The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm

IJCMA
25,3
Conflict in context
Perceptions of conflict, employee outcomes
and the moderating role of discretion and
social capital
276
Ariel Avgar, Eun Kyung Lee and WonJoon Chung
School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA

International Journal of Conflict
Management
Vol. 25 No. 3, 2014
pp. 276-303
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-03-2012-0030
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the moderating effect of discretion and social
capital on the relationship between individual perceptions of team conflict and employee-level
outcomes. The authors propose that both employee discretion and unit-level social capital influence the
negative effects of perceived conflict on employee stress and turnover intentions. They argue that an
individuals perceptions of these central organizational characteristics are likely to alter the
consequences associated with conflict and the manner in which individuals respond to it.
Design/methodology/approach This study empirically tests the moderating effects of discretion
and unit-level social capital on the relationship between individuals perception of team conflict and
employee-level outcomes. Analysis was conducted with survey data from a sample of health care care
providers in 90 units across 20 nursing home organizations. We applied hierarchical linear modeling
analyses to test our hypotheses.
Findings Results demonstrate that employee discretion moderates the relationship between
perceived task conflict and job stress. Unit-level social capital was shown to moderate the relationship
between perceived relationship conflict and employee turnover intentions. Our findings also document
a varied moderation effect at low to moderate levels of conflict versus high levels of conflict. This
finding suggests that the moderating role of contextual variables is more nuanced and complex than the
existing conceptual frameworks acknowledge.
Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the research on conflict and conflict
management by extending a multilevel approach to the effect of conflict and by providing new insights
regarding the contextual manner in which conflict affects workplace outcomes.
Practical implications The effects of discretion and unit-level social capital on how conflict is
metabolized by organizations and their members varied. Contextual factors matter differently for
different individual level outcomes. In attempting to manage the consequences associated with
workplace conflict, organizations and their managers must consider different contextual factors.
Originality/value This study contributes to the research on conflict and its management in
organization by providing new insights regarding the contextual manner in which conflict affects
organizational and individual outcomes. This study provides support for the claim that the relational
and task-related context under which employees experience conflict affects employee stress levels and
the extent to which they report their intentions to leave the organization.
Keywords Social capital, Stress, Turnover intentions, Task conflict, Discretion
Paper type Research paper
Over the past three decades, organizational conflict research has provided a wealth of
empirical evidence regarding the functional and dysfunctional effects of conflict on
central group and organizational performance outcomes (Amason, 1996; De Dreu and Conflict in
van Vianen, 2001; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Lovelace et al., 2001).
According to this stream of research, certain types of conflict hinder group and
context
organizational performance, while others enhance such outcomes (De Dreu, 1997; Jehn,
1997). More specifically, task-related conflict has been conceptually and empirically
linked to positive effects on various measures of team effectiveness and productivity
(Amason, 1996; De Dreu and van de Vliert, 1997; Jehn, 1997). Relationship, or 277
interpersonal-centered conflict, on the other hand, has been shown to negatively affect
team performance and individual well-being (Chen and Chang, 2005; De Dreu and van
Vianen, 2001; Simons and Peterson, 2000).
Although previous research has focused on the functional distinctions between task
and relationship conflict, both types are likely to have negative consequences for
employees and their organizations. Researchers have documented the positive role of
workplace conflict under what has, arguably, been a limited set of circumstances (De
Dreu, 2008). Thus, for example, the positive effects of task conflict have been, for the
most part, documented in the absence of relationship-related conflict, in circumstances
where group members are willing to settle for suboptimal decision alternatives and
when the team climate is characterized by high trust and psychological safety (De Dreu,
2008, p. 9). According to this argument, the effects of conflict on outcomes are highly
contingent on the context in which it develops.
At its core, the contingency perspective asserts that the extent to which different
types of conflicts have functional or dysfunctional consequences for teams and their
members is the product of, among other things, a set of contextual factors (Avgar, 2010;
De Dreu and Weingart, 2003b; De Dreu and West, 2001; Tjosvold, 2008; Tjosvold et al.,
2003). For example, the effect of conflict on team performance may be contingent on the
extent to which team members rely on collaborative, rather than contentious,
communication to resolve differences (Lovelace et al., 2001). The perspective has
received increasing attention in the conflict management literature (De Dreu and
Weingart, 2003b; De Wit et al., 2012; for one of the first conceptual discussions of the
contingent effects of conflict on outcomes see Jehn and Bendersky, 2003). Nevertheless,
much of the research regarding the moderating roles of some key contextual variables
has been conceptual in nature and the empirical studies that have examined the effects
of moderating variables mostly focused on the co-occurrence of other conflict types
(Shaw et al., 2011; De Wit et al., 2012). In a recent meta-analysis, De Wit et al. (2012)
documented that the negative relationship between task conflict and group performance
exacerbated when there is a high correlation between the two types of conflict,
confirming the findings by De Dreu and Weingart (2003a).
A review of literature also indicates that there has been a tendency to downplay the
potential negative effects of conflict (task and relationship) on individual-level outcomes
such as employee health, well-being and job satisfaction (for some exceptions, see De
Dreu et al., 2004; Spector and Jex, 1998). Thus, the existing conflict research has been
disproportionately focused on the consequences of conflict on team and organizational
performance measures (De Dreu and van Vianen, 2001; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a;
Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Peterson and Behfar, 2003; Porter and Lilly, 1996). Conflict,
however, often takes an emotional toll on employees and is accompanied by anxiety and
an overall decrease in well-being (De Dreu, 2008; Jehn, 1994). Research examining
the effects of contextual variables on the relationship between conflict and
IJCMA employee-centered outcomes, can, therefore, contribute both to the existing knowledge
regarding workplace conflict and to the practical methods through which it can be
25,3 addressed.
This paper addresses these gaps in the literature by examining two central
organizational variables discretion and social capital and the manner in which they
moderate the relationship between perceptions of conflict and two employee-centered
278 outcomes job stress and turnover intentions. We argue that key organizational
characteristics are likely to alter the consequences associated with conflict and the
manner in which individuals respond to it (also see Jehn, 1995). In particular, employee
discretion and unit-level social capital are important task-related and relational factors
that are likely to affect employees interpretation of conflict episodes at work and the
degree to which they are affected by them.
As such, we maintain that different contextual factors are likely to have a significant
moderating effect on different types of conflict (task and relationship). More specifically,
we argue that factors that affect both the manner in which employees conduct their
work, like employee discretion, as well as the relational context in which they work, like
unit-level social capital, will moderate the effects of task and relationship conflict on
individual-level outcomes. Thus, we argue that discretion, which represents a key
task-related variable and social capital, which captures the relational ties within a work
unit, will, respectively, affect employees ability to solve task-related problems (Karasek
and Theorell, 1990) and address interpersonal tensions.
In this study, we examine the extent to which individuals perceptions of their own
work-related discretion and the reported levels of unit social capital moderate the effects
of conflict perceptions on employee outcomes. In doing so, we provide empirical
evidence regarding the effects of conflict perceptions on individual employees and
important organizational factors that influence their associated consequences. This
study contributes to conflict and conflict management literature, as this is one of a few
to solely focus on the effects of conflict perceptions on employee outcomes as well as the
first to explore the moderating roles of organizational factors at different levels of
analysis based on a multilevel approach.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Perceptions of conflict and employee-level outcomes
The notion that conflict can be detrimental to employees well-being is not new. In fact,
recent scholarship has increased its attention to the effects of conflict on employee
experience at work by examining factors related to well-being, including job
satisfaction, stress, psychosomatic complaints, burnout and employee depression
(Dijkstra et al., 2005; Frone, 2000; Giebels and Janssen, 2005; Spector and Bruk-Lee,
2008). Nevertheless, much of this research examines the effect of relationship conflict on
these outcomes, with less attention to other types of conflict, task conflict in particular
(Duffy et al., 2000; Janssen et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996; Spector and Jex, 1998; Wall and
Nolan, 1986). In general, all forms of conflict can have negative implications for
individual-level outcomes (De Dreu et al., 1999; Jex, 1998).
Although conflict research has primarily focused on the aggregated level of conflict
within the team or unit and has examined its effect on various team-level outcomes, in
this study, we focus on individuals perception of team conflict. We do so because we
believe that in understanding the effects of conflict on the individual level outcomes, it is
important to examine the individual level perceptions, which are likely to vary across Conflict in
team members. The notion that members of the same team or unit may perceive
different levels of conflict has been established in an emerging body of research on
context
conflict asymmetry (Neuman and Avgar, 2012; Jehn et al., 2010; Jehn and Chatman, 2000;
Jehn et al., 2006).
In contrast to the longstanding assumption that team members share a common
perception of this group-level phenomena, Jehn et al. (2010) documented an asymmetry 279
in perceptions of conflict in groups. Furthermore, Jehn et al. (2010) provided empirical
evidence that individuals asymmetric perceptions of conflict are related to their
satisfaction with the group and performance. Evidence regarding conflict asymmetry
highlights the need for conflict research to consider the manner in which individual
perceptions of conflict, rather than aggregated team levels, shape attitudes and
experience at work. In what follows, we advance the argument that individual
perceptions of team conflict (task and relationship) are positively related to
employee-reported stress and turnover intentions.
Employee stress is a central and widely studied individual-level outcome that is
associated with various physiological, behavioral and psychological consequences
(Quick et al., 1997). Research on stress has indicated that it is related to actual or
perceived loss of organizational resources. As such, events or circumstances that
threaten the availability of resources in organizations, such as limited time and budget,
or the amount of control one perceives, are considered stressors (Dijkstra et al., 2005).
Not surprisingly, workplace conflict has been shown to affect employee stress and its
associated well-being outcomes (De Dreu et al., 2004; Spector and Jex, 1998; Dijkstra
et al., 2005; Prosser et al., 1997; Friedman et al., 2000).
Task conflict involves the deliberation over divergent ideas and opinions, which
requires the processing of a relatively large volume of conflicting information. This
implies that high levels of task conflict are likely to lead to experiences of cognitive
overload in decision-making situations (De Dreu, 2006; Carnevale and Probst, 1998).
Although task conflict can be beneficial to the quality of decision making, it also
typically makes it more difficult for group members to reach consensus (Dougherty,
1992; Lovelace et al., 2001). Individuals who perceive higher levels of task conflict within
their team or unit are more likely, therefore, to consider their team experience stressful
due to the difficulty in reaching consensus and the associated information overload than
those who perceive lower levels of task conflict.
Relationship conflict has been defined as interpersonal tensions and personal
incompatibilities over matters such as beliefs, values, habits and personalities (De Dreu,
2008). Relationship conflict often leads to tensions, anxiety and uncomfortable feelings
and emotions among team members (Jehn, 1994). These negative psychological states of
discomfort have been shown to serve as dominant sources of employee stress (Jex, 1998;
Karasek, 1979). A number of scholars have noted that high levels of relationship conflict
result in increased job stress and reduced member satisfaction (De Dreu and Weingart,
2003b; Dijkstra et al., 2005; Jehn, 1997; Jehn and Mannix, 2001). Perceptions of high levels
of team relationship conflict are, therefore, likely to increase perceptions of a stressful
work environment.
Another central individual-level outcome that is of particular significance, both to
individual employees and to their organizations, is turnover intentions (Uhl-Bien et al.,
2000). Turnover intentions signal a potential withdrawal-coping mechanism used by
IJCMA individuals in an effort to address unfavorable working conditions (Sheridan and
Abelson, 1983; Maertz and Griffeth, 2004). It is important to note that compared to other
25,3 emotional and psychological outcomes, turnover intentions allow for a longer-term
assessment of the consequences of conflict because it is likely to be associated with
prolonged and extended exposure to high levels of conflict.
Individuals who perceive high levels of team conflict (task or relationship) are likely
280 to have negative perceptions of their work environment, which will, in turn, make them
more likely to consider leaving the organization. Jehn (1995) maintained that all forms of
disagreement were associated with negative affective reactions frustration and
dissatisfaction documenting that task conflict is positively linked to the reduced desire
to stay in the group. Furthermore, perceptions of high levels of both types of team
conflict may threaten an individuals belief about the team as a collectivity, which is
socially integrated and includes shared values. Specifically, perceptions of high levels of
task conflict highlight member differences, thereby challenging the ability to maintain a
positive team identity (Fiske, 1992; Frone, 2000). Consequently, employees may develop
intentions to withdraw or leave the group (Schneider, 1987). Perceptions of high levels of
relationship conflict can also increase the likelihood that members will view their team
as consisting of individuals who are dissimilar and dysfunctional, which can decrease
ones sense of belongingness to the group (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). To the extent that
relationship conflict decreases team cohesion, it will likely lead to an increase in
turnover intentions.
Although job stress and intentions to leave the organization are correlated (Harris
et al., 2005; ODriscoll and Beehr, 1994; Dougherty et al., 1985), they are distinct
individual-level outcomes. In fact, turnover intention is affected by a number of other
unique factors, such as employees organizational identity (Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta,
2005) and co-worker trust (Ferres et al., 2005). In addition, as will be discussed below, it
is possible that the relationship between conflict and each of these outcome measures
will be moderated by different contextual factors. As such, we develop separate
arguments regarding the manner in which the relationship between perceptions of
conflict and both employee outcomes, job stress and turnover intentions, are moderated
by employees perceptions of discretion and unit-level social capital.

