 6
1.2. Literature review 9
1.3. Research purpose 10
1.4. Research methods 10
1.5. Contribution, implication of research 11
1.6. Report layout 11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
12
2.1. Theoretical foundations 12
2.1.1 Gender role orientation and Leadership 12
2.1.2. Conflict and Conflict Management Style 13
2.1.3. Psychological safety climate 18
2.2. Hypothesis development 19
2.2.1. Gender role orientation and Conflict management styles 19
2.2.2 Conflict management styles and Psychological safety climate 21
2.2.3. Psychological safety climate and Team performance 26
2.2.4. Mediation 27
2.2.5. Hypothesized model 28
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS 29
3.1. Research process 29
3.1.1. Preparation 29
3.1.2. Data collection 30
3.1.3. Data analysis 32
3.2. Measurement scales 32
3.2.1. Measurement scales' format 32
3.2.2. Questionnaire design 33
3.3. Scale validation 37
3.3.1. Cronbach's Alpha: 37
3.1.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis 40
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 46
4.1. Descriptive analysis 47
4.2. Data aggregation 48
4.3. Cronbach’s Alpha 49
4.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis 52
4.5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis 56
4.6. Structural Equation Model 59
 4.7. Mediation analysis 61
4.8. Discussion 62
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 64
5.1. Contribution 64
5.2. Implication 65
5.2.1. For Organization 65
5.2.2. For Team leaders 66
5.3. Limitations and Future Directions 66
5.4. Conclusion 67
REFERENCES 68
APPENDIX 78
 LIST OF FIGURES
No. Name of Figures Page
1 Figure 2.1.Hypothesized Model 29
2 Figure 3.2. Research Flow 34
3 Figure 4.1. CFA model 60
4 Figure 4.2. SEM model 62

LIST OF TABLES
No. Name of Tables Page
1 Table 3.1. Gender Role Orientation items 35
2 Table 3.2. Conflict Management Styles items 36
3 Table 3.3. Psychological Safety Climate items 37
4 Table 3.4. Team Performance items 38
5 Table 3.5. Cronbach's alpha values of GRO and CMS 39
6 Table 3.6. Cronbach's alpha values of PSC and TP 41
7 Table 3.7. KMO and Bartlett's Test of GRO and CMS 42
8 Table 3.8. KMO and Bartlett's Test of PSC and TP 43
9 Table 3.9. The Rotated Component Matrix of GRO and CMS 43
10 Table 3.10. The Rotated Component Matrix of PSC and TPM 45
11 Table 3.11. Total Variance Explained of GRO and CMS 46
12 Table 3.12. Total Variance Explained of PSC and TPM 48
13 Table 4.1. Descriptive statistics 49
14 Table 4.2. Cronbach’ Alpha for Model 52
15 Table 4.3. KMO and Bartlett's Test 55
16 Table 4.4. Rotated Component Matrix: 55
17 Table 4.5. The Total Variance Explained 57
18 Table 4.6. Results of Discriminant Validity testing 61
19 Table 4.7. SEM results 63
20 Table 4.8. Total Effect 64
21 Table 4.9. The Indirect Effect and Direct Effect 65
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rationale

Despite the progress made in recent decades, there is still a significant gap between
the number of men and women in higher leadership roles. Almost half of the U.S. labor force
are women (47%; Catalyst, 2017). Women occupy more than half of all management and
professional positions in American organizations (51.5%; Catalyst, 2017). However, they are
underrepresented in the upper leadership ranks of America's corporations and political
system. Women make up only 5.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs (an all-time high; Brown, 2017),
and hold only 20.2% of the Fortune 500 board seats (Catalyst, 2017). In the political arena,
women currently occupy 105 of the 535 seats in the U.S. Congress (19.6%; 21% in the
Senate and 19.3% in the House of Representatives). The global average of female
representation in national legislatures or parliaments is 23.3% (Inter-Parliamentary Union,
2017).

The same trend can be observed in Vietnam. In fact, this underrepresentation and
underutilization of women leaders is more significant in Asia than in Western countries
(Kazmi, 2014). Gender equality in Vietnam has shown improvement, but women continue to
be underrepresented in higher-level leadership. The Women, Business and the Law 2021
report by the World Bank shows that Vietnam scores 80 out of 100 in the Women, Business
and the Law Index, indicating progress. However, the report also shows that women in
Vietnam are still underrepresented in senior and leadership positions, with only 25% of firms
having a female top manager. Additionally, a report by the National Assembly's Committee
for Social Affairs in 2020 found that women held only 27.3% of National Assembly seats,
which is below the target set by the government of 30%. Furthermore, a survey conducted by
the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry in 2019 found that women accounted for
only 30% of managerial positions in Vietnamese businesses. The survey also showed that
women tended to hold lower-paying jobs and were less likely to receive promotions than their
male counterparts.

These numbers depict a grim scenario of women's leadership globally and in Vietnam.
There is an invisible barrier preventing women from ascending into elite leadership positions,
which was initially dubbed the glass ceiling. The task of finding the causes of this
phenomenon has drawn much attention from researchers. The general question can be stated
as: "Why are women less represented in higher management levels in organizations?" or
"What is preventing them from climbing up to elite leadership positions?"

Since the 1980s, numerous articles dedicated to women's leadership have been
published to solve the mentioned puzzle. Discussions of women’s underrepresentation in
high-level leadership positions generally revolve around three types of explanations. The first
set of explanations highlights differences in women’s and men’s investments in human
capital. The next category of explanations considers gender differences between women and
men. The final type of explanation focuses on prejudice and discrimination against female
leaders (Eagly & Carli, 2004, 2007; Williams, 2010).

This research concentrates on examining the second category, which is the gender
differences between women and men. One argument from this perspective is that women’s
underrepresentation in elite leadership positions is due to differences in behaviors and
effectiveness. Our initial research questions were: "Do male and female leaders differ in their
behaviors?" and, if so, "Do female leaders lead more effectively than male leaders?" By
answering these questions, we hope to expand the knowledge on the potential inherent
differences between men and women in leadership roles.

1.2. Research gap

The research literature on the differences between men and women leadership found
inconsistent results. The behavior and effectiveness of male and female leaders has been
discussed by many social and organizational psychologists (Denmark, 1993; Hollander, 1992;
Eagly, 1995, 2007,...). In terms of effectiveness, in general, previous studies have not reached
a unified conclusion on whether male and female leaders are equally effective in all or certain
contexts (Eagly, 1995). In most situations, the sex of the leader or manager does make a
difference (Eagly, 1995). Research on whether female and male differ in leadership style and
behavior also has a great diversity in views. Traditionally, studies on women and men
leadership denied any differences between them (Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Kaiser & Wallace,
2016; Powell, 1990; van Engen, Leeden, & Willemsen, 2001). In contrast, meta-analyses of
research examining style differences between women and men found that gender does
determine the way one acts as a leader. Across all settings, they found one robust gender
difference which is women led in a more democratic, or participative, manner than men
(Eagly & Johnson, 1990; van Engen & Willemsen, 2004). In summary, the research
conducted on the topic of leadership differences between men and women has demonstrated
varied findings.

The inconsistencies in the research regarding gender and leadership can be attributed
to various factors, with two of the most significant listed following. Firstly, these studies have
failed to differentiate between gender role orientation and biological sex (Brewer et al., 2002;
Korabik, 1990). According to the gender role perspective (Bern, 1974; Bern & Lenney, 1976;
Spence & Helmreich, 1978), gender roles, rather than biological sex, determine how leaders
behave in certain situations (Cook, 1985). Secondly, research on the link between gender and
leadership is usually conducted on female managers, who are socialized within the
organization to become more like men (Korabik and Ayman, 1988; Brewer et al., 2002; eagly,
2007). To attain leadership positions, both men and women must demonstrate the same
required attributes and capabilities. After assuming such roles, their behaviors are influenced
by the associated expectations. The pressures for male and female leaders to be similar make
it highly likely that any differences in their leadership styles are minimal.

Acknowledging the limitations of past research on women's leadership, the present

study made two important contributions. Firstly, we chose to conduct our research at the team
level. The majority of previous studies on women's leadership have focused on female
managers in organizations. While this approach has yielded valuable insights, it also has
limitations, and there is relatively little research on leadership in group settings. By
examining female leaders' behavior and effectiveness during team processes, we hope to
contribute novel insights to the literature. Furthermore, given the prevalence of teams in
modern organizations, our focus on team-based leadership is particularly relevant. Flatter
organizational structures, with more and more teams being developed, are becoming
increasingly common, as they allow organizations to respond more rapidly to changes
(Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001, p. 452). Moreover, effective leadership is widely
recognized as the most critical factor in team success (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001, p.
452). Effective team leadership not only facilitates team success but also helps teams avoid
failure (Stagl, Salas, & Burke, 2007; Stewart & Manz, 1995). In sum, since teams are very
important in the modern world and team leaders play a pivotal role in determining the team
outcome, by studying females in team leader positions, the present research expects to
expand women leadership literature regarding their effectiveness and influence on
organization compared to men.
 Secondly, we use gender-role orientation instead of biological sex when examining
leaders in order to ensure the precision of our research. Gender-role orientation refers to the
extent to which individuals describe themselves in terms of personality traits that make up the
stereotypes for their own and the opposite sex (Archer & Lloyd, 2002). Traits that are
traditionally seen as more suitable for men than women in society are called masculine traits,
while those seen as more suitable for women than men are called feminine traits. This
approach was chosen due to the limitations of past research on gender and leadership,
specifically the failure to separate biological sex from sex-role socialization (Korabik, 1990).
Bern (1974) has presented evidence that sex-role orientation does not always conform to the
principle of biopsychological equivalence, meaning that not all males are necessarily
masculine and not all females are necessarily feminine (Korabik, 1990). For instance, a
female leader can exhibit masculine behaviors, such as self-focus and narcissism, which can
lead to similar effectiveness as a male leader. Therefore, by measuring a leader’s gender-role
orientation rather than just examining their biological sex, we aim to investigate the
differences between male and female leaders in a more precise manner.

1.2. Literature review

Conflicts within a team are inevitable. Conflict is not inherently good or bad, but the
way it is handled can significantly influence the outcome (Afzalur, 2001). When managed
effectively, conflict can lead to better team performance and cohesion; otherwise, it can
negatively affect team productivity (Dong, 2013; Song, 2006; Bass, 1990). Team leaders play
a fundamental role in dealing with conflicts. The way a team leader approaches conflicts
strongly affects the teamwork atmosphere and ultimately determines the team's performance.
For instance, if team leaders foster open and honest communication, delegate responsibilities,
and create an environment of mutual trust and respect, it can make members aware that they
are safe within teams and will not be embarrassed, rejected, or punished for expressing their
true opinions. Men and women tend to endorse conflict management strategies that
complement gender role expectations (Wachter, 1999). Regarding conflict handling, women
tend to prefer accommodating strategies more than men (Greeff and de Bruyne, 2000; Rubin
and Brown, 1975), while men usually adopt a confrontational, aggressive, and competitive
approach to conflict (Rosenthal and Hautaluoma, 1988; Kilman and Thomas, 1977; Rubin
and Brown, 1975). A theoretical explanation for the relationship between gender roles and
the behavior of leaders can be drawn from the socialization theory. The theory asserts that
individuals manifest congruent gender role stereotypical personality traits and behaviors that
are not readily amenable to change (Bonita, 1994).

Psychological safety climate is another vital factor for a team's success. It is defined
as the "shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking" (Edmondson, 1999)..
Perceptions of a psychological safety climate originate from the trust and respect among
employees, which allows them to speak up without fear of punishment or embarrassment.
Empirical research has consistently found a positive correlation between psychological safety
climate and team performance, team learning behavior, and other valuable outcomes
(Newman, 2017). Social learning theory provides a significant explanation for the
relationship between the team leader's conflict management style and the psychological
safety climate. According to this theory, by listening to and supporting subordinates and
providing clear and consistent directions, leaders can model a safe environment for
risk-taking (e.g., Hirak et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2014; Nemanich & Vera, 2009; Walumbwa &
Schaubroeck, 2009).

1.3. Research purpose

Although our contribution may be modest, our purpose is to support the advancement
of women leaders by exploring the differences in behavior and effectiveness between female
and male leaders, while acknowledging the limitations of past research.

Our study attempt to answer two general research questions, including:

(1) Is there a relationship between a team leader's gender-role orientation and their
conflict management style?

(2) Does the way in which leaders handle conflicts shape the team's psychological
safety climate and ultimately affect team performance?

1.4. Research methods

The authors utilized the quantitative research methodology, which involved the
implementation of a structured questionnaire consisting of predetermined response options to
gather data from the target sample population. Online questionnaires were designed and
distributed to participants to collect data and provide persuasive evidence to either support or
reject the hypothesis under investigation.

- Sample size: 188 teams (628 individuals)

 - Research scope and subjects: undergraduate students in Ho Chi Minh city.

- Research instruments: Google Form for collecting data, SPSS 20 and AMOS 20 for
data analysis.

In this study, the researchers employed Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to establish the suitability of the latent constructs under
investigation. Furthermore, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques were utilized to
test hypotheses.

1.5. Contribution, implication of research

The study examines the influence of gender role orientation (GRO) on leadership,
conflict management styles (CMS), psychological safety climate (PSC), and team
performance (TPM). The research makes a significant contribution to the existing literature
by filling the gap in the study of women leader behavior, responding to the call for
cross-cultural, multilevel research, and extending the findings about the relationships between
GRO, CMS, PSC, and TPM. The study separates GRO from biological sex and explores the
effect of the dyadic level on the group level. The research also highlights the importance of
psychological safety in promoting team performance.

The findings of the research carry certain implications. From an organizational

perspective, the study helps predict team dynamics, conflict resolution behavior, and PSC.
The study’s implication for team leaders is to raise their awareness of team dynamics, their
gender-role orientation, and the importance of psychological safety. The study finds that male
leaders should reduce their masculine terms and strengthen their femininity, while female
leaders should remain true to their gender orientation and practice feminine behaviors to
positively affect team success by increasing PSC. Finally, leaders need to regularly assess the
team’s psychological safety climate to increase their ability to accomplish goals efficiently.
1.6. Report layout

Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an overview of the research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Hypothesis Development. This chapter presents a

comprehensive summary of previous research on relevant constructs in the study. The
theoretical foundations of GRO, CMS, PSC, and TPM will be briefly reviewed, followed by a
theory-based argument for the relationships hypothesized in the model.

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methods. This chapter discusses the data collection
process, sampling methodology, participant recruitment, and data analysis procedures.