Moderating the effects of conflict on employee-level outcomes

As noted above, this study is designed to examine the moderating role of employee
discretion and unit-level social capital on the relationship between conflict and
employee-level outcomes. As such, we propose a contextual lens through which to
understand the consequences of workplace conflict. A contextual approach to
organizational conflict suggests that a key to understanding the effects of conflict rests
on the analysis of the specific conditions and circumstances under which it arises. More
specifically, it is argued that contextual factors are likely to alter the direct effects of
different types of conflict on specific organizational, group and individual outcomes (De
Dreu and Weingart, 2003a; Jehn and Bendersky, 2003; Shaw et al., 2011).
For example, in a recent study, Shaw et al. (2011) demonstrated that task conflict no
longer has a positive effect on team performance when individuals were distracted by
work-related discussions as a result of high levels of relationship conflict. Ayoko et al.
(2008) argued that a teams emotional climate is likely to influence the nature of a teams
reactions to conflict as well as the occurrence of conflict. According to the authors, a
team members empathic behaviors create a bond among members, leading to the Conflict in
climate in which their frustration and problems can be shared, discussed and worked
through. Guerra et al. (2005) found that the negative consequences of conflict in terms of
context
job satisfaction and affective well-being are mitigated by a high goal-orientation culture
because individuals in these settings tend to consider disagreements about how to
perform a task to be an essential part of the process and a means of increasing the
likelihood of achieving their goals. 281
Jehn (1995) observed that task conflict led to higher levels of group performance
when tasks were non-routine. More importantly, for the purposes of this study, she also
found that the negative effect of task conflict on both employee satisfaction and intent to
remain decreased markedly under non-routine conditions. We extend and refine this
contextual perspective by arguing that moderating contextual factors exist at multiple
levels within the organization. Furthermore, we also maintain that different contextual
factors play a moderating role for different types of conflict.
In this study, we focus on employee discretion and unit-level social capital as
moderating constructs, one for task conflict and the other for relationship conflict. We
argue that discretion, which represents the extent to which individuals perceive having
decision-making authority with respect to performing their work, is likely to influence
the manner in which conflict affects individual employees. Social capital, which is
defined as the assets and wealth inherent to relationships, has been linked to both
informational and relational resources in organizations (Adler and Kwon, 2002;
Coleman, 1988). We maintain that different levels of these relational resources across
units will affect the manner in which individuals respond to relationship conflict within
the unit. We, therefore, propose that the relationships between perceptions of task and
relationship conflict and job stress and turnover intentions are moderated by these two
central organizational factors, which operate at two different levels of analysis.

The moderating role of discretion

Discretion represents the extent to which employees are provided with the autonomy to
make important work-related decisions (Breaugh, 1998). Past research on employee
discretion has emphasized the benefits of discretion for group and organizational
performance, including job satisfaction (Hackman and Lawler, 1971; Hackman and
Oldham, 1975) and individual-level well-being (Bond and Bunce, 2003; Thompson and
Prottas, 2006). These studies commonly focus on the notion of employees sense of
control as an underlying mechanism in explaining the positive effects of employee
discretion for organizations (Batt, 2004; Hackman and Oldham, 1975). For example, Batt
and Valcour (2003) found that higher levels of employee job discretion lead to a greater
perception of job control, which, in turn, positively affects job satisfaction.
We argue that the benefits of having high levels of discretion can also be applied to
the task conflict domain. High levels of employee discretion are likely to facilitate the
restoration of the lost sense of control associated with conflict by providing employees
with the autonomy to act on their knowledge and decision-making preferences.
Employees are less likely to experience task conflict-related stress when they are
provided with sufficient levels of control over the way they do their work (Spector, 1988).
Giebels and Janssen (2005) proposed two complementary processes by which conflict
increases anxiety, tension and stress. Specifically, the authors argued that employees
are likely to develop a sense of limited control when perceiving disagreements or
IJCMA differences of opinion with others. In other words, conflict with others triggers feelings
of obstruction, which in turn leads to feelings of reduced control and uncertainty about
25,3 the task at hand. This uncertainty, the authors claim, is likely to increase employee
stress. Furthermore, they also argue that conflict undermines ones sense of self-esteem
and hampers efforts to maintain positive social identity and relationships with others
(Giebels and Janssen, 2005). In sum, employees who experience high levels of conflict,
282 regardless of the type, are likely to suffer from emotional distress due to the low sense of
control and threatened self-esteem and identity.
This model presents a conceptual foundation on which we develop the argument that
employee discretion is likely to moderate the effects of task conflict on employee stress
and turnover intentions. Employee discretion is likely to minimize the negative effects of
conflict perceptions by providing individuals with the resources and ability to restore
their sense of control in the face of task conflict. Given that discretion and employees
sense of control is strongly related to the execution of tasks, we expect that the
moderation effect of discretion will be significant for task-related conflict.
Discretion or decision-making authority can also serve as a tool for assisting employees
to creatively resolve work-related tensions and conflicts that might otherwise lead to
turnover intentions (Grawitch et al., 2003). In addition to the psychological restoration
effects, employee discretion over work-related decisions may also help individuals
effectively process the increased amounts of information associated with task conflict.
Specifically, discretion provides employees with the ability to make decisions about how
to prioritize and metabolize diverse sets of opinions and views about work-related
matters. A sufficient degree of discretion, we argue, also provides employees with the
resources needed to revive their sense of responsibility and ownership for the tasks at
hand. High levels of discretion are likely to provide employees with the ability to
manage the task conflict within a team in a less negative way. Specifically, discretion
may assist employees in viewing task conflict as less threatening to their identity. In
other words, it may allow for individuals to address differences and disagreements
without necessarily feeling disconnected from other team members.
In sum, discretion can potentially alleviate stress associated with cognitive overload
as well as the tendency to turn to withdrawal tactics in the face of such conflict.
Therefore, we propose that high levels of employee discretion will moderate the
relationships between task conflict and employee stress and turnover intentions.
H1. Employee discretion will moderate the relationship between perceptions of task
conflict and reported levels of job stress such that the positive relationship
between perceived task conflict and job stress will be weaker when discretion is
high rather than low.
H2. Employee discretion will moderate the relationship between perceptions of task
conflict and reported levels of turnover intentions such that the positive
relationship between perceived task conflict and turnover intentions will be
weaker when discretion is high rather than low.

The moderating role of social capital

Social capital has received a great deal of attention in the study of organizations over the
past two decades and has been conceptualized in various ways in the literature (Adler
and Kwon, 2002). This relational construct refers to the set of resources created and
embedded within social networks and relationships (Coleman, 1988). Nahapiet and Conflict in
Ghoshal (1998) defined social capital as the sum of the actual and potential resources
embedded within, available through, and derived from networks of relationships
context
possessed by the individual or social unit (p. 243). The importance of relationships to
the definition of social capital has made it increasingly valuable in the study of
organizations and the workplace (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Researchers have mostly
focused on how social capital improves important organizational processes, such as 283
knowledge sharing and transfer (Hansen, 1999), and on its performance implications
(Kang et al., 2007; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). There is growing evidence that social capital
contributes to knowledge creation and innovation (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Bouty, 2000;
Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). By engaging in frequent and active exchanges of
information, organizational members are more likely to think creatively and promote
innovation in their different roles (De Clercq et al., 2009). These innovative abilities can
be especially useful in the process resolving and addressing conflict (Avgar and Lee,
2011).
In addition to the informational benefits of social capital, it has also been linked to an
increase in trust and reciprocal obligations (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Tsai and
Ghoshal, 1998). In proposing a moderating role of unit-level social capital, we focus on
the relational dimension of social capital. This dimension is likely to have a positive
effect on the manner in which conflict is metabolized and dealt with in organizations. In
fact, existing research has documented the moderating effect of trust on the relationship
between task and relationship conflict (Amason and Sapienza, 1997; Peterson and
Behfar, 2003; Simons and Peterson, 2000). Trust, according to this argument, is likely to
prevent the interpretation of ambiguous conflict behaviors as intentionally harmful
(Creed and Miles, 1996; Zand, 1972) and thus weakening the link between task conflict
and relationship conflict.
More importantly, high-quality relationships, an inherent element of social capital,
are also likely to play a positive moderating role by offering employees psychological
resources for coping with conflict-related employee stress (Beehr et al., 2000; Heaney
et al., 1995; Thoits, 1986). For example, high-quality relationships with other employees
have been shown to affect the manner in which individuals interpret stressful situations
by assisting them to view them as less threatening (Fenlason and Beehr, 1994; Heaney
et al., 1995). Also, individuals with high-quality relationships are more likely to receive
empathetic concern and understanding from coworkers (Granovetter, 1973; Sheppard
and Sherman, 1998), which may serve as an effective method of buffering the negative
effect of relational distress with others on stress. As such, social capital may create the
context in which the negative consequences of relationship conflict do not take root.
Social capital that has been fostered within the unit, according to this argument,
provides employees with relational support and resources needed to mitigate the
negative effects associated with the perceptions of relationship conflict.
We also maintain that social capital at the unit level moderates the relationship
between perceptions of relationship conflict and employees turnover intentions. More
specifically, we argue that the bonding effect associated with social capital, which is
derived from high-quality relationships among organizational members (Adler and
Kwon, 2002), is likely to moderate the relationship between perceptions of relationship
conflict and turnover intention. As Putnam (2000) notes, social capital functions as a
kind of sociological superglue (p. 23) that strongly ties people together and generates a
IJCMA sense of closeness and group unity. Therefore, individuals who work in units where
team members have established strong ties (high-quality relationships) with one
25,3 another will be less likely to express intent to leave the organization when experiencing
difficult situations, including relationship conflict, than those who work in units with
low levels of social capital. Put differently, high-quality relationships, engendering trust
and support, create an environment in which employees develop greater attachment to
284 their job and unit, even in the face of conflict (Lankau and Scandura, 2002).
Building on our argument above and existing research, we propose that the positive
relationship between perceptions of relationship conflict and employee stress levels and
turnover intentions will be alleviated by higher levels of unit-level social capital in
organizations.
H3. Unit-level social capital will moderate the relationship between perceptions of
relationship conflict and reported levels of job stress such that the positive
relationship between perceived relationship conflict and job stress will be
weaker when unit-level social capital is high rather than low.
H4. Unit-level social capital will moderate the relationship between perceptions of
relationship conflict and reported levels of turnover intentions such that the
positive relationship between perceived relationship conflict and turnover
intentions will be weaker when unit-level social capital is high rather than low
(Figure 1).

Methodology
Data
Data for this study were collected as part of a larger demonstration project funded by the
State of New York that included the introduction of health information technology in 20
New York City area nursing homes. The Quality Care Oversight Committee established
for this project selected these nursing homes after a rigorous process intended to ensure
a diverse sample of organizations as well as adherence to basic preparedness
requirements. Survey data were collected in 15 of the nursing homes receiving the
technology and 5 nursing homes that were serving as control facilities. The Appendix

Discretion Social Capital

Employee Outcomes

Task Conflict
Job Stress

Relationship
Turnover
Conflict
Intentions

Figure 1. Note: White boxes indicate individual-level constructs, and the shaded box
Hypothized model indicates a unit-level construct
includes a table providing key details regarding the selected nursing homes in terms of Conflict in
size, occupancy rate and geographic location. Our study included employees in all of the
20 organizations. Data collected as part of this research provided a unique opportunity
context
to examine additional research questions regarding the organization of work in the
health-care setting. In addition to technology-related variables, our survey instrument
included a large number of variables related to work arrangements and employee
attitudes and perceptions, which allows us to test the hypotheses developed above. 285
The survey data for this paper were collected between June 2008 and July 2009. The
survey was administered by telephone through the Cornell University Survey Research
Institute (SRI). Employees in the nursing homes received a letter from the researchers
describing the general background for the study and our goal of better understanding
the nature of work in their organization. We emphasized the voluntary nature of the
study and guaranteed absolute confidentiality. Employees were provided a toll-free
telephone number they could call if they did not wish to be contacted by SRI. In addition,
SRI interviewers provided this general information again when contacting employees
by phone.
Survey interviews lasted an average of 30 minutes and included approximately 100
items covering work design and structure, employee attitudes and perceptions and
employee background information. We included in the sample for this study all frontline
staff from the 20 participating organizations that fell into six occupational categories:
(1) registered nurses (RNs);
(2) licensed practical nurses (LPNs);
(3) certified nurses assistants;
(4) social workers;
(5) therapists; and
(6) other allied professionals which included diverse support occupations.