Chapter 4: Results. This chapter presents and discusses the results obtained from the data
analysis process. Conclusions about whether the hypotheses are supported or rejected are
drawn in this section.

Chapter 5: Conclusion. This chapter provides implications for various aspects based on the
findings of the study. It also points out the limitations of the research and suggests future
directions for further studies. Finally, the chapter highlights the contribution that the present
study has made to the current literature.
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

In this chapter, we'll provide an in-depth overview of previous research on relevant

topics that are studied. We'll briefly discuss the theoretical bases of Gender-role orientation
(GRO), Conflict management styles (CMS), Psychological safety climate (PSC), Team
performance (TPM), followed by a logical explanation for the connections that are proposed
in the model.

2.1. Theoretical foundations

2.1.1 Gender role orientation and Leadership

As efforts to eliminate gender inequality as well as properly recognize the practical

contributions of women have paid off, the presence of female leaders in all fields and
professions has significantly increased. But the problem they face has never been completely
solved when they are always subject to doubts with big questions when taking on the job of
the head of the organization, such as: Why are there so few women leadership? Are women's
leadership styles different from men's? If different, does it lead to better performance?

Research on women leadership is a valuable topic that has been receiving much
attention from scientific researchers. Even so, studies aimed at explaining the differences
between women and men when it comes to leadership are often placed within organizational
settings, the scope within a team is still underexploited. Teamwork appeared in life much
earlier than it was in the past. Now, while in an academic environment, students have access
to teamwork and problem solving on a team basis. We would like to contribute to the limited
science research of women leadership at team level.

Gender-roles, which represent the proper social functions for both sexes, are a result of
gender stereotypes (Eagly & Steffen, 1984). Gender-Role Orientation (GRO) is the extent to
which an individual identifies with specific personal beliefs, values, self-concepts, social
behaviors, and professional decisions that are congruent with socially generated gender
stereotypes (Beutel & Marini, 1995; Abele, 2003). According to Garcia-Leiva (2005),
gender-role orientation is a dynamic and multi-cause phenomenon in which the subject
actively participates in the ongoing interplay between biology and environment. Biology and
the environment are inseparable from one another.

Past research said that research on women leaders should use gender-role orientation
rather than biological sex. “The premise underlying the sex differences literature is that
socialization practices have encouraged the development of personality traits and behavior
patterns in women which are antithetic to the managerial role (Riger and Galligan, 1980).
However, researchers have failed to separate biological sex from sex-role socialization in
their research designs”. In 1974, Bern presented evidence that sex-role orientation does not
conform to the principle of biopsychological equivalence; not all males are masculine nor are
all females feminine.

Sandra Bem developed the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) as a tool to divide people
into several gender categories and assess their gender-role orientation (1974). Her suggestion
provides a different critique of the one bipolar dimension that has so far been embraced by
both femininity and masculinity. Bem claims that it's possible for these qualities to coexist in
an individual. She disproved the notion that there is a close relationship between sex
(men/women) and gender (masculine/feminine) (Watson & Newby, 2005). She established
four gender categories: masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated, based on
various combinations of an individual's levels of male and feminine qualities.

Although the concept of women leadership has been discussed frequently in the
management literature and appears to have received universal acceptance, we would like to
help draw attention to the research on the subject. The studies conducted offer compelling
evidence that leadership style is a function of sex-role orientation rather than biological sex.

2.1.2. Conflict and Conflict Management Style

Overview of Conflict

Conflict can be defined as the behavior of a person or group, intended to inhibit the
attainment of goals by another person or group (Graham, 2009; Al-Ajmi, 2007). Conflict can
be the result of a difference in opinions, or a perception that one’s needs and desires are not
going to be met. It involves a sense of interpersonal hostilities and incompatibility (Simons &
Peterson, 2000). Because of temperamental reasons, political norms and beliefs, or
interpersonal problems, team members may dislike or get along with one another (de Dreu &
Weingart, 2003). Conflict is typically associated with an emotional aspect based on a
perception of mutual incompatibility, and it generally includes tension, annoyance, and
animosity among people (Jehn, 1995). Although the current study concentrated on conflict in
teams, conflict is a universal phenomena that pervades almost all facets of social life due to
the difficulties in getting individuals to cooperate (Bradford, Stringfellow, & Weitz, 2004;
Simons & Peterson, 2000).
 Most people agree that teams may benefit from some task-related conflict (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001), but no one loves to be criticized or disputed (Ensley, Pearson, & Amason,
2002). One tends to feel that people don't respect their judgment or conclusion when they see
that their thoughts are being challenged (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). People typically
experience anger and resentment when criticized, according to both common observation and
scientific evidence (Baron, 1998). People who detest and find their team members
bothersome tend to attribute negative traits to them, which can lead to a self-fulfilling
prophecy of mutual animosity and escalated conflict over time (Janssen, van de Vliert, &
Veenstra, 1999). Therefore, conflict is “interpersonal disharmony reflected in tension,
animosity, and annoyance among group members” (Randel, 2002, p. 753). Research on
conflict management (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001) that concentrated on the ways
in which individuals can “proactively and reactively deal with [i.e. reduce] conflict” (LePine,
Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008, p. 276) when working in teams provides implicit
support for our conceptualization of conflict. Likewise, the macro literature in management
encourages firms to make an attempt to decrease conflict in their relationships with other
organizations (Zhou, Zuang, & Yip, 2007).

Conflict Management Styles

Conflict is a significant part of teams, but its effects very much depend upon how it is
managed. Depending on a variety of factors, such as the leaders’ conflict management style,
the nature of the conflict, the perceptions of team members when dealing with conflict, and
so on, conflicts among team members may be either constructive or destructive on the
performance of the team (Wu et al., 2017).

However, there are other conflict-handling approaches that people can use in
professional or personal interactions with others (Chiocchio, Forgues, Paradis, & Iordanova,
2011; Kleinman, Palmon, & Lee, 2003; Wu et al., 2017). Efficient styles facilitate conflict
resolution, improve job consistency, encourage team members' emotions of self-efficacy,
reduce the likelihood of unfavorable conflicts in the future, and also contribute to a
company's long-term financial growth (Wu et al., 2017; Cheung & Chuah, 1999; Rubin,
Pruitt, & Kim, 1994).

These theories expand on Blake and Mouton's 1964 ground-breaking classification of

conflict-managing strategies into five categories: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing,
compromising, and confronting. The authors further classified these five tactics into two
categories, namely (1) concern for people and (2) concern for tasks, both of which are related
to the behavior of the team leader. In 1976, Thomas analyzed and improved Blake and
Mouton's approaches for resolving disputes in team settings. (Rahim & Magner, 1995).
Thomas divided the ways people deal with conflict into five categories and established two
key dimensions: (1) cooperativeness, in which people's concerns for their peers are higher,
and (2) assertiveness, in which people's concerns for themselves are more important.

Therefore, we identify two key methods to managing conflict, building on Deutsch's

(1973, 1980) theory of cooperation and competition. These techniques have been considered
as conflict-management styles. Conflict, according to Deutsch, is the result of opposing
behaviors where one person's actions interfere with, obstruct, or in some other ways make the
conduct of another less effective. He claimed that the dynamics and results of conflict are
significantly altered depending on whether protagonists emphasize cooperative or
competitive aims is supported by social psychological research (Deutsch, 1980, 1990).
Organizational contexts have been included in studies of the cooperative-competitive conflict
approach (Alper et al., 2000; Barker et al., 1988).

Cooperative Approach to Conflict Management

Deutsch (1990) proposed a scenario in which people value the competencies and
alternatives of their peers, which typically leads to the achievement of cooperative goals and
transparent communication when handling conflict. The term “interdependence in conflict
management” refers to this situation (Tjosvold et al., 2001).

A cooperative style shows concern for others in addition to oneself. As a result, it is a

problem-solving approach that confronts differences in a positive way. It makes an effort to
come up with a decision that will satisfy both parties. It is a win-win style, making it the
preferable method of addressing conflict.

People are more likely to be encouraged to deal with conflict collaboratively if they
feel as though they require the skills, perspectives, and resources of others. Consequently,
they might also get to the point where it would be important to settle disputes amicably for
the benefit of both parties in order to maintain a long-term partnership and be able to continue
working together effectively. Cooperative conflict managers are more adept at handling
conflict and are even regarded as more successful leadership. Furthermore, it could also be
said that reciprocal dependency promotes cooperative conflict management, which may lead
to enhanced project collaboration. According to empirical research, cooperative conflict
management has also been found to increase views of fair treatment among individuals in
collectivist societies like China, which in turn improves team performance, according to
empirical research (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002).

A cooperative style promotes open-minded engagements to comprehend competing

notions, assimilate opposing views, generate acceptable alternatives, and enhance
interpersonal ties in order to create win-win scenarios. This leads to solutions that are
beneficial to both parties (Walton & McKersie, 1965). By focusing on their shared objectives,
team members might adopt a cooperative conflict resolution method. They will show that
they want to benefit from an activity for all parties, that they want to hear everyone's
opinions, and that they are willing to include various proposals in order to come up with a
solution that benefits both parties (Deutsch, 1990; Tjosvold, 1985). Ayoko (2016) and
Sanders & Schyns (2006) stated that open communication, consideration of others, mutual
understanding, and formation of compromises are characteristics of the cooperative style
(Ayoko, 2016; Sanders & Schyns, 2006).

High team performance and desirable individual behavior are seen to be promoted by
a cooperative approach to conflict management (Tjosvold, Poon, & Yu, 2005). Additionally,
teams that can resolve disputes amicably are also able to raise their own performance
(Tjosvold, Hui, & Yu, 2003). Cooperative approaches to conflict management are specifically
said to lead to expressions of individual pleasure with being a member of the team, team
efficacy, boosts to invention and creativity, and greater goal achievement (Tjosvold, 2008).
Cooperative conflict management then results in productive conflict.

The team members are certain that they will use their disagreements to create superior
solutions and reinforce their bonds. The team’s effectiveness is confirmed by the fact that
team members have successfully managed their disagreements.

The fundamental steps in cooperative conflict resolution are for team members to
directly express their thoughts and feelings, consider the viewpoints of others, convey a
desire to resolve the problem for both parties, and integrate their ideas to generate innovative
solutions (Tjosvold, 1998). The development of productive conflict, when team members are
confident they use their disagreements to solve problems and enhance their relationships, is
aided by repeated instances of efficient conflict resolution. High levels of constructive
conflict in top management teams may be able to offer innovative strategy leadership.

Competitive Approach to Conflict Management

 By contrast to cooperative approach, competitive conflict increases independence
among team members. A win-lose situation has been associated with a competitive style
(high care for self and low regard for others). (Deutsch, 1990). As one succeeds, the other
slips away from achieving the goal. Protagonists might also emphasize their competitive
interests. They frequently view the conflict as a win-lose contest; if the other wins, they lose.
This is a confrontational strategy that ends with one side caving in to the other. Yang, Cheng,
and Chuang (2013) listed some of the tactics that are frequently employed in this style,
including attempts to seize control of communication channels, direct communication with
regard to the issues, persistent disagreement with other parties’ opinions, and remaining
rooted to one’s own position.

The focus on competing interests makes it more likely for people to avoid having a
direct conversation or, alternately, causes them to have a hard, narrow conversation and try to
force the other person to do what they want. These dynamics are detrimental to relationships
and decision-making. Communication is restricted by competitive conflict, which leads to
impasses or forced solutions.

Low levels of constructive conflict then result from competitive conflict. Members of
the team come to the conclusion that they have not improved their relationships and solved
difficulties via their disagreements. The team is unproductive because they lack belief in their
capacity to manage disagreements.

This strategy is generally used by managers or team leaders to push their ideas or
viewpoints on their subordinates, and the dispute frequently has unfavorable outcomes. Such
leaders place a strong emphasis on their competitive objectives, which may cause others to
drift from achieving the project goal. They have a tendency to view confrontation as a
lose-win situation: if the other wins, they lose. As a result, the most dominant party in the
conflict will impose their opinion, which discourages productive communication. According
to De Dreu and Gelfand (2008), Prieto-Remo et al. (2015), and Tjosvold (2008), people who
place a greater emphasis on independence and a lesser emphasis on interdependence may
favor a competitive style of conflict resolution because it increases the likelihood of
perceived maximum personal gain rather than the benefit of win-win situations.

2.1.3. Psychological safety climate

The concept of psychological safety is the degree to which individuals feel

comfortable and confident in their capacity to manage change or "shared belief that the team
is safe for interpersonal risk taking" (Edmondson, 1999). The foundation for the
psychological safety concept is the groundbreaking organizational transformation research
done by Schein and Bennis in 1965. The degree to which people feel safe and confident in
their capacity to manage change is how they defined it. Since then, other scholars have
investigated what psychological safety in the workplace actually means.

Psychological safety climate plays a crucial role in creating a positive team dynamic
and enhancing team performance (Newman, 2017; Nembhard, 2006;...). When employees
feel safe and comfortable expressing their thoughts and ideas, they are more likely to be
engaged, creative, and productive (Hmieleski, 2012; Detert, 2007) . Conversely, when
employees feel unsupported, ignored, or afraid to speak up, they tend to withdraw, become
disengaged, and may even leave the team (Carmeli, 2019; Nembhard, 2006). Psychological
safety climate is closely linked to trust and respect among team members. Team members
who feel respected are more likely to take risks, offer ideas, and share feedback that can lead
to better decision-making and performance outcomes (Edmondson, A. C., 1999). Leaders
play a critical role in establishing a psychological safety climate in their teams (Newman,
2017). Leaders who model a safe environment for risk-taking by listening to and supporting
their subordinates, providing clear and consistent direction, and managing conflict in a
constructive way, can positively impact their team's psychological safety climate
(Edmondson, A. C., 2018). This can lead to better team performance, higher levels of
engagement, and greater overall success (Kozlowski, 2013; Edmondson, 2007).In conclusion,
a psychological safety climate is an essential component of a successful team. It creates an
environment where employees feel respected, supported, and free to take risks and express
their ideas without fear of punishment or embarrassment. Leaders can play a critical role in
establishing a psychological safety climate by modeling the desired behaviors, managing
conflicts constructively, and providing clear and consistent direction to their teams.