These occupational groups represent the primary occupational groups involved in

direct resident care. In total, we contacted 2,580 individuals across the 20 organizations.
Of these, 1,071 individuals completed the survey for response rate of 41.5 per cent. We
removed from the sample individuals who were no longer employed by one of the 20
nursing homes. We also removed individuals who were single respondents from a given
unit. As a result, our final sample included 857 individuals working in 90 units[1]. Units
are categorized by 12 different task types, such as administration, ventilation,
rehabilitation, and physical therapy. Teams consist of between 2 and 37 members, with
an average of 10 members. Among 857 members, 89.4 per cent were women and 95 per
cent had at least high school degree. The average age of the sample was 49 years, with
a mean organizational tenure of 8.88 years.

Measures
Dependent variables.
Job stress: We measured individual employees stress using two items derived
from Motowidlo et al.s (1986) subjective stress measure. The items used were My
job is extremely stressful and I feel a great deal of stress because of my work
IJCMA Each item was measured on a 5-point response scale that ranged from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Cronbachs alpha for these items was 0.73.
25,3
Turnover intentions: This variable was measured using a single item in which
employees were asked their intention to leave their current organization adapted
from Colarelli (1984). The item is I often think about leaving this nursing home,
and a 5-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)
286 was used.

Independent variables.
Perception of task conflict: Task conflict was measured using three items adapted
from Jehn and Mannix (2001). Respondents were asked to answer items regarding
task conflict within their unit. Specifically, they were asked to indicate the degree
to which there is disagreement about the work being done, conflict about the work
one does and the extent to which there are differences of opinions in the units. Each
item used the scale of (1) to (4) where (1) is not at all and (4) is to large extent.
Cronbachs alpha for task conflict was 0.76. We focused on individuals
perceptions of team task conflict for theoretical reasons under the assumption that
team members can perceive conflict differently. Intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC) 1 for this measure was 0.01 and F(89, 754) 1.07, p 0.10, justifying our
measurement of task conflict at the individual level.
Perception of relationship conflict: Relationship conflict was also measured using
three survey items adapted from Jehn and Mannix (2001). The items were included
questions about the amount of friction, tension and personality in their own unit.
Sample item was How much friction is there among members in your work unit?
and How much tension is there between members in your unit? The items used
the scale of (1) to (4), where (1) is not at all and (4) is to large extent. Cronbachs
alpha for relationship conflict was 0.80. Like task conflict, we also measured
relationship conflict at the individual level. ICC 1 for this measure was 0.02 and
F(89, 757) 1.20, p 0.10, again justifying our measurement of relationship conflict at
the individual level.
Employee discretion: We measured individuals discretion using a single item in
which employees were asked about whether they have sufficient amount of
discretion in making work-related decisions on their job. The exact item was I
have a great deal of discretion in making work-related decisions., and a 5-point
response scale was used ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Unit-level social capital: Social capital literature has focused on the sharing and
exchange of knowledge as key attributes of social capital (Avgar, 2010;
Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Youndt and Snell, 2004). As noted above, social
capital is defined as the resources embedded within interpersonal relationships
(Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2001; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Consistent with the
conceptualization in the literature, we asked respondents to report the levels of
information sharing, overall level of communication and the extent to which they
exchange and share ideas with people within their unit and those in other units.
Five items adapted from Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) were used to measure
the extent to which individuals are engaged in the interactions of sharing and
exchanging ideas with other employees. One additional item measures the
 frequency of communication with other employees about work issues. Sample items Conflict in
include Employees in my unit share information freely with each other, and
Employees in my unit exchange ideas with employees from other parts of the nursing
context
home. Each item used a 5-point response scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1)
to strongly agree (5). Cronbachs alpha for social capital was 0.69. Individual members
perception of social capital was aggregated to the unit-level. Tests for aggregation to
the team level yielded acceptable values (within-group agreement or rwg(j); median 287
rwg(6) 0.85, mean rwg(6) 0.88; ICC 1 0.03; F(89, 702) 1.29, p 0.05).

Control variables. We controlled for several demographic characteristics such as age and
tenure (in years), gender (0 female, 1 male), education (1 less than high school to
7 doctorate degree), employment status (1 full time, 2 part time), work shift (1
day, 2 evening, 3 night), additional employment (1 no, 2 yes), union
membership (1 no, 2 yes) and professional affiliation (e.g. LPNs or RNs) because
those may account for any differences in overall attitudes and experience in the
organization or in the unit. For example, individuals age and organizational tenure have
been important predictors of turnover intention (Rhodes, 1983; Cotton and Tuttle, 1986;
van Breukelen et al., 2004), and union membership has been related to employees
intention to quit and stress levels (Hammer and Avgar, 2007; Iverson and Currivan,
2003; Freeman and Medoff, 1984).

Results
Confirmatory factor analyses. We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses
using AMOS 19 to insure that the six variables task conflict, relationship conflict,
discretion, social capital, job stress and turnover intention can be loaded as distinct
factors. The results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the six-factor model
fits well with the data (a model 2 367.840, df 91; confirmed fit index 0.914;
goodness-of-fit index 0.941; incremental fit index 0.915; root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) 0.063). With the appropriate RMSEA values ( 0.08,
suggested by Jreskog and Srbom, 1993), these results qualify the evidence of
discriminant validity of our measures.
We are aware of potential concerns over same-source bias such as inflation of
relationship among variables measured by self-reports (Podsakoff and Todor, 1985;
Spector, 1994). However, as Conway and Lance (2010) noted, self-reports are clearly
appropriate for job satisfaction and other individual-level perceptions (Chan, 2009;
Skinner, 1957, for a review). In a similar vein, regarding conflict measures, we focused on
subjective perceptions of conflict in the workplace rather than on an objective measure.
Turnover intention and stress are often measured with self-reported items (Chen et al.,
2011; Cohen et al., 1983). Together with the demonstration of distinctive confirmatory
factor analysis results, we argue that nature of our variables could partially reduce
potential concerns associated with common method bias.
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the variables are reported in Table I. Task
conflict and relationship conflict were highly correlated (p 0.01), consistent with the
finding in previous conflict research (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003a). Meanwhile, both
task conflict and relationship conflict were significantly related to stress (p 0.01) and
turnover intention (p 0.01), suggesting direct effects of task conflict and relationship
conflict on outcome variables.
 25,3

288

Table I.

variablesa
IJCMA

correlations for all

Descriptive statistics and
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Control variables
Age 49.05 11.05
Gender 0.11 0.31 0.029
Union membership 0.73 0.44 0.127** 0.018
Additional employment 0.31 0.46 0.084* 0.025 0.178**
Organizational tenure 8.88 8.17 0.524** 0.024 0.249** 0.161**
Education 3.13 1.27 0.149** 0.126** 0.441** 0.098** 0.191**
Full time employment 1.24 0.43 0.168** 0.011 0.244** 0.413** 0.284** 0.120**
Work shift 1.76 0.80 0.088* 0.010 0.128** 0.032 0.056 0.085* 0.044
Task conflict 1.76 0.71 0.081* 0.032 0.019 0.038 0.026 0.025 0.049 0.059
Relationship conflict 1.65 0.71 0.134** 0.004 0.007 0.009 0.016 0.063 0.027 0.060 0.756**
Discretion 3.09 1.13 0.158** 0.069 0.189** 0.008 0.105** 0.148** 0.072* 0.099** 0.009 0.034
Social capitalb 3.55 0.35 0.094** 0.086* 0.121** 0.023 0.111** 0.121** 0.023 0.057 0.006 0.008 0.061
Job stress 3.06 1.08 0.017 0.055 0.082* 0.091** 0.106** 0.014 0.166** 0.038 0.301** 0.270** 0.041 0.017
Turnover intentions 2.41 1.15 0.090* 0.037 0.038 0.001 0.013 0.025 0.030 0.044 0.239** 0.189** 0.101** 0.044 0.387**