2.2. Hypothesis development

2.2.1. The link between leader’s Gender role orientation and Conflict management styles

Socialization theory

According to socialization theory, people exhibit stereotypical personality traits and

behaviors that are consistent with gender roles, such as problem-solving, avoiding conflict,
and negotiating, that are challenging to change. According to this viewpoint, women who are
socialized to display stereotypical feminine traits will likewise conduct in a more
stereotypically feminine manner. Gender role orientation is an efficient explanation and
prediction of specific behavior (Arkkelin & Simmons, 1985). Results from psychological
studies, especially those conducted before the 1980s, suggest that men and women tend to
support conflict resolution techniques that are consistent with gender role expectations
(Wachter, 1999).

Studies on sex variations in conflict management style are flawed due to the
assumption that biological sex is equivalent to gender roles (Korabik, 1990). Early conflict
management studies using the Prisoner's Dilemma Matrix in laboratories with brief
interactions with strangers may lead to conduct that aligns with male-female stereotypes
(Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Gender role theory identifies two gender roles: the communal
(feminine) gender role emphasizing helping others and maintaining relationships, and the
agentic (masculine) gender role emphasizing forceful behavior for oneself and independence
(Bakan, 1966; Bem, 1974; Eagly & Wood, 2011; Eagly et al., 2000).

Studies on the subject of gender and conflict management style in superior-subordinate

interactions are ambiguous and contradictory. However, it's possible to get better results by
including gender role orientations as a variable. For instance, regardless of their biological
sex, people who have a feminine gender role orientation may fit with a certain conflict style.
Brewer et al. discovered a connection between conflict style and gender role orientations, as
was already indicated, but they failed to look at relationships between team leader and team
member. The essential next step is to determine whether gender role orientations and conflict
style in superior-subordinate relationships are related.

Hypothesis 1. Team leader’s gender-role orientation directly affects team leader’s

conflict management style

The link between leader’s feminine GRO and CMS

In terms of the gender roles perspective, competitive or dominating behavior (high

concern for self) seems to be consistent with a masculine gender role, whereas obliging and
avoiding behavior (low concern for self) seems to be consistent with a feminine gender role.
Individuals that have a high level of concern for both themselves and others are believed to
have integrating and compromising conflict management styles, which both reflect
stereotypically masculine and feminine behavior (Bern & Lenney, 1976; Portello & Long,
1994).
 Several researchers have explored the relationship between gender roles and conflict
management styles. These studies have revealed that (a) feminine individuals tend to
disapprove of conflict more than masculine and androgynous individuals (Baxter &
Shepherd, 1978), and (b) masculine individuals are more likely to exhibit a competitive or
dominating style of conflict management (Portello & Long, 1994). It is clear that gender roles
do not follow the principle of biopsychological equivalency (Korabik, 1990), which suggests
that earlier investigations into the relationship between biological sex and conflict
management in organizational settings may require reevaluation.

Shimanoff (2009) and Bem (1974) suggest that the abilities and attitudes that each
gender acquires change how they communicate and are perceived throughout interactions.
Traditional female gender roles include being accommodating, unselfish, emotional, gentle,
concerned with the welfare of others, and relationship-oriented. In contrast, traditional male
gender roles encompass competitiveness, confidence, logic, independence, assertiveness, and
profit- and result-orientation (Eagly and Wood, 2012; Mueller and Dato-On, 2008). In other
words, "women are socialized to place greater emphasis on relationships and community,
whereas men place primary emphasis on maintaining independence and achieving status"
(Gilligan, 1982; Rubin, 1983).

Based on the above analysis, the following hypotheses are established:

Hypothesis 1a. Higher feminine gender-role orientation leads to more use of

cooperative conflict management styles.

Hypothesis 1b. Higher feminine gender-role orientation leads to less use of

competitive conflict management styles.

Hypothesis 1c. Higher masculine gender-role orientation leads to more use of

competitive conflict management styles.

Hypothesis 1d. Higher masculine gender-role orientation leads to less use of

cooperative conflict management styles.

2.2.2 The link between Conflict management styles and Psychological safety climate

Social exchange theory (SET) and Social learning theory

Currently, researchers have mostly embraced theoretical perspectives such Social

Exchange Theory (SET) and Social Learning Theory to describe the mechanisms by which
psychological safety develops, particularly through the benefits of supportive leadership
behaviors. Researchers have looked at how team members' collective perceptions of the team
leader's support and coaching (Edmondson, 1999; Roberto, 2002), inclusiveness (Hirak et al.,
2012; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006), trust in the leader (Li & Tan, 2012; Schaubroeck,
Lam, & Peng, 2011), and behavioral integrity (Leroy et al., 2012) have been found to foster
team-level outcomes such as team performance, participation in quality improvement
projects, and a decrease in team member errors due to the increase of psychological safety. It
was established that leaders who value participation, people, and have an improvement
orientation management style (Halbesleben & Rathert, 2008), are able to foster high levels of
psychological safety. According to Halbesleben & Rathert, 2008, high levels of psychological
safety can be fostered by leaders who value participation, people, and an
improvement-oriented management style.

Schneider et al. (2013) defined the “climate” in team as the concept focuses on
behaviors, operations, and practices, so a leader's conflict management approach creates a
climate that focuses on shared perceptions of the leader's conflict management practices and
behaviors within specific “workgroups” that employees belong to, regularly interact with to
accomplish goals, and feel a sense of affiliation with (Anderson and West, 1998). We contend
that the workgroup's observation of the supervisor's response to conflict will result in shared
perceptions of their supervisor's conflict management style or a workgroup-level climate
following the leader's conflict management, given that supervisors are typically the
organizationally sanctioned individuals responsible for establishing and enforcing behavioral
rules and expectations within their workgroup. (Kirsten A. Way, Nerina L, & Jimmieson,
Prashant Bordia, 2016).

Prior research has mainly relied on basic assumptions from Social Learning Theory to
explain why a clear correlation may exist between supportive leadership behaviors and
psychological safety (Bandura, 1977). Following this theory, experts state that a leader can
educate followers that it is acceptable to take risks and communicate honestly by listening to
them, offering them encouragement, and giving them detailed guidelines (Hirak et al., 2012;
Liu et al., 2014; Nemanich & Vera, 2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Other
researchers, however, argue that social exchange processes (also known as social exchange
theory) may be what underlies the connection between supportive leadership and
psychological safety. They asserted that when followers feel supported by a leader, they will
reciprocate by acting in a supportive manner as well, creating a psychologically safe
environment for the rest of their team (Schaubroeck et al., 2011).

While we recognize that the social exchange process may increase psychological
safety, we believe that the effects are more likely to be stronger and longer-lasting when
psychological safety is built through learning and imitating these behaviors from the leader,
rather than by displaying them temporarily in exchange for certain leadership behaviors.
Therefore, leaders may create work settings that maximize good outcomes for their teams by
understanding the advantages that psychological safety offers to teams, the circumstances in
which psychological safety is most impactful, and the elements that may lead to
psychological safety development.

The link between CMS and PSC

In practice, conflict management styles (CMS) have been the subject of in-depth study
for many years. According to studies, integrating, obliging, and compromising styles of
conflict resolution, which demonstrate greater concern for others, typically produce positive
results in the workplace, whereas uncooperative or competitive styles, such as avoiding and
dominating, typically result in unfavorable results (Meyer, 2004; Ohbuchi and Kitanaka,
1991; Rahim and Buntzman, 1989; Weider-Hatfield and Hatfield, 1996). Various outcomes of
subordinates, including work happiness, supervision satisfaction, relationships between
supervisors and subordinates, long-term collaboration, and attitudinal and behavioral
compliance, are linked to managers' CMS (Alexander, 1995; Blake and Mouton, 1964;
Follett, 1940; Rahim, 1986; Thomas and Kilmann, 1974; Weider-Hatfield and Hatfield,
1996).

Prior studies on the function of CMSs focused mostly on employee behaviors and
individual (team) performance (Costa, Passos, Bakker, 2015; Alper, Tjosvold, Law, 2000).
Many academics have recently started to concentrate on the office climate's team dynamics
(Tjosvold; Hui; Yu, 2003). According to team environment perception, team psychological
safety (Johnson; Avolio, 2019), can influence team members' willingness to propose novel
ideas and approaches. Some researchers investigate the relationship between conflict
management and psychological safety. In order to determine the greater contribution of
conflict management to team growth, it is vital to consider the relationship between conflict
management and psychological safety inside teams.
 According to social cognition theory, people can influence the environment by their
own arbitrary traits, such behavior. A team leader's conflict management approach can
influence the normal team climate of psychological safety as a type of leadership behavior.
Mutual trust and respect foster an environment wherein members feel comfortable speaking
openly without fear of retaliation or embarrassment (Johnson; Avolio, 2019). Nembhard and
Edmondson (2006) suggested that the feelings of psychological safety are contributed by
leader behaviors. Edmondson (2004) proposes that leaders who demonstrate openness,
availability, and accessibility are more likely to encourage the growth of psychological safety
among workers. By emphasizing the importance of such actions and reassuring followers that
there won't be any negative effects, leaders can motivate followers to propose novel ideas and
take calculated risks. Leadership is able to communicate such expectations when it is open,
accessible, and available. Employees are more likely to feel comfortable sharing new ideas
without worrying about the repercussions when the leader is approachable, attentive to their
feedback, open to discussing alternative methods for attaining the organization's goals, and
alert to emerging opportunities. In a similar vein, leaders that are approachable and accessible
to their workforce convey to workers that approaching them is safe and that they will be open
to working with them to find innovative solutions to problems. Other research that referred to
actions that reflect leader benevolence (e.g., genuine caring and concern for the follower) and
leader support to increase trust, are also compatible with Edmondson's (2004) theory
concerning such qualities of leadership as openness, availability, and accessibility (Burke et
al., 2007). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that high-quality interpersonal connections
promote the growth of psychological safety (Carmeli et al., 2009; Carmeli and Gittell, 2009;
Puccinelli and Tickle-Degnen, 2005). Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) discovered that
members generated a sense of psychological safety when they believed their leaders valued
and invited their contribution. This safety stems from the fact that people feel confident
speaking up and expressing themselves.

According to Edmondson (2004), the development of trustworthy relationships among

organizational members can be crucial to creating a sense of psychological safety. She
specifically contends that staff members are more likely to speak honestly about their ideas
and opinions when they trust their managers. By contrast, if staff members lack confidence in
their managers, they are more likely to feel “judged” or “monitored” and to hold back on
speaking up out of concern for their reputation (Edmondson, 2004). Similar opinions have
been stated by other researchers. According to May et al. (2004), high levels of trust, which
represent a particular relationship in which people demonstrate care and concern for their
partners (McAllister, 1995), can be crucial in fostering a feeling of psychological security.
Kahn (1990, p. 708) also discovered that “interpersonal interactions enhanced psychological
safety when they were encouraging and trusting”. The findings of this study demonstrated
that when employees trusted their leaders, they were more likely to offer concepts and
suggestions for designs.

In conclusion, high levels of psychological safety can be fostered by leaders that value
participation, people, and production and who utilize dyadic discovery methods rather than
group-based ones (Roussin, 2008; Wong, Tjosvold, & Lu, 2010) and an improvement
oriented management style (Halbesleben & Rathert, 2008).

Hypothesis 2. Team leaders’s conflict management style directly affects team

psychological safety climate.

Cooperative Conflict Management Style and Psychological Safety Climate

A climate of trust, which results through cooperative CMS, may show to be a

significant predictor of psychological safety, according to research by Madjar and
Ortiz-Walters (2009). Members’ feelings of psychological safety are likely to be enhanced by
the leader's cooperative CMS. In order to find the best resolution for all parties involved, it
employs cooperative behaviors designed to pursue win - win solutions, focuses on shared
points and goals rather than individual interests, and involves working through the conflict
with flexibility, open communication, and information exchange (West and Hirst, 2005). For
instance, members are more willing to take risks that reflect their genuine selves when they
feel psychologically safe. Team members should actively show interest in their work and
experiment with creative ways to complete tasks related to their roles (Amabile, 1983; May et
al., 2004).

Team leaders that use a cooperative conflict management approach send out the
message that their members have interests in common and shared aims. Leaders of the team
encourage team members to provide solutions that will benefit both parties through effective
communication and discussion. It can promote psychological safety inside teams by letting
team members know that they are safe there and won't face consequences for expressing their
genuine ideas. We propose the following hypothesis in light of the analyses above:

Hypothesis 2a. Team leader’s cooperative conflict management style positively

affects the psychological safety climate.
 Competitive Conflict Management Style and Psychological Safety Climate

By contrast to cooperative conflict management style, team leaders who adopt

competitive conflict management styles are more likely to force their own preferences on
team members.They also find it difficult to tolerate when team members' preferences differ
from their own. According to Aritzeta et al. (2005, p. 163), under this conflict-handling
approach, “others' feelings and interests are neglected”, and in actuality, this perspective of
conflict sees only winners and losers. The issue with this type of conflict management is that
it fosters animosity and resentment.

In the long-term, it leads to a reaction as people become less willing to bear the
emotional cost and attempt to weaken the authoritarian leader's support system (Whetten &
Cameron, 2005). As a result, team members are reluctant to disagree with team leaders for
fear of being humiliated, rejected, or penalized. After the situation of suppressed team
members' inner beliefs being voiced decreasingly, the team loses vibrancy and vitality,
making it harder to come up with innovative ideas and plans. The competitive conflict
management style of the team leader has also been shown repeatedly in academic studies to
have a negative influence on the psychological safety of the team, which eventually has a
negative impact on the team's performance. (Yin, J., Qu, M., Li, M., and Liao, G., 2022).
Therefore, the following is the hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2b. Team leader’s competitive conflict management style negatively

affects the psychological safety climate.

2.2.3. The link between Psychological safety climate and Team performance

Numerous studies have consistently demonstrated that psychological safety is a key

factor in enabling team performance (Edmondson, 2014). Edmondson (1999) provided a
team learning model and tested it in a multimethod field investigation. It introduces the
concept of team psychological safety—a shared belief held by team members that the team is
safe for taking interpersonal risks. Additionally this model indicated the impacts of team
psychological safety and team efficacy on learning and performance in organizational work
teams. According to Schaubroeck et al. (2011), team psychological states and factors related
to leader trust fully moderated the effects of leader conduct on team performance. The
researchers examined the significance of these findings for studies on the link between team
performance and leader behavior as well as for initiatives to improve leader development by
fusing insights from several leadership theories.
 Aside from the direct influence of PSC on team performance (Schaubroeck et al.,
2011; Baer & Frese, 2003; Edmondson, 1999), the association between PSC and team
performance may be explained further through team-level learning behavior (Edmondson,
1999). Sanner and Bunderson (2013) Brueller and Carmeli (2011), Edmondson (1999), Hirak
et al. (2012), Huang and Jiang (2012), Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011), and Ortega et al.
(2014) identified an indirect influence of psychological safety on team performance through
team learning in their meta-analysis. As an explanation, Edmondson (2014) stated that a
psychologically safe climate enables divergent thinking, creativity, and risk taking and
motivates engagement in exploratory and exploitative learning, thereby promoting team
performance.

Larson and LaFasto (1989) conducted research on effective teams and found that,
regardless of their form, successful teams exist. Among the eight features studied, the
collaborative atmosphere was found to have a positive impact on team performance. The
capacity of a team to collaborate or work together effectively is essential for optimal team
performance. A collaborative climate is one in which members can remain focused on the
problem at hand, listen to and comprehend each other, take risks without fear of
repercussions, and be willing to make amends for mistakes (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). The
definition of group PSC overlaps with the description of the collaborative environment in the
book by Larson & LaFasto. PSC is the degree to which individuals feel comfortable and
confident in their ability to manage change or "share the belief that the group is safe to take
interpersonal risks." Therefore, we believe that PSC will affect the team performance.

From all above arguments, we claim that:

Hypothesis 3. Higher Psychological safety climate leads to higher team

performance.

2.2.4. Mediating role of Conflict management styles and Psychological safety climate:

This study proposes that the conflict management style of a team leader serves as a useful
mediator to understand how feminine and masculine leaders influence the psychological
safety climate (PSC) of their team, and as a result, affect team performance. Previous
research has highlighted the significance of team leaders' supportive and cooperative
behaviors in promoting PSC (Newman, 2017). According to socialization theory, leaders with
expressive traits (high in femininity) are more likely to adopt collaborative, participative, and
supportive behaviors, particularly when dealing with conflicts, than instrumental leaders
(high in masculinity). Consequently, teams with feminine leaders are expected to score higher
in PSC compared to teams with masculine leaders.

Several studies have shown that team leaders' conflict management style has a
significant impact on team performance (Dong, 2013; Song, 2006; Desivilya, 2010).
Effective conflict management styles, such as cooperative, compromising, and integrating,
have been found to enhance team performance. We hypothesize that the effect of conflict
management styles on team performance can be explained by examining PSC as an
intervening variable. As discussed earlier, PSC plays a vital role in determining team
effectiveness by allowing members to freely express their opinions and take risks. Thus, the
approach that a team leader takes when dealing with a conflict can shape the team's PSC.

Specifically, based on our earlier arguments, we theorize the following mediation

effects - team leaders with high femininity scores are expected to adopt more cooperative
conflict management styles, whereas team leaders with high masculinity scores are expected
to adopt more competitive conflict management styles. Cooperative conflict management
styles are proposed to lead to high levels of PSC, resulting in high levels of team
performance. On the other hand, competitive conflict management styles are expected to
harm the team's PSC, ultimately lowering team performance.

Stated formally as:

Hypothesis 4a: Both cooperative and competitive CMS mediate the relationship between
leader’s feminine GRO and PSC (With higher feminine GRO leads to more use of
cooperative CMS and less use of competitive CMS, which leads to higher PSC).

Hypothesis 4b: Both cooperative and competitive CMS mediate the relationship between
leader’s masculine GRO and PSC (With higher masculine GRO leads to more use of
competitive CMS and less use of cooperative CMS, which leads to lower PSC).

Hypothesis 5a: PSC mediates the relationships between cooperative CMS and team
performance (With more use of cooperative CMS leads to higher PSC and higher team
performance).

Hypothesis 5b: PSC mediates the relationships between competitive CMS and team
performance (With more use of competitive CMS leads to lower PSC and lower team
performance).
2.2.5. Hypothesized model

All the suggested hypotheses form the research model below

Figure 2.1. Hypothesized Model

Hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Team leader’s gender-role orientation directly affects team leader’s

conflict management style

Hypothesis 1a. Higher feminine gender-role orientation leads to more use of

cooperative conflict management styles.

Hypothesis 1b. Higher feminine gender-role orientation leads to less use of

competitive conflict management styles.

Hypothesis 1c. Higher masculine gender-role orientation leads to more use of

competitive conflict management styles.

Hypothesis 1d. Higher masculine gender-role orientation leads to less use of

cooperative conflict management styles.

Hypothesis 2. Team leaders’s conflict management style directly affects team

psychological safety climate.

Hypothesis 2a. Team leader’s cooperative conflict management style positively affects
the psychological safety climate.
Hypothesis 2b. Team leader’s competitive conflict management style negatively affects
the psychological safety climate.

Hypothesis 3. Higher Psychological safety climate leads to higher team performance.

Hypothesis 4a: Both cooperative and competitive CMS mediate the relationship
between leader’s feminine GRO and PSC (With higher feminine GRO leads to more
use of cooperative CMS and less use of competitive CMS, which leads to higher PSC).

Hypothesis 4b: Both cooperative and competitive CMS mediate the relationship
between leader’s masculine GRO and PSC (With higher masculine GRO leads to more
use of competitive CMS and less use of cooperative CMS, which leads to lower PSC).

Hypothesis 5a: PSC mediates the relationships between cooperative CMS and team
performance (With more use of cooperative CMS leads to higher PSC and higher team
performance).

Hypothesis 5b: PSC mediates the relationships between competitive CMS and team
performance (With more use of competitive CMS leads to lower PSC and lower team
performance).

Note:

Feminine gender-role orientation (FGO)

Masculine gender-role orientation (MGO)

Cooperative conflict management style (COS)

Competitive conflict management style (CPS)

Psychological safety climate (PSC)

Team performance (TPM)

 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this chapter, we'll take a closer look at the data collection process and its various
components. We'll provide a detailed overview of the sampling methodology used, as well as
an explanation of how participants were recruited for the study. Additionally, we'll delve into
the specific data collection and analysis procedures that were employed to ensure the
accuracy and reliability of our findings. In this chapter, we'll also discuss the validation of
measurement scales used in the study.

3.1. Research process

The research used a quantitative method, and primary data was collected by the
authors. A pilot experiment was first used to carry out preliminary testing of factors’ scales.
The quantitative approach was then used to analyze the data.

3.1.1. Preparation

Firstly, we collected reliable sources of information from previous articles and

scientific research to make our questionnaire. However, before we distributed our survey, we
discussed it internally, consulted our supervisor for references, and drew upon the
experiences of the previous researchers to tailor our questionnaire to our needs.
The measurement scales were inherited from the results of the previous researchers
(Chen, 2005; Edmondson, 1999; Jones and Harrison, 1996). Then, the authors translated the
scales’ items into Vietnamese to ensure that Vietnamese students could easily understand and
approach the contents. We asked two students to fill out our survey for trials after completing
the survey questionnaire in order to gather feedback and ensure accuracy and accessibility for
our target participants.

3.1.2. Data collection

For the data collection phase, the authors conducted a survey. Google Form was the
primary tool we used. In general, the data collection procedure was divided into three
sub-phases:

Step 1: Participants identification

In step 1, the authors identified the target team for our research. It included two
phases: interviewing our acquaintance and extracting teams from group lists.
Participants identification through interviewing

Initially, to identify our target teams, we started interviewing the people who are
acquainted with us. The selection criteria were: there was a conflict; the conflict happened
between member and leader; project duration was not over 12 months. Hence, during our
interviews, we paid a profound attention on exploiting our interviewees following these
rubrics. Some of our questions were: "Is there any project you participated in that contained
conflict between leader and members?”; "If yes, what was that project about?"; “When did
the project end?”.

The collected projects were then stored in a spreadsheet with basic information like:
Name of the project, leader’s name, contacts of the leaders or members. We also marked an
equivalent project’s ID for each team. Later, the collected data would be aggregated based on
these project’s IDs. These project’s IDs were also used for matching leaders and members in
a team and helping us to send out our survey exactly.

Participants identification through questionnaire

Unfortunately, there weren't enough teams after our selection interview. Our limited
number of relationships could be the primary factor. So, in search of more samples, we
gathered university group list spreadsheets. These groupings came from academic class
assignments or from student research teams that the educational institutions in Ho Chi Minh
City had published. We inserted a new question to our survey that asked, "Whether or not
there was a conflict between you and your members when your team was working?" to
guarantee that leader-member conflict arose in those teams. If the answer was "No," we
would not approve the team's responses. Finally, if there were not sufficient responses from
one leader and at least two members in a team, that team would be eliminated.

Step 2: Instrument testing

As we delivered our survey to verify the suitability of the research scales. Our survey
was sent to 432 individuals. After three days, we had 173 distinct responses in total (the
response rate was approximately 40%) with the inclusion of 82 responses from the leaders
and 91 responses from the members. Then we began cleaning up our data, removing 31
invalid responses (14 leaders responses, and 17 members responses). The reason for the
elimination was: First, the participants had given inappropriate responses (some responses
were ticked full 3 or full 4). Second, the participants' response of the Project IDs we earlier
sent could be given in the wrong format. Third, the participants answered “No” for the
question "Whether or not there was a conflict between you and your members when your
team was working?". Fourth, there were not sufficient at least one leader and two members in
the team's responses. There were 68 leaders and 75 members kept for the scale validation
step.

In order to limit bias in our participants' responses, we utilized some techniques. First,
we shuffled the items in our questionnaire. Second, we used reverse questions for
Psychological Safety Climate scales. We considered that reverse wording can reduce biases
when participants provide their responses for the surveys on sensitive and controversial topics
(Krumpal, 2013)

After testing, we determined that our scales were reliable for the next analysis, and we
then tested our hypothesis. The testing outcomes would be explained in scale validation.

Step 3: Survey activation

After accomplishing participant identification step (Step 1) of the process, we had

1285 teams altogether. We started distributing our questionnaires following the contacts we
had successfully acquired.

Our target participants consisted of first- to fourth-year undergraduate students

majoring in Economics-Business, Finance-Banking, IT, Architecture-Interior-Design,
Engineering, Laws, Medical, and Pharmacy who attended universities in Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam.

Our survey was sent to over 3500 individuals, equivalent to over 875 teams. After 10
days, we received 925 responses, which were grouped into 213 teams. We then checked the
appropriateness of the responses and removed 397 respondents, keeping 625 answers. In the
end, 188 teams were used for the next analysis.
 Figure 3.1. Research flow

3.1.3. Data analysis

The authors employed SPSS 20.0's basic descriptive statistics during the data analysis
phase. Podsakoff recommended using SPSS 20.0 to evaluate the structural validity of our
constructs. SEM analysis is also applied through AMOS 20 to evaluate the relationship
between variables.

3.2. Measurement scales

3.2.1. Measurement scales' format

Our research scales used a 5-point Likert structure, with 1 being strongly
disagree/never and 5 being strongly agree/always.

3.2.2. Questionnaire design

The questionnaire was created for two distinct groups of participants: team members
and team leaders. It is split into two main sections:
Part 1: Participants' General Information with seven items.
Part 2: This is the primary section, which includes four independent scales: Gender
Orientation (Zhang et al., 2001), Conflict Management Styles (Chen, 2005), Psychological
Safety Climate (Edmondson, 1999), and Team Performance (Jones and Harrison, 1996).
Leadership gender orientation: The measurement scale was adapted from a shortened
scale developed by Zhang et al., 2001, which included a total of 16 items. This scale would
be answered by the leader. Higher average scores in any characteristic represent the higher
level toward which a leader orients.
Table 3.1. Gender Role Orientation items

MALE GENDER ROLE ORIENTATION

Observed variables Items

MGO1 Independent

MGO2 Assertive

MGO3 Strong personality

MGO4 Forceful

MGO5 Has leader abilities

MGO6 Willing to take risks

MGO7 Willing to take a stand

MGO8 Aggressive

FEMALE GENDER ROLE ORIENTATION

Observed Variables Items

FGO1 Affectionate

FGO2 Sympathetic

FGO3 Sensitive to other's needs

FGO4 Understanding

FGO5 Compassionate

FGO6 Warm

FGO7 Tender
 FGO8 Gentle

Conflict management styles: we measured this factor through 2 aspects, which

reflected 2 different approaches a surveyed leader would choose to solve team conflicts. This
measurement scale included 9 items in total as referenced from Chen, 2005. It is similar to
leadership gender orientation, this scale would be answered by the leader, and the higher
scores showed the approach that a leader would choose to deal with conflicts.
Table 3.2. Conflict Management Styles items

Variables Observed Items

variables

COS1 I encourage a ‘we are in it together’ attitude.

COS2 I seek a solution that will be good for both

positions.

COS3 I treat conflict as a mutual problem to solve.

Cooperative
styles
COS4 I work so that, to the extent possible, we all get
what I really want.

COS5 I combine the best of positions to make an

effective decision.

CPS1 I demand that others agree to my position.

CPS2 I want others to make concessions, but I do not

Competitive
want to make concessions myself.
styles
 CPS3 I treat conflict as a win-lose contest.

CPS4 I overstate my position to get my own way

Psychological safety climate: the authors adapted a 7-item scale developed by

Edmondson (1999). It was answered by both the team leaders and team members.

Table 3.3. Psychological Safety Climate items

Observed ITEMS Note

variables

PSC1 If I make a mistake on this team, it is often held against me. Reverse question

PSC2 Members of my team are able to bring up problems and tough Normal question
issues.

PSC3 People in my team reject others for being different. Reverse question

PSC4 It is safe to take risks on my team. Normal question

PSC5 It is difficult to ask other members of my team for help. Reverse question

PSC6 No one in my team would deliberately act in the way that Normal question
undermines my effort.

PSC7 Working with members of my team, my unique skills and Normal question
talents are valued and utilized.

Team performance: The instrument used a 7-sentence questionnaire developed by

Jones and Harrison (1996). This section will be answered by both team members and team
leaders.
Table 3.4. Team Performance items

Observed ITEMS
 variables

TPM1 My team met the project goal.

TPM2 My team completed the expected amount of work.

TPM3 My team completed work with high quality.

TPM4 My team finished the project as scheduled.

TPM5 My team finished the project with a planned budget.

TPM6 My team operated the task efficiently.

TPM7 My team maintained high work morale.

Control variables
Team size: Barry and Steward (1997) suggested that team size impacts team
performance. Additionally, previous research argued that larger teams may have better
information-processing capabilities, so they work more effectively in turbulent environments
(Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993). As a result, in this study, authors determine team size by
asking participants how many members their project had.
Leader gender: We considered gender as a control variable (1 = male, 0 = female).
Kirschner et al.,(2009) controlled for the possible effects of leader gender without combining
the effects of gender biases and stereotypes in order to investigate the effect of learning mode
on the retention and transfer efficiency of complex tasks.
Leader age: We referenced that leader age can have an impact on the team
performance, particularly in complicated situations and adaptive situations (Nguyen et al.,
2014).
Gender diversity: O'Reilly, Caldwell và Barnett (1989) suggested that members'
gender diversity can affect the quality of decisions in a team. We, therefore,
considered it as a control variable in our study.