Notes: a b
Listwise N 797 (individual level); N 90 (unit-level); social capital was aggregated to the unit level; * p 0.05; ** p 0.01.All significance tests are two-tailed
Given the multi-level nature of the data and the nesting of individuals within their 90 Conflict in
work units within 20 nursing homes, we applied hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)
analyses to test our hypotheses (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002; Raudenbush et al., 2001).
context
HLM simultaneously calculates estimates for the effect of both unit-level and nursing
home-level variables while maintaining the appropriate level of analysis. HLM is
especially well-suited for estimating the cross-level interaction of a unit-level moderator,
social capital, on individual-level relationships. (i.e. H3 and 4; Hofmann et al., 2000). We 289
first ran a null model that included only control variables (with no predictors included)
for the main employee outcomes in the paper job stress and turnover intentions and
found significant level 2 variance. This result demonstrates that there is sufficient
between-unit variance in outcome variables, justifying HLM as the appropriate analytic
technique. Following past conventions that recommended by Hofmann and Gavin
(1998), we grand mean-centered all level 1-independent variables, except demographic
dummies.
First, our results provide support for the direct, negative effect of task and
relationship conflict on key individual level outcomes. With regard to the relationship
between task conflict and stress, higher levels of perceived task conflict within the unit
were related to increased levels of individuals reported stress (r 0.44, p 0.001) as
shown in Model 2 of Table II. Perceptions of task conflict also had a negative effect on
turnover intentions. Higher levels of perceived task conflict are related to increased
levels of employee turnover intentions (r 0.39, p 0.001) as shown in Model 7 of
Table II. Similarly, relationship conflict had negative effects on both job stress and
turnover intentions, such that higher levels of perceived relationship conflict results in
increased levels of job stress and turnover intentions (see Model 3 of Table II for job
stress and Model 8 for turnover intentions).
H1 and 2 proposed that discretion moderates the relationships between task conflict
and job stress and turnover intentions. The results of the HLM analyses reported in
Model 4 in Table II indicate that discretion interacted significantly (r 0.08, p 0.05)
with task conflict in affecting the direct effect on employees job stress. Simple slope
tests[2] confirmed that both slopes for high levels of discretion (r 0.51, t 4.88, p
0.001) and low levels of discretion (r 0.36, t 3.44, p 0.001) are significantly
different from zero[3]. Both slopes fell outside the region of significance for moderator
effects, which ranged from 31.66 to 2.95, also indicating that both slopes were
significantly different from the mean slope of task conflict with job stress. Nevertheless,
in contrast to our hypothesis, discretion had a positive, not negative, moderating effect.
We plotted the interactions graphically to illustrate the specific form of the interaction
effect. The plot (see Figure 2) suggests that the relationship between task conflict and
stress is strengthened when discretion is high, which goes against the hypothesized
direction of the interaction effect. Nevertheless, a careful examination of Figure 2
illustrates that the interactive effect of task conflict and discretion on employee stress is
disordinal in nature. At low levels of task conflict, individuals with high levels of
discretion reported lower levels of job stress than individuals with low discretion.
However, at high levels of task conflict, individuals with high levels of discretion
reported higher levels of stress than similar individuals with low discretion. Therefore,
the buffering effect of discretion seems to hold only when low levels of perceived task
conflict were reported. With regards to H2, we did not find support for the moderating
 a
25,3

290

Table II.
IJCMA

turnover intentions
moderation effect of
discretion and social
linear modeling for the
Results of hierarchical

capital on job stress and

Job stress Turnover intentions
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10

Intercept 3.301** 3.260** 3.215** 3.294** 3.221** 2.387** 2.346** 2.815** 2.849** 2.849**
Level 1: Individual variables
Controlb
Age 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.012* 0.008* 0.009* 0.010* 0.009*
(0.004) (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
Gender 0.193 0.161 0.185 0.136 0.184 0.125 0.099 0.158 0.070 0.136
(0.100) (0.096) (0.096) (0.095) (0.097) (0.138) (0.135) (0.138) (0.134) (0.137)
Union membership 0.045 0.024 0.033 0.010 0.031 0.006 0.008 0.002 0.022 0.017
(0.106) (0.102) (0.097) (0.100) (0.097) (0.101) (0.099) (0.098) (0.097) (0.098)
Additional employment 0.055 0.046 0.058 0.052 0.058 0.022 0.002 0.020 0.009 0.029
(0.088) (0.082) (0.086) (0.085) (0.086) (0.102) (0.096) (0.101) (0.099) (0.100)
Organizational tenure 0.013* 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.002
(0.006) (0.005) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.007) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006)
Full-time employment 0.336** 0.318** 0.319** 0.316** 0.323** 0.082 0.107 0.092 0.123** 0.086
(0.094) (0.091) (0.093) (0.090) (0.093) (0.109) (0.106) (0.105) (0.105) (0.106)
Independent variables
Task conflict 0.437** 0.438** 0.395** 0.394**
(0.049) (0.050) (0.053) (0.052)
Relationship conflict 0.391** 0.402** 0.311** 0.343**
(0.038) (0.043) (0.053) (0.056)
Moderator
Discretion (D) 0.024 0.107*
(0.033) (0.453)
Moderation
Task conflict D 0.077* 0.018
(0.033) (0.043)
Level 2: Unit variablesa
Moderator
Social capital (SC) 0.205 (0.213) 0.002 (0.222)
Cross-level moderation
Relationship Conflict SC 0.225 (0.222) 0.573* (0.244)

Notes: N 857 (individual-level); N 90 (unit-level); a All estimates were calculated with robust standard error; b
education level, professional affiliation and work shift dummies were
created and included in the model; * p 0.05; ** p 0.01; all significance tests are two-tailed
 5 Conflict in
4.5 context
4

3.5
Job Stress

Low Discretion
3
High Discretion
291
2.5

2
Figure 2.
1.5 Interaction graph of
discretion with task
1
conflict on job stress
Low Task Conflict High Task Conflict

role of discretion on the relationship between task conflict and turnover intentions (r
0.02, ns.).
H3 and 4 proposed that unit-level social capital moderates the relationships between
relationship conflict and employee stress and turnover intentions. We expected that
unit-level social capital will weaken the positive relationship between relationship
conflict and turnover intentions. Results of our HLM analyses, reported in Model 10 in
Table II, indicate that unit-level social capital did, in fact, moderate the relationship
between relationship conflict turnover intentions. Nevertheless, we find that this
interaction amplified the effect of relationship conflict on turnover intentions (r 0.57,
p 0.05). Using simple slope tests, we confirmed that when a unit had high levels of
reported social capital, relationship conflict was positively and significantly related to
unit members turnover intentions (r 0.92, t 1.96, p 0.001). However, when a unit
had low levels of reported social capital, relationship conflict was not significantly
related to unit members turnover intentions (r 0.23, t 0.098, p 0.33), which
indicates that, in such situations, individuals experiencing high relationship conflict and
low relationship conflict reported similar levels of turnover intentions. Confirming these
results, the regions of significance ranged from 3.39 to 0.32, indicating that relationship
conflict had a positive effect on turnover intentions at high levels of reported unit social
capital. It can be concluded that the relationship between relationship conflict and turnover
intentions is amplified under conditions of high levels of unit-level social capital. H4 was,
therefore, not supported in terms of the direction of the moderation effect. The plot for high
and low levels of both relationship conflict and social capital appears in Figure 3. With
respect to H3, no support was found for a moderating role of unit-level social capital on the
relationship between relationship conflict and employee stress (r 0.22, ns.).

Conclusions and discussion

This study contributes to the research on conflict and its management in organizations
by providing new insights regarding the nuanced and contextual manner in which
conflict affects individual outcomes. Although our results regarding the direction of
discretion and social capitals moderation effects depart from our hypotheses, results of
this study shed new light on the contextual manner in which conflict plays out in
organizations. Our results provide support for the claim that the task and relational
contexts under which employees experience conflict affect the outcomes associated with
IJCMA this everyday social phenomenon. Both task and relationship conflict were shown to
have a significant positive effect on both stress and turnover intentions. Thus, we
25,3 provide additional support for the argument that conflict, relationship or task, can have
negative consequences for employees and, by extension, their employers. Furthermore,
we also show that these negative effects are affected by the task and relational
conditions under which they arise. More specifically, we find that the positive
292 relationship between task conflict and stress is exacerbated by reported employee
discretion and that the positive relationship between relationship conflict and turnover
intentions is exacerbated by the reported unit-level social capital. This is an important
finding given that it suggests that organizational constructs that have been shown to
have clear benefits appear to strengthen the negative consequences associated with
conflict.
With regards to discretion, our results suggest a somewhat nuanced moderation
effect. First, it is clear from our analyses that under conditions of high discretion, the
negative effects of high levels of task conflict have a more negative effect on
employee-reported stress. This suggests that having more say and input regarding
ones work interacts with task conflict in a manner that leads to greater levels of stress.
Our hypothesis that discretion would weaken the positive effect between task conflict
and stress was based on the argument that higher levels of perceived discretion would
restore employees sense of lack of control that has been shown to be associated with
conflict, thereby moderating reported stress. Our findings suggest that this is not that
case and that having more discretion increases the stress levels experienced by
employees facing high levels of task conflict. It is possible that having more discretion
exacerbates the relationship between task conflict and stress due to the fact that having
more control over ones work places a greater level of responsibility in adequately
addressing this conflict. In other words, employees with higher levels of perceived
discretion may report greater levels of stress when accompanied by high levels of
perceived discretion due to a greater perceived need to deal with conflict effectively.
Thus, when faced with a great deal of disagreements about the work at hand, having
more say does not appear to be empowering, but rather it seems to be overwhelming and
stress inducing. In fact, some discretion scholars have argued that discretion has the
potential to lead to higher levels of stress due to the associated responsibility (for a