3.3. Scale validation

Our study involved two distinct groups of participants: team leaders and team
members. Team leaders were asked to answer all four scales, while team members only
 provided responses for psychological safety climate and team performance scales. Thus, we
used responses from leaders to process gender role orientation (GRO) and conflict
management style (CMS), and responses from both leaders and members to conduct testing
for psychological safety (PSC) and team performance (TPM), based on Cronbach's alpha and
EFA
We sent our survey to collect data for scale validation. In four days, we
gathered 107 responses from 32 leaders and 75 members with 107 responses of both.
We then conducted Cronbach’s alpha and EFA analysis for PSC scale and TPM scale
first. However, the number of responses from leaders was not sufficient to analyze for
GRO and CMS scales. Hence, we continued to collect answers of leaders, and in
seven days, we received 36 responses. Then we used 68 answers from the leaders to
analyze Cronbach’s alpha and EFA of GRO and CMS scales.

3.3.1. Cronbach's Alpha:

a. Gender Role Orientation and Conflict Management Styles:

Table 3.5. Cronbach's alpha values of GRO and CMS

Items Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item - Cronbach’s alpha

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted

MRO’s alpha = 0.91

MGO1 21.99 54.462 0.837 0.88

MGO2 22.06 56.295 0.695 0.9

MGO3 21.84 55.929 0.75 0.895

MGO4 22.19 56.246 0.749 0.896

MGO5 21.88 57.956 0.649 0.904

MGO6 22.07 55.442 0.71 0.899

MGO7 22.01 57.656 0.628 0.906

MGO8 22.19 57.829 0.667 0.902

 FRO's alpha = 0.926

FGO1 21.97 57.522 0.695 0.921

FGO2 21.78 57.398 0.748 0.917

FGO3 21.68 55.625 0.842 0.909

FGO4 21.79 56.494 0.77 0.915

FGO5 21.71 56.778 0.747 0.917

FGO6 21.91 59.097 0.61 0.927

FGO7 21.96 58.491 0.757 0.916

FGO8 21.69 55.202 0.834 0.91

COS's alpha = 0.896

COS1 11.47 22.133 0.769 0.867

COS2 11.71 25.882 0.555 0.91

COS3 11.68 21.386 0.774 0.866

COS4 11.66 22.227 0.785 0.863

COS5 11.6 21.527 0.839 0.851

CM's alpha = 0.924

CPS1 8.19 14.097 0.882 0.881

CPS2 8.46 15.595 0.727 0.932

CPS3 8.32 14.939 0.828 0.9

CPS4 8.21 14.106 0.86 0.888

The findings in Table 3.5 showed that the masculine gender orientation, feminine
gender orientation, cooperative style, and competitive style Cronbach's coefficients were
 0.91, 0.926, 0.896, and 0.924, respectively. As mentioned, these scales would be answered by
the team leaders, so the authors processed Cronbach’s scores with 68 responses provided by
the team leaders only. These coefficients are all greater than 0.7. Also, the Corrected
Item-Total Correlation (CITC) scores for such items on these four scales were higher than
0.3. According to Costello et al. (2005), questions with CITC scores under 0.3 ought to be
eliminated. No item from these four scales was thus excluded from analysis.
b. Psychological Safety Climate and Team Performance:
Table 3.6. Cronbach's alpha values of PSC and TP

Items Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item - Cronbach’s alpha

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted

PSC’s alpha = 0.879

PSC1 19.08 43.191 0.659 0.862

PSC2 18.9 43.735 0.622 0.867

PSC3 18.96 41.602 0.686 0.859

PSC4 19.28 44.128 0.545 0.877

PSC5 19.15 40.053 0.765 0.848

PSC6 18.92 42.229 0.671 0.86

PSC7 19 42.34 0.695 0.857

TPM's alpha = 0.870

TPM1 18.44 31.871 0.807 0.83

TPM2 18.51 32.837 0.611 0.857

TPM3 18.64 34.193 0.606 0.856

TPM4 18.63 34.085 0.567 0.862

TPM5 18.65 34.191 0.642 0.852

 TPM6 18.49 32.328 0.691 0.845

TPM7 18.56 33.286 0.613 0.856

Table 3.6 displays the PSC and TPM Cronbach's coefficients. To assess Cronbach's
alpha, we gathered a total of 108 responses from both leaders and participants. The values
were higher above the criterion of 0.7, at 0.879 for PSC and 0.870 for TP. All items had CITC
coefficients above the cutoff of 0.3, ranging from minimum 0.545 to maximum 0.807 for
both scales. These findings led to the conclusion that PSC and TP were both reliable for
further investigation.
In summary, our 39 research items were all found to be reliable, revealed by the
result of Cronbach's alpha. Therefore, they were maintained to be further analyzed.

3.1.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

To evaluate patterns of correlation between variables in our scales, we adopted EFA.

No item was deleted, as we noted in the Cronbach's Alpha phase, thus we applied all items
for EFA. We utilized Principal Component extraction with Varimax rotation to test EFA.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) uses Varimax rotation
We separated our scales and processed them to show EFA levels. More precisely, we
used the GRO and CMS scales in the beginning. And then we submitted PSC and TPM
applications. Following is a description of the findings.
a. KMO measure and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Table 3.7. KMO and Bartlett's Test of GRO and CMS

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.845

Approx. Chi-Square 1213.747

df 300
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Sig. 0.000
Table 3.8. KMO and Bartlett's Test of PSC and TP

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.927

Approx. Chi-Square 725.571

df 91
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Sig. 0.000

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value calculates the percentage of variance in the data

which is explained by underlying factors. KMO value must achieve a minimum 0.5, variables
with value less than 0.5 are considered to be statistically inadequate for factor analysis and
the factor solution thus is not reliable (Osborne & Costello, 2005). Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity aims to test whether variables in a factor are correlated one another. A significant
value of Bartlett's Test of Sphericity demonstrates that it is valid for factor analysis
procession (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013)
According to Table 3.7 and Table 3.8, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy for the scales GRO and CMS was 0.845, Approx. Chi-Square was 1213.747
(p<0.05), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy for the scales PSC
and TP was 0.927, Approx. Chi-Square was 725.571 (p<0.05). Our variables in the research
scales were appropriate and reasonable for the factor solution through comparing to the
conditions stated. Our EFA is trustworthy as a consequence.
b. The Rotated Component Matrix:
Table 3.9. The Rotated Component Matrix of GRO and CMS

Component

1 2 3 4

MGO1 0.88

MGO2 0.733

MGO3 0.772
MGO4 0.815

MGO5 0.735

MGO6 0.777

MGO7 0.715

MGO8 0.721

FGO1 0.754

FGO2 0.797

FGO3 0.843

FGO4 0.78

FGO5 0.745

FGO6 0.699

FGO7 0.819

FGO8 0.863

COS1 0.847

COS2 0.696

COS3 0.81

COS4 0.836

COS5 0.863

CPS1 0.868

CPS2 0.681

CPS3 0.821
 CPS4 0.834

Table 3.10. The Rotated Component Matrix of PSC and TPM

Component

1 2

PSC1 0.718

PSC2 0.71

PSC3 0.702

PSC4 0.619

PSC5 0.797

PSC6 0.734

PSC6 0.7

TPM1 0.783

TPM2 0.653

TPM3 0.654

TPM4 0.723

TPM5 0.71

TPM6 0.752

TPM7 0.525

The results from Table 3.9 and Table 3.10 illustrated that all four scales were grouped
into different factors when they were analyzed separately. For example, in the scales of GRO
and CMS, the variables CO1, CO2, CO3, CO4, CO5 were grouped in factor 3. Similarly, in
the scales of PS and TP, 7 variables of PSC were kept in factor 1. Additionally, all variables
in the scales got the factor loadings which were greater than 0.5. It showed that these results
were acceptable.
c. Total Variance Explained:
Table 3.11. Total Variance Explained of GRO and CMS

Component Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Variance % Total Variance %

1
8.707 34.828 34.828 5.398 21.591 21.591

2 3.822 15.286 50.114 5.092 20.369 41.959

3
3.313 13.251 63.365 3.819 15.277 57.236

1.633 6.53 69.895 3.165 12.659 69.895

4

0.93 3.72 73.615

5

0.727 2.909 76.524

6

0.682 2.727 79.251

7

0.578 2.31 81.561

8

0.543 2.172 83.734

9

0.442 1.77 85.503

10

0.438 1.752 87.255

11

0.419 1.678 88.933

12

0.383 1.533 90.466

13

0.355 1.42 91.886

14
 0.,33 1.319 93.205
15

0.271 1.084 94.289

16

0.246 0.986 95.275

17

0.227 0.908 96.183

18

0.201 0.806 96.989

19

0.197 0.789 97.778

20

0.158 0.632 98.,41

21

0.142 0.567 98.977

22

0.098 0.393 99.37

23

0.089 0.354 99.725

24

0.069 0.275 100

25
 Table 3.12. Total Variance Explained of PSC and TPM

Component Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Variance % Total Variance %

1 6.807 48.618 48.618 4.291 30.648 30.648

2 1.333 9.524 58.143 3.849 27.495 58.143

3 0.85 6.069 64.211

4 0.665 4.751 68.962

5 0.637 4.553 73.516

6 0.596 4.258 77.773

7 0.512 3.656 81.429

8 0.504 3.599 85.027

9 0.485 3.465 88.492

10 0.458 3.273 91.765

11 0.341 2.436 94.201

12 0.319 2.275 96.476

13 0.268 1.916 98.392

14 0.225 1.608 100

So that the total variance explained is acceptable, it should be greater than 50%. As
shown in Table 3.11 and Table 3.12, the cumulative percentages were 69.895% and 58.143%,
respectively. Hence, we concluded our scales achieved validity for our target participants to
answer.
 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Chapter 4 is dedicated to presenting and analyzing the results of the study. This
chapter provides a detailed account of the data analysis process, including the statistical tests
and other methods used to analyze the data. In this section, the hypotheses proposed in the
study are evaluated and conclusions are drawn based on the results obtained.

4.1. Descriptive analysis

Table 4.1. Descriptive statistics

Teamsize

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

3 57 30.3 30.3

4 33 17.6 47.9

5 84 44.7 92.6

6 8 4.3 96.8

7 5 2.7 99.5

9 1 0.5 100

Total 188 100

Age

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

18 4 2.1 2.1

19 11 5.9 8.0

20 72 38.3 46.3

21 81 43.1 89.4

22 20 10.6 100

Total 188 100

 Leader Gender

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Female 99 52.7 52.7

Male 89 47.3 100

Total 188 100

Gender diversity

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Female 391 62.3 62.3

Male 237 37.7 100
Total 628 100

There were 188 teams replying to our survey. Of the survey teams , there were 44.7%
teams with 5 members (n = 84), taking the highest percentage in our survey. Coming second
is the team of 3 with 30.3% (n = 57). There were 17.6% (n = 33) teams of 4. Besides, the
group of 6, 7, and 9 accounted for respectively 4.3% (n = 8), 2.7% (n = 5), and 0.5% (n = 1).
Regarding the leader’s age, the age range of 20 and 21 took the highest proportion
with 38.3% (n =72) and 43.1% (n=81) respectively. The 22-year-old leaders took 10.6%
(n=20). There were 2.1% (n = 4) and 5.9% (n = 11) leaders who were at the age of 18 and 19.
For the leader gender, there were 52.7% female leaders with n = 99, and 47.3% male
leaders with n = 89 responded to our questionnaire.
Among 188 teams, there were 628 individuals who attended our survey, including
62.3% female ( n = 391), and 37.7% male ( n = 237).

4.2. Data aggregation

Given that the unit of analysis in this particular study was the team, it was necessary
to aggregate the data on the team's psychological safety climate and team performance
obtained at the level of individual team members. However, such aggregation must be
supported by both theoretical and empirical justifications (Rousseau, 1985). To ensure the
appropriate aggregation of data when conducting research at the team level, the current study
employed 𝑟𝑊𝐺𝑝
 The reliability coefficient 𝑟𝑊𝐺𝑝 is utilized to assess the inter-rater reliability or level of

agreement among multiple raters who evaluate a set of targets using an interval scale. This
coefficient is an extension of the original 𝑟𝑊𝐺𝑝 coefficient introduced by James et al. (1984)

and was proposed by LeBreton et al. in 2005.

According to LeBreton et al. in 2005, rWGp is calculated as:
2
𝑆𝑋. τ
𝑟𝑊𝐺𝑝 = 1 - 2 .
σ𝐸𝑈

Where:
2
𝑆𝑋. τ is the pooled variance within groups (1)
2
σ𝐸𝑈 is expected variance assuming all ratings were due to random responding (2)

How to calculate:
2
(1) 𝑆𝑋. τ can be estimated by computing a weighted average of the individual variances,
2 2 2
(𝑛1/𝑁)𝑆1 + (𝑛2/𝑁)𝑆2 +... + (𝑛𝑛/𝑁)𝑆𝑛 where 𝑛1 to 𝑛𝑛 is the number of total participants in

team 1 to team n (1 leader and n members), N is the total number of participants from data
2 2 2
set, and 𝑆1 to 𝑆𝑛 are within within-groups mean square of team 1 to team n. The value of 𝑆1 to
2
𝑆𝑛 are calculated in SPSS.
2 2
(2) σ𝐸𝑈 is calculated as: (𝐴 − 1)/12, where A is the highest rating on the scale (5)

After calculation:
According to LeBreton et al. (2008), a minimum 𝑟𝑊𝐺𝑝 can be used to assess homogeneity,

which is around 0.70. This ensures that the level of homogeneity is sufficient to use data
collected by multiple raters in a study.

Once the calculation is done , the 𝑟𝑊𝐺𝑝 for the team's PSC is 0.881, for the team performance

is 0.887. Therefore, we concluded that the within-team ratings were homogeneous enough to
be aggregated, and the final dataset consists of all 188 teams with 628 team members.
4.3. Cronbach’s Alpha

Our scale items were appropriate for analysis, as was previously mentioned. We
distributed them to Vietnamese undergraduates, primarily from institutions in Ho Chi Minh
City. Following data cleaning, we examined the responses of 188 teams (625 individuals) by
aggregating them following Project ID. As Table 4.2 exhibits that the Cronbach's coefficients
surpassed the thresholds of 0.7 and the CITC indicator exceeded 0.3, indicating that the
scales were still reliable when Cronbach’s alpha was applied by 188 samples
Table 4.2. Cronbach’ Alpha for Model

Items Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item - Cronbach’s alpha

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted

MGO’s alpha = 0.916

MGO1 21.05 58.767 0.8 0.899

MGO2 21.09 59.334 0.738 0.904

MGO3 21.05 58.099 0.75 0.903

MGO4 21.14 60.017 0.747 0.904

MGO5 20.95 60.976 0.695 0.908

MGO6 21.14 60.188 0.673 0.91

MGO7 21.02 60.834 0.677 0.909

MGO8 21.26 60.309 0.714 0.906

FGO's alpha = 0.919

FGO1 22.01 57.877 0.733 0.908

FGO2 22 58.246 0.715 0.91

FGO3 22.03 57.309 0.812 0.902

FGO4 21.96 58.651 0.716 0.91

FGO5 22.04 59.491 0.661 0.914

FGO6 22.12 58.482 0.666 0.914

FGO7 22.14 57.917 0.758 0.906

FGO8 21.98 56.352 0.786 0.904

COS's alpha = 0.891

COS1 12.07 21.38 0.769 0.859

COS2 12.25 24.06 0.624 0.891

COS3 12.2 22.148 0.694 0.877

COS4 12.21 22.2 0.785 0.857

COS5 12.14 21.343 0.805 0.851

CPS's alpha = 0.918

CPS1 8.44 14.366 0.823 0.89

CPS2 8.59 15.655 0.734 0.919

CPS3 8.39 14.978 0.853 0.881

CPS4 8.32 14.274 0.843 0.883

PSC's alpha = 0.944

PSC1 19.21 38.572 0.849 0.932

PSC2 19.04 39.127 0.812 0.935

PSC3 19.18 38.726 0.826 0.934

PSC4 19.41 40.029 0.712 0.944

 PSC5 19.24 37.638 0.832 0.934

PSC6 19.18 39.176 0.803 0.936

PSC7 19.14 38.248 0.86 0.931

TPM's alpha = 0.944

TPM1 18.52 29.459 0.864 0.931

TPM2 18.52 30.155 0.799 0.937

TPM3 18.52 29.984 0.834 0.933

TPM4 18.52 30.732 0.769 0.939

TPM5 18.61 30.089 0.804 0.936

TPM6 18.53 30.528 0.811 0.936

TPM7 18.52 29.577 0.813 0.935

4.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Table 4.3 depicts the KMO and Bartlett's Test results for the study model. As
previously established, KMO values of 0.5 or higher are deemed acceptable. Remarkably, our
study model recorded a KMO value of 0.927 with a significance level of p<0.005.
Furthermore, the Rotated Component Matrix in Table 4.4 reveals the grouping of all variables
into six distinct factors. In Table 4.5, the Rotation Sum of Squared Loadings accounted for a
total of 71.227%. These outcomes confirmed the validity of our scales for use in the study.
Table 4.3. KMO and Bartlett's Test

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.927

Approx. Chi-Square 5666.176

df 741
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Sig. 0.000

Table 4.4. Rotated Component Matrix:

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6

MGO1 0.825

MGO2 0.764

MGO3 0.768

MGO4 0.801

MGO5 0.764

MGO6 0.711

MGO7 0.714

MGO8 0,766

FGO1 0.786

FGO2 0.766

FGO3 0.824

FGO4 0.709
FGO5 0.701

FGO6 0.712

FGO7 0.823

FGO8 0.797

COS1 0.81

COS1 0.708

COS2 0.756

COS3 0.798

COS4 0.826

CPS1 0.8

CPS2 0.742

CPS3 0.773

CPS4 0.772

PSC1 0.774

PSC2 0.772

PSC3 0.762

PSC4 0.769

PSC5 0.774

PSC6 0.779

PSC7 0.744

TPM1 0.839
 TPM2 0.749

TPM3 0.811

TPM4 0.781

TPM5 0.804

TPM6 0.817

TPM7 0.766

Table 4.5. The Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Component Total Variance % Total Variance %

1 12.59 32.289 32.289 5.542 14.21 14.21

2 6.627 16.992 49.281 5.288 13.56 27.77

3 2.926 7.502 56.783 5.223 13.392 41.162

4 2.469 6.33 63.113 5.114 13.112 54.274

5 1.707 4.376 67.489 3.673 9.419 63.693

6 1.457 3.737 71.227 2.938 7.534 71.227

7 0.771 1.978 73.204

8 0.7 1.794 74.998

9 0.632 1.621 76.619

10 0.61 1.564 78.182

11 0.535 1.372 79.554

12 0.509 1.305 80.859

13 0.474 1.216 82.075

14 0.462 1.185 83.26

15 0.454 1.163 84.424

16 0.44 1.129 85.552

17 0.412 1.056 86.608

18 0.405 1.038 87.646

19 0.386 0.99 88.637

20 0.347 0.891 89.527

21 0.342 0.876 90.403

22 0.315 0.807 91.21

23 0.311 0.798 92.008

24 0.283 0.724 92.732

25 0.276 0.708 93.44

26 0.266 0.681 94.121

27 0.261 0.668 94.789

28 0.238 0.611 95.4

29 0.228 0.586 95.986

30 0.204 0.524 96.511

31 0.191 0.49 97.001

32 0.182 0.467 97.468

33 0,167 0.429 97.897

34 0.155 0.397 98.294

 35 0.15 0.384 98.678

36 0.145 0.373 99.051

37 0.129 0.33 99.381

38 0.124 0.318 99.699

39 0.118 0.301 100

4.5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was carried out on SPSS AMOS to evaluate the
constructs' distinctiveness. CMIN = 764.14, CMIN/df = 1.112, RMSEA = 0.025, GFI =
0.834, CFI = 0.986, and PCLOSE = 1 show that the model's fit values are appropriate.
According to Hu and Bentler (1999), a good model should have CMIN/df values of less than
3, CFI values of more than 0.9, GFI values of more than 0.9, RMSEA values of less than
0.06, and PCLOSE values of more than 0.05. However, based on the findings of
Baumgartner and Homburg (1996) and Doll, Xia, and Torkzadeh (1994), we can consider the
threshold of 0.8 for GFI. As a result, the research's model fit is acceptable.
Figure 4.1. CFA model
 To ensure convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model, the indices
CR, AVE, and MSV were utilized (Hair et al., 2010) for convergent validity and Fornell and
Larcker (1981) for discriminant validity.
Reliability:
To ensure reliability, all standardized loading estimates must exceed 0.5 to indicate
acceptability (Hair et al., 1998). Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha values must be above 0.7 to
be acceptable (Nunnaly, 1998).
Convergent and Discriminant:
Bagozzi and Yi (1998) indicated that scales are supposed to be convergent if the
composite reliability (CR) is above 0.7 and the average variance extraction (AVE) exceeds
the threshold of 0.5. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the maximum shared variance
(MSV) is less than the AVE, and the square root of the AVE (SQRT AVE) for each construct
is greater than the correlation for another to be indicated as discriminant. Table 4.6 concluded
that all conditions above for convergence and discriminant validity were satisfied.
Table 4.6. Results of Discriminant Validity testing

CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) COS TPM FGO MGO PSC CPS

COS 0.893 0.628 0.288 0.906 0.793

TPM 0.944 0.708 0.545 0.947 0.461 0.842

FGO 0.92 0.591 0.25 0.925 0.248 0.065 0.769

MGO 0.917 0.581 0.25 0.921 -0.257 -0.163 -0.5 0.762

PSC 0.944 0.708 0.545 0.949 0.479 0.738 0.199 -0.229 0.842

CPS 0.92 0.742 0.288 0.93 -0.537 -0.399 -0.489 0.409 -0.53 0.861
4.6. Structural Equation Model

Figure 4.2. SEM model

 Note:
Feminine gender-role orientation (FGO)
Masculine gender-role orientation (MGO)
Cooperative style (COS)
Competitive style (CPS)
Psychological safety climate (PSC)
Team performance (TPM)

Table 4.7. SEM results

Standardized
Estimates Regression C.R. P Conclusion
Weights
COS <--- FGO 0.200 0.178 2.264 0.024 Supported
COS <--- MGO 0.266 0.248 3.401 *** Supported
CPS <--- FGO -0.461 -0.398 -5.185 *** Supported
COS <--- MGO -0.196 -0.188 -2.391 0.017 Supported
PSC <--- COS 0.254 0.306 4.237 *** Supported
PSC <--- CPS -0.309 -0.384 -5.318 *** Supported
TPM <--- PSC 0.683 0.724 10.65 *** Supported

We used SEM on SPSS AMOS to measure the relationship between dependent and
independent variables. The results presented in Table 4.7 indicate that all seven of our
hypotheses were accepted; they were all statistically significant.

Hypothesis 1 evaluated the relationship between gender orientation and conflict

management styles through four sub-hypotheses. Feminine traits were expected to positively
affect cooperative approach (H1a) and negatively affect competitive approach (H1b), while
leaders with a masculine orientation were not expected to use a cooperative style to deal with
team conflict (H1c) but would deal with conflict more competitively (H1d). The findings
showed that feminine-oriented leaders had a positive link to cooperation (H1a) (β = 0.200,
p<0.05) and a negative link to competition (H1b) (β = -0.461, p<0.05) when conflict
occurred. Masculine-oriented leaders were recognized to deal with conflict more
competitively (H1d) (β= 0.266, p<0.05) and negatively use a cooperative style to deal with
team conflict (β= -0.196, p<0.05) (H1c). Overall, the findings support all four sub-hypotheses
of H1.

Hypothesis 2 investigated whether a cooperative conflict approach would have a

positive effect on the team's psychological safety climate (H2a), while the competitive
conflict approach would have a negative impact on psychological safety climate (H2b). As
shown in Table 4.7, the cooperative approach was positively related to psychological safety
β = 0.254 with p<0.05, while the competitive approach was negatively related (H2b) (β =
-0.309, p<0.05). These findings support both H2a and H2b.

Hypothesis 3 aimed to discover the positive association between psychological safety

climate and team performance (H3). The results showed that psychological safety had a
significant positive effect on team performance (H3 = 0.683, p<0.05). Therefore, according to
the findings, our last hypothesis (H3) was satisfied.

4.7. Mediation analysis

Tables 4.8 and Table 4.9 below present the results of a mediation analysis conducted
using AMOS, with 2000 bootstrapping iterations.

Table 4.8. Total Effect

Path Coefficients P

FGO → PSC 0.208 0.001

MGO → PSC -0.153 0.005

COS → TPM 0.222 0.001

CPS → TPM -0.278 0.001

FGO → TPM 0.150 0.001

MGO → TPM -0.111 0.004

Table 4.9. The Indirect Effect and Direct Effect

Path Coefficients P

FGO → CMS→ PSC 0.208 0.001

FGO → PSC -0.096 0.227

MGO → CMS → PSC -0.153 0.005

MGO → PSC 0.004 0.991

COS → PSC → TPM 0.222 0.001

CPS → PSC → TPM -0.278 0.001
COS → TPM 0.139 0.058
CPS → TPM -0.003 0.96

Results in Table 4.10 indicate that all the indirect effects between GRO and PSC via
CMS are statistically significant (β=0.208, p<0.05 for FGO and β= -0.153, p<0.05 for MGO).
However, the direct effect of GRO on PSC was found to be statistically insignificant
(β= -0.096, p>0.05 for FGRO and β=0.004, p>0.05 for MGRO). Thus, it can be concluded
that the variable GRO fully affects PSC, and hypotheses H4a and H4b are supported.

Additionally, it was observed that when the mediator variable PSC was added, the
hypothesis that cooperative CMS would have a positive effect on TP (β=0.222, p<0.05)
(H5a), and competitive CMS would have a negative effect on TP (β= -0.278, p<0.05) (H5b)
were supported. However, when PSC was removed, the direct effect between CMS and TP
was found to be statistically insignificant (β=0.139, p>0.05 for COS on TPM, and β= - 0.003,
p<0.05 for COMP on TP). Therefore, it can be concluded that the effect of CMS on TPM is
fully mediated by PSC.

Overall, the findings suggest that GRO has a significant indirect effect on PSC
through CMS, while CMS has a significant direct and indirect effect on TPM through PSC.
These results contribute to the understanding of the complex relationships between these
variables.
4.8. Discussion

The results of our study provide strong support for the hypotheses proposed in our
research, which focus on the relationships between gender-role orientation, conflict
management styles, psychological safety climate, and team performance. Specifically, our
findings suggest that individuals with higher feminine gender-role orientation tend to use
more cooperative conflict management styles and less competitive styles, while those with
higher masculine gender-role orientation tend to use more competitive styles and less
cooperative styles. These results are consistent with previous research on gender and conflict
management, which has suggested that femininity is associated with a more cooperative
approach to conflict, while masculinity is associated with a more competitive approach. Our
study adds to this body of research by demonstrating that these gender-related differences in
conflict management styles can have important implications for team dynamics and
outcomes. Furthermore, our results also indicate that a team leader's conflict management
style has a direct impact on team psychological safety, which in turn has a significant effect
on team performance. Specifically, a more cooperative conflict management style leads to
higher psychological safety climate, which in turn leads to higher team performance. In
contrast, a more competitive conflict management style leads to lower psychological safety
climate, which in turn leads to lower team performance.

The present study investigated the mediating effects of cooperative and competitive
conflict management styles (CMS) and psychological safety climate (PSC) on the
relationship between the leader's gender role orientation (GRO) and team performance
(TPM). Our aim was to prove the mechanism through which female leaders can foster team
performance. Specifically, the present study hypothesized that a female leader, by having a
feminine gender role orientation, tend to manage conflict in a cooperative style, which
enhances the team’s psychological safety and ultimately increases team performance. Our
findings suggest that the mediating effects of CMS and PSC play a critical role in explaining
the relationship between GRO and TPM. Specifically, leaders with a more feminine GRO
used more cooperative CMS and less competitive CMS, which resulted in higher levels of
PSC among team members. In contrast, leaders with a more masculine GRO used more
competitive CMS and less cooperative CMS, which led to lower levels of PSC in their teams.
These findings suggest that leaders' gender role orientation influences the conflict
management styles they use, which, in turn, impact the psychological safety climate of their
teams. Furthermore, our study found that PSC mediated the relationship between CMS and
TPM. Specifically, the use of cooperative CMS was found to have a positive effect on both
PSC and TPM, while the use of competitive CMS had a negative effect on both PSC and
TPM. These findings underscore the critical role that PSC plays in promoting team
performance and suggest that leaders can enhance team performance by promoting
cooperative conflict management styles that foster psychological safety climate. It is worth
noting that our study did not find any significant direct effects between the variables when
testing for full or partial mediating effects. This finding indicates that CMS fully mediates the
relationship between GRO and PSC. Similarly, PSC fully mediates the relationship between
CMS and TPM. By showing that both CMS and PSC act as important mechanisms in
explaining the link between GRO and TPM, our study contributes to a better understanding
of the complex interplay between these variables.
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

This chapter emphasizes the contribution that the current study has made to the
existing literature. It also discusses the implications of the study's findings on different
aspects. Additionally, the chapter acknowledges the limitations of the research and offers
suggestions for future studies.