4.5

4
Turnover Intentions

3.5

3 Low Social Capital

2.5 High Social Capital

Figure 3.
2
Interaction graph of social
capital with relationship 1.5
conflict on turnover
1
intentions
Low Relationship Conflict High Relationship Conflict
recent review of the debate regarding the benefits associated with discretion see Avgar Conflict in
et al., 2012).
Interestingly, our results do indicate that at low levels of task conflict, high levels of
context
reported discretion actually buffer employees from increased stress. Employees with
high levels of perceived discretion appear better equipped to deal with conflict at low
levels. Thus, discretion alleviated the negative effect of conflict on stress at low to
moderate levels of reported conflict, but actually exacerbated the negative effects at high 293
levels of conflict. Although these findings partially depart from our hypotheses, we
believe that they provide important insights regarding the contextualized effects of
conflict. Task conflict is influenced by the context in which it arises, in this case
perceived levels of discretion, but this influence varies at different levels of conflict.
There is a need for additional research to tease out the mechanisms by which discretion
alleviates and exacerbates the stress-related consequences of conflict at different
reported levels of intensity.
With regard to the moderating effect of unit-level social capital, our findings indicate
that this relational construct matters, but, like discretion, not in the manner that we had
predicted. Our analysis also demonstrates that employees who work in units with high
levels of social capital appear to be more prone to turnover intentions associated with
relationship conflict. We had proposed that unit-level social capital would serve as a
buffer from the negative consequences associated with relationship conflict. In
developing this hypothesis we argued that the relational benefits of high quality
relationships would shield employees from some of the individual-level costs of this type
of conflict. Our findings do not support this argument. Rather, they indicate that the
existence of high quality relationships at work in terms of information exchange and
communication, according to these findings exacerbate, not alleviate, the negative
effects of relationship conflict on turnover intentions.
It is possible that high levels of unit-reported social capital create conditions under
which conflict is perceived to be more detrimental. In other words, where high quality
relationships exist, relationship conflict proves more damaging with respect to
employees intentions to leave the organization. As such, this finding adds to the
existing research on social capital, which has, for the most part, highlighted its various
benefits. Having more unit-level social capital is likely to have clear benefits for the
organization and its employees, but our findings suggest that it also entails a heightened
sensitivity, not resilience, to relationship conflict.
It is important to note that, like discretion, our findings suggest that unit-level
social capital alleviates the negative effects of relationship conflict at low levels of
intensity. As seen in our graphical depiction of the moderation effects, the direction
is positive. Nevertheless, at low levels of conflict, employees in units with high levels
of reported social capital reported lower levels of turnover intentions than their
counterparts in units with low levels of social capital. Here too, there is a need for
additional research to examine the different mechanisms through which social
capital affects the relationship between relationship conflict and turnover intentions
at different levels of conflict.
Taken together, this evidence contributes to the contextual approach to the study of
conflict because it documents the varied effects of different context variables on how
conflict is metabolized by organizations and their members. Nevertheless, our findings
also indicate that different contextual factors moderate the relationship between conflict
IJCMA and different outcome measures. Thus, social capital moderates the relationship
between relationship conflict and turnover intentions, but not job stress. Discretion, on
25,3 the other hand, moderates the relationship between task conflict and stress, but not
turnover intentions. In other words, contextual factors matter differently for different
individual-level outcomes. In attempting to manage the consequences associated with
workplace conflict, organizations and their managers must consider different
294 contextual factors.
In addition, our study also illustrates that examining the effects of conflict on
employee outcomes is both important in its own right and has broader implications for
organizational effectiveness. For example, high levels of employee stress have been
shown to negatively affect job performance (Parasuraman and Alutto, 1984; Sullivan
and Bhagat, 1992). In the specific setting examined in this study, namely, health care,
employee outcomes are of particular importance because the way employees feel about
their work experience (i.e. stress and attachment to their organization) is likely to affect
the quality of care they provide. Thus for example, employee stress has been linked to
negative organizational performance measures such as clinical outcomes, poor quality
of care and increased error rates (Laschinger and Leiter, 2006; Zangaro and Soeken,
2007).
Our paper is not without its limitations. First, although we believe that conducting
this research in the health-care setting is a clear strength, it may potentially limit the
generalizability of our findings to some extent. Specifically, while certain features of
health-care organizations (e.g. interdependent nature of work, or a high volume of
organizational conflict) make this an ideal setting in which to assess conflict and its
consequences, it will be important to test the model, developed in this study, in a
different industry and organizational settings.
A second limitation of our study relates to our measures. Our social capital measure
is limited in two ways. First, we did not measure actual stocks of unit-level social capital
that employees have, but instead, we used employee perception of this relational
construct. Second, our social capital measure has a particular emphasis on
communication and exchange of ideas and information, which is a limitation in
assessing other dimensions of social capital (i.e. structural dimension). Because social
capital has been operationalized in different ways in literature (Payne et al., 2011), future
research would benefit from using different methods of measuring social capital and
further illuminating the relationship between social capital and conflict. For example, a
recent research conducted by Curseu et al. (2012) focused on network attribute and
structure of team communication network and demonstrated that network density and
network fragmentation can affect the volume of task and relationship conflict in student
groups. Also, our discretion measure may be limited due to its focus on decision
authority. Future research should consider using the measure that addresses multiple
dimensions of employee discretion.
A third possible limitation of our study stems from the fact that our data that were
collected from a single source. We made attempts to minimize concerns of sampling bias
and common method variance (CMV). We separated questions used in the study to
measure different constructs from each other to minimize the CMV problem (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). In addition, the measures used in this paper were collected as part of a large
survey conducted over the phone. As Shalley et al. (2009) have noted, characteristics of
phone surveys serve to decrease response bias concerns because respondents cannot go
back through questions to see what they previously answered. Finally, our paper is Conflict in
primarily focused on the interaction effects (the moderating role of discretion and social
capital) rather than linear effects, which also serves to decrease response bias concerns
context
(Spector, 2006).
Fourth, due to the close link between job stress and turnover intentions, an
alternative model could be possible whereby job stress mediates the moderated
relationship between perceived conflict and turnover intentions[4]. Nevertheless, we 295
believe that both outcome variables are still distinct individual level outcomes, as they
are often predicted by different factors, and that in particular turnover intention can be
directly affected by the moderated effect of conflict perceptions. Therefore, we
maintained our model and examined the moderated effects of conflict perception on both
job stress and turnover intention separately.
Furthermore, alternative models extending the role of social capital may also exist.
Thus, in addition to the moderating role proposed and tested in this study, social capital
may also influence the manner in which task-related conflict affects relationship conflict
(Simons and Peterson, 2000), reduces the occurrence of task conflict (Moye and
Langfred, 2004) or affects teams choice of conflict handling mechanisms in response to
conflict (Parayitam et al., 2010). Therefore, future research should examine extended
models including conflict, social capital and various outcomes based on the existing
findings and complex interplays between conflict and social capital (Chen and Ayoko,
2012; Ayoko and Pekerti, 2008).
Having acknowledged our papers potential limitations, we remain confident that the
line of inquiry set forth in this paper makes an important contribution to the study of
conflict and its management in organizations. There has been a call for research
examining various cross-level contexts in which employee conflict develops and is
managed. Existing conflict research has, for the most part, not incorporated a multilevel
thinking and analysis despite its explicit relevance and significance (De Dreu and
Gelfand, 2008). Future research should use a multilevel perspective in studying the
effects of conflict and expand both the set of moderators and the organizational and
individual outcomes examined. Put simply, the next generation of conflict research
should paint a richer and more contextualized portrait of the benefits and costs of
conflict for organizations and their members.