5.1. Contribution

Our study has made several contributions to the current literature. Firstly, we have
filled the gap in studying women leader behavior and replied to the call for a cross-culture,
multilevel research for PSC. Secondly, we have extended findings about the relationships
between GRO, CMS, PSC, TPM, and examined the reliability of two theories: socialization
and social exchange theory.

Our research has successfully separated Gender role Orientation from biological sex
and examined the influence of GRO on leadership. Additionally, we explored the effect of the
dyadic level on the group level by investigating team interaction at two levels. We focused on
the interaction between a leader and a member, as well as within a team (the PSC and team
performance of that team). Furthermore, our study expanded its scope to include Eastern
cultures, aligning with prior research conducted in Western culture that proposes a correlation
between gender role orientation and conflict management styles.

Our research extended findings about the relationships between GRO, CMS, PSC, and
TPM. Firstly, we found that there is a relationship between GRO and CMS, meaning that a
leader’s gender-role orientation shapes the way he/she deals with conflict with a member.
Specifically, feminine-oriented leaders tend to have a more cooperative conflict management
style while masculine-oriented leaders tend to be more competitive. This finding supports the
socialization theory, which suggests that individual’s behaviors are congruent with their
gender-role orientation. Secondly, our data indicated that a leader’s CMS directly affects the
team’s PSC. This means that the manner in which a leader manages conflicts determines
whether or not members feel psychologically safe in the team. Specifically, a team leader's
cooperative CMS has a positive impact on PSC, while a competitive CMS has a negative
effect on PSC. These findings support the social exchange theory, which is mainly used to
explain the correlation between a leader’s CMS and the team’s PSC. Lastly, our research
highlights the importance of psychological safety in promoting team performance. As shown
in our results, the team's PSC construct has a strong positive effect on team performance,
aligning with previous findings.

5.2. Implication

5.2.1. For Organizations

When viewed from an organizational perspective, the study directly helps individuals
responsible for personnel selection and team formation (HR department, talent acquisition,
ect) and indirectly supports all of them. team members.

Firstly, the model helps them predict team dynamics better through the expressions of:
whether the leader behaves supportively, whether the relationship network is trustworthy,
whether the team characteristics are effective.

Secondly, it is possible to predict a person's conflict resolution behavior by their

gender bias. Specifically, people with a male bias will directly face compulsive behavior and
do not like to deal with coop. On the other hand, the female-oriented person will prioritize
coop, listen and try to reconcile everything and limit comp when there is a conflict.

Thirdly, by observing how leaders solve their team conflict, it is possible to predict
their PSC. If a member does not feel safe to be willing to share an opinion, it may be because
the leader has taken a too extreme approach that causes the member to avoid expressing
opinions. In contrast, when a team receives the comfort of everyone's sharing. It is because
their leader always respects and appreciates the member's input. Be aware of this, individuals
who are responsible for managing the team, or even the leader, can apply it to adjust the
organizational structure to operate most efficiently and create the PSC that is open enough for
members to dedicate.

Finally, PSC is a warning sign for group performance. Leader or anyone in charge can
evaluate this indicator to make timely adjustments. Because the higher PSC the team has, the
higher their team performance and vice versa.

5.2.2. For Team leaders

With respect to the team leaders’ perspective, the implication of this study is to raise
their awareness of team dynamics and whether their gender-role orientation would suit the
team in order to efficiently affect the performance.

Firstly, male leaders need to recognize that feminine traits could also have beneficial
aspects during their leadership. The masculine gender role, which emphasizes forceful
behavior on one's own behalf and independence (Bakan, 1966; Bem, 1974; Eagly & Wood,
2011; Eagly et al., 2000), particularly, create a sense of trust to the members, enhance
coordination and follow up the timeline of workload. In other words, they create stability in
the team. The masculine term, however, can also be a negative indicator for team
performance because of a leader's assertive, competitive characteristics. Consequently,
lacking in femininity during leadership will be inclined to competitive behaviors. As seen in
our model, this results in a detrimental effect on the safety of the team - a factor that has a
strong positive effect on team performance. In conclusion, the male leader should reduce his
masculine terms and strengthen his femininity through practice in order to become a more
effective team leader.

Secondly, female leaders should remain their own gender orientation and parallelly
practice feminine behaviors. Many female leaders believe that being a leader is to show
forceful, decisive and masculine characteristics. However, the research model expands our
opinion that behaviors that are characteristic of feminine bias, such as cooperative conflict
management, positively affect team success by increasing the team's psychological safety
climate.

Thirdly, the leader needs to regularly get access to the team's psychological safety
climate. As revealed in the results of our research and previous studies, the psychology safety
climate is such a strong variable construct which positively varies along with team
performance. If the team leader wants to increase the team's ability to accomplish their goals
as efficiently as possible, the leader needs to assure they could create a steady psychological
safety climate.

5.3. Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the study's
hypothesized model and sampling design cannot guarantee the finding's generalizability for
other contexts. The present research's model does not include other important variables that
can alter the result, such as types of conflict and severity of conflict. As the data dictated,
individuals with high femininity tended to solve conflicts cooperatively. However, it may be
the case that individuals facing more serious issues may demonstrate a conflict management
style that reflects greater concern for the self. Furthermore, the sample is limited to college
students from several universities in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, which limits its potential
for generalizability. Moreover, one significant limitation of our study is the relatively small
sample size of 188 teams. While we carefully selected our sample to ensure it was
representative of the target population, there is always a risk that our findings may not be
generalizable to larger populations. Future studies should replicate the study in different
contexts to examine the generalizability of the findings and consider other important
variables by incorporating them into the model. This will provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the relationships.

Second, the research design of the present study might reduce its reliability due to the
following reasons. Primarily, data is collected using self-report questionnaires, which raises
concerns about response bias and the common method variance problem. Some constructs'
measurements, such as team performance, are based on the subjective perceptions of team
members regarding the degree of success they achieved. In addition, although we collected
data from two groups (leaders and members), we still acknowledge the potential for common
method variance since the same method (survey) was used to collect the data. As a
recommendation, future research should include a wider variety of data sources (e.g., from
the team's supervisor) to obtain more objective responses. Moreover, because many teams in
the sample finished their projects long ago (3 to 12 months before the present research was
conducted), their responses might be somewhat incorrect due to false memory.

5.4. Conclusion

Our research is aimed at facilitating the advancement of women leaders in high-level

positions. Through examining the differences in behaviors and effectiveness of male and
female leaders, the article aims to expand knowledge on potential inherent differences
between genders in leadership roles. The research contributes to the literature by
distinguishing between gender-role orientation and biological sex, conducting multilevel
analysis, and expanding the understanding of leadership and team dynamics. The research
findings indicate that feminine gender-role orientation leads to more cooperative conflict
management styles, while masculine gender-role orientation leads to more competitive
conflict management styles. Leaders with a cooperative conflict management style create a
higher psychological safety climate, leading to higher team performance. Gender-role
orientation also indirectly impacts team performance through its effects on conflict
management styles and psychological safety climate. Our study provides valuable insights for
organizations and leaders. By examining team leaders' gender role orientation, conflict
management styles, and the team's psychological safety climate, organizations can predict
team dynamics and performance more accurately. Our findings suggest that male leaders
should use fewer masculine terms and exhibit more femininity, while female leaders should
embrace feminine behaviors. Additionally, regularly assessing the team's psychological safety
climate can improve team efficiency.

REFERENCES

Al-Ajmi, R. (2007). Conflict as a source of creativity in groups. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 16(3), 270-282. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00438.x

Alexander, R. A. (1995). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Rahim Organizational Conflict

Inventory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(16), 1433–1442.

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625–642.

Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development
and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International
Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19(3), 235-258.

Aritzeta, A., Swailes, S., & Senior, B. (2005). Belbin's team role model: Development, validity and
applications for team building. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 391-409.

Ayoko, O. B. (2016). Conflict management and leadership development: Using the cooperative
principle. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 1–14.

Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological
safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45-68.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. University
of Chicago Press.

Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in conflict and their resolution. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (pp. 89–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Baxter, L. A., & Shepherd, M. (1978). Gender role, conflict style, and influence. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 40(2), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.2307/350989

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215

Bern, S. L., & Lenney, E. (1976). The concept of masculinity. Journal of Social Issues, 32(2), 77-91.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02471.x
Bradford, D. L., Stringfellow, A. C., & Weitz, B. A. (2004). Differentiating and measuring types of
organizational conflict: A latent variable approach. Journal of Management, 30(3), 479-501.
doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.002

Brewer, E. W., Heenan, D. A., & O’Gorman, K. D. (2002). Gender role orientation, gender role
attitudes, and demographic characteristics. Sex Roles, 47(3/4), 135–147. doi:
10.1023/A:1021232320086

Brewer, N., Mitchell, P., & Weber, N. (2002). Gender role orientation, organizational position, and
conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(1), 78-94.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022873

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review
and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606–632.

Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of
high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 26(1), 81-98.

Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of
high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 26(1), 81–98.

Chen, N., & Tjosvold, D. (2002). Guanxi and cooperative goal interdependence: The effect on
interpersonal and intergroup helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 834–844.

Cook, E. P. (1985). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2),
233–256. https://doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.233

Costa, P. L., Passos, A. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2015). Team work engagement: A model of emergence.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(3), 605–625.

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.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

De Dreu, C. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions, and dynamics
across multiple levels of analysis. In C. K. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of
conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 3-54). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really
open?. Academy of management journal, 50(4), 869-884.
Deutsch, M. (1990). Toward a theory of cooperative and competitive conflict. Annual review of
psychology, 41(1), 191-219.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence.
The leadership quarterly, 14(6), 807-834.

Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 1-12. https://doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00326.x

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become
leaders. Harvard Business Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex
Roles, 64(9-10), 758-767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E.
T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458-476). Sage Publications
Ltd.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and
similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social
psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10391620](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10391620

Edmondson, A. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens.
In R. Kramer & K. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp.
239–272). Russell Sage Foundation.

Edmondson, A. (2014). How to create psychological safety on your team. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2014/08/how-to-create-psychological-safety-on-your-team

Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Amason, A. C. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture
top management teams: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business
Venturing, 17(4), 365–386.

Follett, M. P. (1940). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic

administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 348–360). Harper and Row.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Harvard
University Press.
Graham, J. L. (2009). Conflict resolution in cross-functional teams: A case study. Journal of Business
Case Studies, 5(1), 19-28. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Graham/publication/46519001_Conflict_Resolution_in_
Cross-Functional_Teams_A_Case_Study/links/00b49525afdf9b4dc6000000/Conflict-Resolution-in-C
ross-Functional-Teams-A-Case-Study.pdf

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Rathert, C. (2008). Linking physician burnout and patient outcomes:
Exploring the dyadic relationship between physicians and patients. Health Care Management Review,
33(1), 29–39.

Hirak, R., Peng, A.C., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2012). Linking leader inclusiveness to work
unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. The Leadership
Quarterly, 23(1), 107-117.

Huang, L., & Jiang, K. (2012). The relationship between psychological safety and knowledge sharing:
A comparison between China and the USA. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(4), 999-1016.

Hmieleski, K. M., Cole, M. S., & Baron, R. A. (2012). Shared authentic leadership and new venture
performance. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1476-1499.

Janssen, O., van de Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape the role of
positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25(2), 117–141.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. doi:10.2307/2393638

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

Johnson, H. H., & Avolio, B. J. (2019). Developing team psychological safety: The leader's role. In
The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning (pp. 1–28). Oxford University Press.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.

Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations.

Korabik, K. (1990). Gender role conflict and managerial women. Sex Roles, 23(7-8), 441-452. doi:
10.1007/BF00289504

Korabik, K. (1990). Gender role orientation, sex, and conflict resolution styles. Sex Roles, 22(7-8),
477-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288367

Korabik, K., & Ayman, R. (1988). Sex and managerial level differences in attributions of success and
failure. Sex Roles, 19(7-8), 475-487. https://doi: 10.1007/BF00289236
Kostopoulos, K.C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Exploring the impact of psychological safety on
knowledge sharing and team creativity: A comparative study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 23(3),
366-384.

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Sage
Publications, Inc.

LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of
teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness
criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307.

Madjar, N., & Ortiz-Walters, R. (2009). The effects of organizational culture on emotions at work:
The case of teachers in a middle school. Journal of School Leadership, 19(3), 241-259.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.

Meyer, J. P. (2004). Understanding employee commitment in the public sector: A study of the
relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 14(4), 427–446.

Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination
and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6),
1251–1262.

Mueller, C. W., & Dato-On, M. C. (2008). Gender, race, and ethnicity in the workplace: Emerging
issues and enduring challenges. Praeger Publishers.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and
professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966.

Nembhard, I.M. (2011). The role of organizational management in reducing catheter-associated

urinary tract infections in hospital settings. American Journal of Infection Control, 39(9), 810-815.

Ohbuchi, K., & Kitanaka, J. (1991). Construction and validation of a Japanese version of the Rahim
organizational conflict inventory. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 227–234.

Ortega, A., Brenninkmeijer, V., & Hulsheger, U.R. (2014). Going beyond average: A meta-analysis of
the differential effects of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 331-356.

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.
Portello, J. K., & Long, B. C. (1994). Gender and conflict management. Sex Roles, 30(11-12),
743–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544271

Prieto-Remón, R., Zornoza, A., & Cortell, J. (2015). Conflict resolution styles in multicultural
workgroups: The moderating role of social categorization. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(1),
1-16.

Puccinelli, N. M., & Tickle-Degnen, L. (2005). Developing a measure of interpersonal relationships in

the workplace. In L. Tickle-Degnen & M. Rosenthal (Eds.), Interpersonal issues in the diagnosis and
treatment of Parkinson's disease (pp. 223–245). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Rahim, M. A. (1986). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal
of Conflict Management, 8(4), 315–343.