Notes
1. Of the 857 individuals included in our sample, 420 were surveyed one year prior to this survey
as part of the larger research project.
2. Simple slopes were calculated at 1 SD above and below the mean of discretion.
3. We also computed confidence bands for simple slope following Preacher et al. (2006) and
using their suggested online tool (available at www.quantpsy.org/interact/hlm2.htm). The
results were consistent with simple slope tests.
4. We thank the anonymous reviewer for raising this issue. As shown in the results, the
moderation effect between the perception of relationship conflict and unit-level social capital
on job stress was not supported (p 0.10), failing to provide support for the potential
moderated mediation model.
IJCMA References
25,3 Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. (2002), Social capital: prospects for a new concept, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40.
Amason, A.C. (1996), Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No.1, pp. 123-148.
296 Amason, A.C. and Sapienza, H.J. (1997), The effects of top management team size and interaction
norms on cognitive and affective conflict, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 495-516.
Avgar, A.C. (2010), Negotiated capital: conflict, its resolution, and workplace social capital, The
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 236-259.
Avgar, A.C. and Lee, E.K. (2011), Social capital in negotiation: leveraging the power of relational
wealth, in Benoliel, M. (Ed), Negotiation Excellence: Successful Deal Making, World
Scientific Publishing, Hackensack, NJ, pp. 1-23.
Avgar, A.C., Pandey, N. and Kwon, K. (2012), Discretion in context: a moderated mediation model
of the relationship between discretion and turnover intentions, Industrial Relations: A
Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 106-128.
Ayoko, O.B. and Pekerti, A.A. (2008), The mediating and moderating effects of conflict and
communication openness on workplace trust, The International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 297-318.
Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Hrtel, C.E. (2008), The influence of team emotional intelligence
climate on conflict and team members reactions to conflict, Small Group Research, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 121-149.
Batt, R. (2004), Who benefits from teams? Comparing workers, supervisors, and managers,
Industrial Relations, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 183-212.
Batt, R. and Valcour, P.M. (2003), Human resources practices as predictors of work-
family outcomes and employee turnover, Industrial Relations, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 189-220.
Beehr, T.A., Jex, S.M., Stacy, B.A. and Murray, M.A. (2000), Work stressors and coworker support
as predictors of individual strain and job performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 391-405.
Bond, F.W. and Bunce, D. (2003), The role of acceptance and job control in mental health, job
satisfaction, and work performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 6,
pp. 1057-1067.
Bouty, I. (2000), Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges
between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 50-65.
Breaugh, J.A. (1998), The development of a new measure of global work autonomy, Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 119-128.
Carnevale, P.J. and Probst, T.M. (1998), Social values and social conflict in creative problem
solving and categorization, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5,
pp. 1300-1309.
Chan, D. (2009), So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad?, in Lance, C.E. and
Vandenberg, R.J. (Eds), Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine,
Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences, Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 311-338.
Chen, G., Polyhart, R.E., Thomas, H.C., Anderson, N. and Bliese, P.D. (2011), The power of Conflict in
momentum: a new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and
turnover intentions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 159-181. context
Chen, M. and Chang, Y. (2005), The dynamics of conflict and creativity during a projects life
cycle: a comparative study between service-driven and technology-driven teams in
Taiwan, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 127-150.
Chen, M.J. and Ayoko, O.B. (2012), Conflict and trust: the mediating effects of emotional arousal 297
and self-conscious emotions, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 19-56.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. and Mermelstein, R. (1983), Global measure of perceived stress, Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 385-396.
Colarelli, S.M. (1984), Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job
previews, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 633-642.
Coleman, J.S. (1988), Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 94 Supplement, pp. 95-120.
Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. (2010), What reviewers should expect from authors regarding
common method bias in organizational research, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 325-334.
Cotton, J. and Tuttle, J. (1986), Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with implications
for research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Creed, W.E.D. and Miles, R.E. (1996), Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework linking
organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls, in
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 16-39.
Curseu, P.L., Janssen, S.E.A. and Raab, J. (2012), Connecting the dots: social network structure,
conflict, and group cognitive complexity, High Education, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 621-629.
De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N. and Dimov, D. (2009), When good conflict gets better and bad
conflict becomes worse: the role of social capital in the conflict-innovation relationship,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 283-297.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (1997), Productive conflict: the importance of conflictmanagement and conflict
issues, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and van de Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 9-23.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2006), When too much and too little hurts: evidence for a curvilinear
relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams, Journal of Management,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 83-107.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2008), The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: food for pessimistic thought,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Gelfand, M.J. (2008), Conflict in the workplace: sources, dynamics, and
functions across multiple levels of analysis, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and Gelfand, M.J. (Eds),
The Psychology of Cconflict and Conflict Management in Organizations, Lawrence
Erlbaum, New York, NY, pp. 3-54.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and van de Vliert, E. (1997), Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage Publications,
London.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and van Vianen, A.E.M. (2001), Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 309-328.
IJCMA De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003a), Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied
25,3 Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741-749.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003b), A contingency theory of task conflict and
performance in groups and organizational teams, in West, M.A., Tjosvold, D. and
Smith, K.G. (Eds), International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative
Working, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 151-166.
298
De Dreu, C.K.W. and West, M.A. (2001), Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of
participationin decision making, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6,
pp. 1191-1201.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Harinck, S. and van Vianen, A.E.M. (1999), Conflict and performance in groups
and organizations, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 369-414.
De Dreu, C.K.W., van Dierendonck, D. and Dijkstra, M.T.M. (2004), Conflict at work and individual
well-being, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 6-26.
De Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L. and Jehn, K.A. (2012), The paradox of introgroup conflict: a
meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 360-390.
Dijkstra, M.T.M., van Dierendonck, D., Evers, A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2005), Conflict and
well-being at work: the moderating role of personality, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 87-104.
Dougherty, D. (1992), Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms,
Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 179-202.
Dougherty, T.W., Bluedorn, A.C. and Keon, T.L. (1985), Precursors of employee turnover: a multiple
sample casual analyses, Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 259-271.
Duffy, M.K., Shaw, J.D. and Stark, E.M. (2000), Performance and satisfaction in conflicted
interdependent groups: when and how does self-esteem make a difference?, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 772-782.
Fenlason, K.J. and Beehr, T.A. (1994), Social support and occupational stress: effects of talking to
others, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 157-175.
Ferres, N., Connell, J. and Travaglione, A. (2005), The effect of future redeployment on
organizational trust, Strategic Change, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 77-92.
Fiske, A.P. (1992), The four elementary forms of sociability: framework for a unified theory of
social relations, Psychological Review, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 689-723.
Freeman, R. and Medoff, J. (1984), What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Friedman, R.A., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C. and Tsai, J.C. (2000), What goes around comes around:
the impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress, The International Journal
of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 32-55.
Frone, M.R. (2000), Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: testing a model among
young workers, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 246-255.
Giebels, E. and Janssen, O. (2005), Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: the buffering
effect of third-party help, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 137-155.
Granovetter, M. (1973), The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78 No. 6,
pp. 1360-1380.
Grawitch, M.J., Munz, D.C., Elliott, E.K. and Mathis, A. (2003), Promoting creativity in temporary
problem-solving groups: the effects of positive mood and autonomy in problem definition
 on idea-generating performance, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 7 Conflict in
No. 3, pp. 200-213.
Guerra, J.M., Martinez, I., Munduate, L. and Medina, F.J. (2005), A contingency perspective on the
context
study of the consequences of conflict types: the role of organizational culture, European
Journal of Work an Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-176.
Hackman, J.R. and Lawler, E.E. (1971), Employee reactions to job characteristics, Journal of
Applied Psychology Monograph, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 259-286. 299
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), Development of the job diagnostic survey, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 159-170.
Hammer, T. and Avgar, A.C. (2007), Its a Paradox: Union Workers Less Satisfied but Less Likely
to Quit (ILR Impact Brief #21), School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
Hansen, M.T. (1999), The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge
across organization subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Harris, K.J., James, M.L. and Boonthanom, R. (2005), Perceptions of organizational politics and
cooperation as moderators of the relationship between stress and intent to turnover,
Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 26-42.
Heaney, C.A., Price, R.H. and Rafferty, J. (1995), Increasing coping resources at work: a field
experiment to increase social support, improve work team functioning, and enhance
employee mental health, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 335-352.
Hoffman, D., Griffin, M. and Gavin, M. (2000), The application of hierarchical linear modeling to
organizational research, in Klein, K. and Kozlowski, S. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research,
and Methods in Organizations, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 467-511.
Hofmann, D.A. and Gavin, M.B. (1998), Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models:
implications for research in organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 623-641.
Iverson, R.D. and Currivan, D.B. (2003), Union participation, job satisfaction, and employee
turnover: an event-history analysis of the exit-voice hypothesis, Industrial Relations,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 101-105.
Janssen, P.P.M., De Jonge, J. and Bakker, A.B. (1999), Specific determinants of intrinsic work
motivation, burnout, and turnover intentions: a study among nurses, Journal of Advanced
Nursing, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1360-1369.
Jehn, K.A. (1994), Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of
value-based intragroup conflict, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 223-238.
Jehn, K.A. (1995), A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-282.
Jehn, K.A. (1997), Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: increasing performance
through value-based intragroup conflict, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and van de Vliert, E. (Eds),
Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage Publications, London, pp. 87-100.
Jehn, K.A. and Bendersky, C. (2003), Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency
perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship, in Kramer, R.M. and Staw, B. (Eds),
Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 187-242.
Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict
composition on team performance, The International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-73.
IJCMA Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44
25,3 No. 2, pp. 238-251.
Jehn, K.A., Rupert, J. and Nauta, A. (2006), The effects of conflict asymmetry on mediation
outcomes: satisfaction, work motivation and absenteeism, The International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 96-109.
300 Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S. and Thatcher, S.M.B. (2010), The effects of conflict asymmetry on work
group and individual outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3,
pp. 596-616.
Jex, S.M. (1998), Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Research, and Implications for Managerial
Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Jreskog, K.G. and Srbom, D. (1993), Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command
Language, Scientific Software, Chicago, IL.
Kang, S.C., Morris, S.S. and Snell, S.A. (2007), Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and
value creation: extending the human resource architecture, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 236-256.
Karasek, R.A. (1979), Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job
redesign, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 285-308.
Karasek, R.A. and Theorell, T. (1990), Healthy Work, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Lankau, M.J. and Scandura, T.A. (2002), An investigation of personal learning in mentoring
relationships: content, antecedents and consequences, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 779-791.
Laschinger, H.K. and Leiter, M. (2006), The impact of nursing work environments on patient
safety outcomes: the mediating role of burnout engagement, Journal of Nursing
Administration, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 259-267.
Lin, N. (2001), Social Capital, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L. and Weingart, L.R. (2001), Maximizing cross-functional new product
teams innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 779-793.
Maertz, C.P. and Griffeth, R.W. (2004), Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: a
theoretical synthesis with implications for research, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 667-683.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.
Motowidlo, S.J., Packard, J.S. and Manning, M.R. (1986), Occupational stress: its causes and
consequences for job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 618-629.
Moye, N.A. and Langfred, C.W. (2004), Information sharing and group conflict: going beyond
decision making to understand the effects of information sharing on group performance,
The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 381-410.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-268.
Neuman, E. and Avgar, A. (2012), Blind spots and mirages: a dyadic approach to the study of
team conflict, CM Division, Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management, Boston,
MA.
ODriscoll, M.P. and Beehr, T. (1994), Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as Conflict in
predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 141-155. context
Parasuraman, S. and Alutto, J. (1984), Sources and outcomes of stress in organizational settings:
toward the development of a structural model, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 330-350.
Parayitam, S., Olson, B.J. and Bao, Y. (2010), Task conflict, relationship conflict and 301
agreement-seeking behavior in Chinese top management teams, The International Journal
of Conflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 94-116.
Payne, G.T., Moore, C.B., Griffis, S.E. and Autry, C.W. (2011), Multilevel challenges and
opportunities in social capital research, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 491-520.
Pelled, L.H. (1996), Demographic diversity, conflict, and workgroup outcomes: an intervening
process theory, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631.
Peterson, R.S. and Behfar, K.J. (2003), The dynamic relationship between performance feedback,
trust, and conflict in groups: a longitudinal study, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 92 Nos 1/2, pp. 102-112.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Todor, W.D. (1985), Relationships between leader reward and punishment
behavior and group processes and productivity, Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 55-73.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Porter, T.W. and Lilly, B.S. (1996), The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on project
performance, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 361-376.
Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J. and Bauer, D.J. (2006), Computational tools for probing interactions in
multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis, Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 437-448.
Prosser, D., Johnson, S., Kuipers, E., Szmukler, G., Bebbington, P. and Thornicroft, G. (1997),
Perceived sources of work stress and satisfaction among hospital and community mental
health staff and their relationship to mental health, burnout and job satisfaction, Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Putnam, R.D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon &
Schuster, New York, NY.
Quick, J.C., Quick, J.D., Nelson, D.L. and Hurrell, J.J. Jr. (1997), Preventive Stress Management in
Organizations, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S., Cheong, Y.F. and Congdon, R. (2001), HLM5: Hierarchical Linear
and Nonlinear Modeling, 2nd ed, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
Rhodes, S.R. (1983), Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: a review and
conceptual analysis, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 328-367.
Riketta, M. (2005), Organizational identification: a meta-analysis, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 358-384.
Schneider, B. (1987), The people make the place, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 437-453.
Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L. and Blum, T.C. (2009), Interactive effects of growth need strength, work
context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 489-505.
IJCMA Shaw, J.D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M.K., Scott, K.L., Shih, H.A. and Susanto, E. (2011), A contingency model of
conflict and team effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 391-400.
25,3 Sheppard, B.H. and Sherman, D.M. (1998), The grammars of trust: a model and general
implications, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 422-437.
Sheridan, J.E. and Abelson, M.A. (1983), Cusp catastrophe model of employee turnover,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 418-436.
302 Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1,
pp. 102-111.
Skinner, B.F. (1957), Verbal Behavior, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
Spector, P.E. (1988), Development of the work locus of control scale, Journal of Occupational
Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 335-340.
Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a
controversial method, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 385-392.
Spector, P.E. (2006), Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.
Spector, P.E. and Bruk-Lee, V. (2008), Conflict, health, and well-being, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and
Gelfand, M.J. (Eds), The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY, pp. 267-188.
Spector, P.E. and Jex, S.M. (1998), Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strains: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative
workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 356-367.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A. (2005), The influence of intellectual capital on the types of
innovative capabilities, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463.
Sullivan, S.E. and Bhagat, R.S. (1992), Organizational stress, job satisfaction and job performance:
where do we go from here?, Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 353-374.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), The social identity theory of intergroup behavior, in
Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
Thoits, P.A. (1986), Social support as coping assistance, Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 416-423.
Thompson, C.A. and Prottas, D.J. (2006), Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 100-118.
Tjosvold, D. (2008), The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 19-28.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C. and Yu, Z. (2003), Conflict management and task reflexivity for team in-role
and extra-role performance in China, The International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 141-163.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-476.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T. (2000), Implications of leader-member exchange
(LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: relationships as social capital
for competitive advantage, in Ferris, G. (Ed), Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 137-185.
van Breukelen, W., van der Vlist, R. and Steensma, H. (2004), Voluntary employee turnover: Conflict in
combining variables from the traditional turnover literature with the theory of planned
behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 893-914. context
Wall, V.D. and Nolan, L.L. (1986), Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in
task-oriented groups, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1033-1052.
Youndt, M.A. and Snell, S.A. (2004), Human resource configurations, intellectual capital, and
organizational performance, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 337-360. 303
Zand, D.E. (1972), Trust and managerial problem solving, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 229-239.
Zangaro, G.A. and Soeken, K.L. (2007), A meta-analysis of studies of nurses job satisfaction,
Research in Nursing and Health, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 445-458.

Appendix

Demographics
Facility name Number of beds Number of residents Occupancy rate County/Borough

Facility A 270 266 99 per cent Brooklyn

Facility B 262 227 87 per cent Nassau
Facility C 180 168 93 per cent Nassau
Facility D 200 190 95 per cent Brooklyn
Facility E 200 187 94 per cent Nassau
Facility F 320 309 97 per cent Suffolk
Facility G 240 235 98 per cent Bronx
Facility H 200 194 97 per cent Bronx
Facility I 320 311 97 per cent Manhattan
Facility J 200 191 96 per cent Queens
Facility K 200 196 98 per cent Bronx
Facility L 120 116 97 per cent Suffolk
Facility M 189 177 94 per cent Brooklyn
Facility N 238 221 93 per cent Staten Island
Facility O 183 178 97 per cent Queens
Facility P 218 206 94 per cent Queens
Facility Q 280 270 96 per cent Nassau Table AI.
Facility R 179 174 97 per cent Queens Number of beds, number
Facility S 336 315 94 per cent Nassau of residents and
Facility T 200 188 94 per cent Bronx occupancy rates and New
York State county of
Source: New York State annual survey of long-term care facilities nursing homes, 2008

Corresponding author
Ariel Avgar can be contacted at: avgar@illinois.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.