Rahim, M. A., & Buntzman, G. F. (1989). The structure of conflict: A confirmatory factor analysis of
the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1(1),
43–82.

Randel, A. E. (2002). Conflict in work groups. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research

methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 751–776). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Roussin, C. J. (2008). Team learning processes, psychological safety, and knowledge outcomes in
work teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(11), 2771–2785.

Rubin, L. B. (1983). Women in love: Sex differences in intimacy. The Feminist Press.

Sanders, K., & Schyns, B. (2006). Work stress and leadership development: The role of
self‐leadership, shared leadership, physical fitness and flow in managing demands and increasing job
control. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 1–16.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S.S.K., & Cha, S.E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team
values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4),
1020-1030.

Shimanoff, S. (2009). Gender and communication: A guide to theory and research. Routledge.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological
dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument. Xicom Inc.
Tjosvold, D. (1985). Effects of cooperative and competitive learning strategies on interpersonal
relations, group processes, and task performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21,
291–302.

Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and
challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285–342.

Tjosvold, D. (2008). Cooperative and competitive conflict in organizations: Opportunity or threat.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 19, 6–22.

Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends on us. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 29(1), 19-28.

Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Yu, Z. (2003). Developing shared leadership in work teams: The impact of
trust and communication. Management and Organization Review, 1(2), 239–257.

Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Yu, Z. (2003). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative
goals and problem-solving. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 134–152.

Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., & Yu, Z. (2005). Conflict management for effective top management teams
and innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 277–300.

Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a
social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Williams, J. C. (2012). Reshaping the work-family debate: Why men and class matter (Vol. 16).
Harvard University Press.

Weider-Hatfield, D., & Hatfield, J. D. (1996). The application of conflict resolution techniques to
strategic HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 69–82.

West, M. A., & Hirst, G. (2005). ‘Consultation’: From command and control to coordination and
empowerment. In A. Wilkinson, B. J. Kehoe, & N. Dundon (Eds.), Handbook of human resource
management (pp. 191-208). Blackwell Publishing.

Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2005). Developing management skills. Pearson Education.

Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., & Lu, J. (2010). Enhancing team creativity: Roles of team leader emotional
intelligence and team vision. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 108–119.

Wu, T. Y., Hu, C., & Chen, Y. C. (2017). Conflict management and job performance in organizational
teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(6), 303-314.

Yang, C. C., Cheng, B. S., & Chuang, H. Y. (2013). Conflict types and conflict management styles in
new product development teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 320-339.
Yin, J., Qu, M., Li, M., & Liao, G. (2022). The impact of team leader's conflict management style on
team performance: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Conflict Management,
33(1), 48-65.

Zhou, J., Zuang, A., & Yip, G. S. (2007). When interdependence breeds opportunism: Taking
advantage of complementary assets as a bridge to unrelated diversification. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(2), 314–327.

Catalyst. (2017). Quick take: Women in the workforce-United States.

https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-the-workforce-united-states/

Brown, J. (2017, May 22). Female CEOs at record high in 2017-but it's still only 6%. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkauflin/2017/05/22/female-ceos-at-record-high-in-2017-but-its-still-
only-6/?sh=447f19575ebc

Greeni, R. (2020). The role of women in leadership: A review of research. Journal of Leadership
Studies, 14(2), 45-57. doi: 10.1002/jls.21617

Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2017). Women in national parliaments.

http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

Kazmi, S. (2014). Women in leadership: Barriers and opportunities. Journal of Management Policies
and Practices, 2(3), 71-81.

Preet, K. (2019). Women in leadership in Vietnam: The challenges and opportunities. Asian Journal of
Management Research, 9(2), 238-249. doi: 10.5958/0976-495X.2019.00016.9

Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2006). Women entrepreneurs in Vietnam.

http://www.sme-21.org/index.php?nav=109

Vietnam Communist Party. (2016). Resolution on the Strategy for Gender Equality for the Period of
2011-2020.
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/eql-gov-2005/docs/Government-Resolutions/Vietnam-Stra
tEng.pdf

Women's Representation in Leadership in Vietnam. (2012). Women's representation in leadership in

Vietnam.

Archer, J., & Lloyd, B. (2002). Sex and gender. Psychology Press.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215

Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Social identity and intergroup relations.
Blackwell Publishers.
Cook, J. (1985). The perception of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 525-535.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.525

Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: How real are they? Academy of
Management Review, 11(2), 118-127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4282612

Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist,
50(3), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.145

Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00326.x

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233

Hollander, E. P. (1992). Gender and leadership: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3-25.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3

Kaiser, R. B., & Wallace, C. S. (2016). Women and leadership: The state of play and strategies for
change. Routledge.

Korabik, K. (1990). Gender-role orientation and leader-member relationships. Sex Roles, 23(3-4),
187-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289784

Korabik, K., & Ayman, R. (1988). Male and female leaders: Effects of gender identity, sex-role
orientation, and self-concept on leadership styles. Sex Roles, 18(9-10), 595-609.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288338

Powell, G. N. (1990). Women and men in management. Sage Publications.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological
dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. University of Texas Press.

Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., & Burke, C. S. (2007). Best practices in leadership development and
organization change: How the US Army is developing effective leaders. In Handbook of Business
Strategy (Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 205-213). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.110

Women, Business and the Law 2021 report by the World Bank: World Bank Group. (2021). Women,
Business and the Law 2021. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1666-8

National Assembly's Committee for Social Affairs report: Vietnamnet Global. (2020, June 12).
Female National Assembly deputies: Contribution but still underrepresented. Vietnamnet Global.
https://vietnamnet.vn/en/society/female-national-assembly-deputies-contribution-but-still-underrepres
ented-648614.html
Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey: Vietnam Investment Review. (2019, December
10). Female representation in management is still low. Vietnam Investment Review.

Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review.
Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025-2047.

Zhang, Jie;Norvilitis, Jill M;Jin, Shenghua, Sex Roles; Feb 2001; 44, 3/4; ProQuest Central, pg. 237

Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (1998), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Vol. 5, Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 207-219.

Nunnaly, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Nguyen, H., Ryan, A. M., & Deci, E. L. (2014). The Effect of Leader Age on Work Group
Performance: The Moderating Role of Age Stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3),
469–477.

O'Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Gender Diversity, Team Decision Quality,
and Information Sharing: A Field Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5),
768-778
 APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1. Questionnaire in Vietnamese.

Phần thông tin:

1. Email trường của bạn gì?
2. Bạn thuộc độ tuổi nào dưới đây?
18
19
20
21
22
3. Mã dự án của bạn (LƯU Ý: Khảo sát này đang đề cập tới một dự án bạn đã tham dự.
Kiểm tra tin nhắn đi kèm form này để biết dự án đó là gì và ghi mã dự án tương
ứng vào câu hỏi dưới đây bạn nhé).
4. Số thành viên trong nhóm (ước lượng):
5. Ngành mà bạn hiện đang theo học thuộc một trong các lĩnh vực nào dưới đây?
Kinh tế - Kinh doanh
Tài chính - Ngân hàng
IT
Kiến trúc, nội thất, thiết kế nói chung
Kỹ thuật
Y, dược
Luật
 Khác
6. Trong nhóm làm việc, vai trò của bạn là gì?
Nhóm trưởng
Thành viên
7. Trong dự án, bạn có gặp bất kỳ xung đột nào dù là nhỏ nhất không?
Phần 2. Nội dung khảo sát

STT Biến Nội dung câu hỏi Mức độ đánh giá

quan sát
1 2 3 4 5

THIÊN HƯỚNG GIỚI

1 MGO1 Tính độc lập

2 FGO2 Biết cảm thông

3 FGO3 Nhạy cảm với mong muốn của

người khác

4 MGO2 Tính quả quyết

5 MGO3 Mạnh mẽ trong cá tính

6 FGO1 Thiên về cảm xúc

7 MGO4 Mạnh mẽ trong quan điểm

8 FGO4 Biết thấu hiểu

9 FGO5 Có lòng trắc ẩn

10 MGO5 Có khả năng điều phối, lãnh đạo

11 MGO6 Ưa thích rủi ro

12 MGO7 Muốn tạo ra sức ảnh hưởng

 13 FGO8 Dịu dàng

14 FGO7 Tử tế

15 FGO6 Ấm áp

16 MGO8 Hung hăng, quyết liệt

CÁCH TIẾP CẬN XUNG ĐỘT

17 Khi xung đột diễn ra, tôi kết hợp ý

COS5 kiến của các bên để đưa ra quyết
định tốt nhất.

18 COS3 Tôi xem xung đột như là một vấn

đề chung cần giải quyết.

19 CPS3 Tôi cho rằng xung đột là một vấn

đề phải có người thắng kẻ thua

20 COS2 Tôi tìm giải pháp có lợi cho cả hai

bên khi giải quyết xung đột.

21 CPS2 Trong một mâu thuẫn, tôi muốn

những thành viên khác nhượng bộ
nhưng tôi không muốn nhượng bộ.

22 CPS1 Khi có mâu thuẫn, tôi yêu cầu các

thành viên khác chấp nhận ý kiến
của tôi

23 COS4 Khi giải quyết xung đột, tôi cố gắng

hết khả năng để mọi người đều đạt
được điều mà họ mong muốn.

24 CPS4 Khi có mâu thuẫn, tôi phóng đại ý

 kiến của mình để thuyết phục đối
phương.

25 COS1 Tôi khuyến khích thái độ cùng hợp

tác để giải quyết xung đột

MÔI TRƯỜNG AN TOÀN TÂM LÝ NHÓM

26 PSC1 Nếu mắc lỗi trong nhóm, mọi người

sẽ có ác cảm với tôi.

27 PSC3 Nhóm của tôi không chấp nhận

những thành viên khác biệt.

28 PSC4 Tôi dám làm những việc có thể dẫn

đến kết quả không mong muốn
trong nhóm.

29 PSC2 Các thành viên trong nhóm dám đề

cập các vấn đề khó giải quyết.

30 PSC7 Khi làm việc trong nhóm này,

những điểm mạnh của tôi được
đánh giá cao và tận dụng.

31 PSC5 Rất khó để nhận được sự hỗ trợ từ

các thành viên khác trong nhóm.

32 PSC6 Không ai trong nhóm cố tình hủy

hoại nỗ lực của tôi

HIỆU QUẢ HOẠT ĐỘNG NHÓM

33 TPM2 Nhóm hoàn thành lượng công việc

như kỳ vọng.
34 TPM4 Nhóm hoàn thành dự án đúng hạn.

35 TPM1 Nhóm đạt được mục tiêu dự án.

36 TPM3 Nhóm hoàn thành việc được giao

một cách chất lượng.

37 Nếu dự án nhóm có liên quan đến

TPM5 kinh phí, nhóm hoàn thành dự án
với kinh phí trong kế hoạch đề ra.

38 TPM7 Nhóm duy trì được tinh thần làm

việc cao.

39 TPM6 Nhóm hoạt động hiệu quả.

APPENDIX 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis, factor loading

Appendix 2.1. Results of confirmatory factor analysis, factor loading

Constructs Items Factor Loading

MGO1 0.842

MGO2 0.775

MGO3 0.789

MGO4 0.783
Male Orientation
MGO5 0.724

MGO6 0.706

MGO7 0.725

MGO8 0.745

FGO1 0.771
 Constructs Items Factor Loading

FGO2 0.754

FGO3 0.851

FGO4 0.757

FGO5 0.697
Female Orientation
FGO6 0.7

FGO7 0.788

FGO8 0.821

COS1 0.83

COS2 0.664

COS3 0.745
Cooperative Approach
COS4 0.847

COS5 0.86

CPS1 0.866

CPS2 0.766
Competitive Approach
CPS3 0.909

CPS4 0.897

PSC1 0.881

PSC2 0.834

PSC3 0.854

PSC4
Psychological Safety 0.726
 Constructs Items Factor Loading

Climate PSC5 0.865

PSC6 0.823

PSC7 0.897

TPM1 0.895

TPM2 0.827

TPM3 0.864

TPM4 0.792

Team Performance TPM5 0.827

TPM6 0.84

TPM7 0.843

APPENDIX 2.2. Confirmatory result, model fit

CMIN
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 93 764,14 687 0,021 1,112

Saturated
model 780 0.000 0

Independence
model 39 6118,816 741 0 8,258

RMR, GFI
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model 0,074 0,834 0,811 0,734

Saturated model 0 1

Independence
0,567 0,172 0,128 0,163
model
Baseline Comparisons
NFI RFI IFI TLI
Model
Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2 CFI

Default model 0,875 0,865 0,986 0,985 0,986

Saturated
1 1
model 1

Independence
0 0 0 0
model 0

RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model 0,025 0,01 0,034 1

Independence
0,197 0,192 0,202 0
model

APPENDIX 3. EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

KMO and Bartlett's Test

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.927

Approx. Chi-Square 5666.176

df 741
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Sig. 0.000
 Rotated Component Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6

MGO1 0.825

MGO2 0.764

MGO3 0.768

MGO4 0.801

MGO5 0.764

MGO6 0.711

MGO7 0.714

MGO7 0,766

FGO1 0.786

FGO2 0.766

FGO3 0.824

FGO4 0.709

FGO5 0.701

FGO6 0.712

FGO7 0.823
FGO8 0.797

COS1 0.81

COS2 0.708

COS3 0.756

COS4 0.798

COS5 0.826

CPS1 0.8

CPS2 0.742

CPS3 0.773

CPS4 0.772

PSC1 0.774

PSC2 0.772

PSC3 0.762

PSC4 0.769

PSC5 0.774

PSC6 0.779

PSC7 0.744

TPM1 0.839

TPM2 0.749

TPM3 0.811

TPM4 0.781
 TPM5 0.804

TPM6 0.817

TPM7 0.766

APPENDIX 4. SEM ANALYSIS RESULTS (MODEL FIT)

CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 85 855.603 695 0,000 1,231

Saturated model 780 0,000 0

Independence model 39 6118,816 741 0,000 8,258

RMR,GFI

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model 0,221 0,861 0,794 0,727

Saturated model 0,000 0,000 0,000

Independence model 0,567 6118,816 0,128 0,163

Baseline Comparison

NFI RFI IFI TLI

CFI
Model Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2

Default model 0,860 0,851 0,970 0,968 0,970

Saturated model 1,000 1,000 1,000

Independence model 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model 0,035 0,026 0,043 1,000

Independence model 0,197 0,192 0,202 0,000