uva-dare (digital academic repository) workplace conflict ... · dijkstra, maria t. m. workplace...

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Workplace conflict and individual well-being

Dijkstra, M.T.M.

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Dijkstra, M. T. M. (2006). Workplace conflict and individual well-being.

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, statingyour reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Askthe Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date: 05 Nov 2020

https://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/workplace-conflict-and-individual-wellbeing(80621f0e-6a0e-484b-9e9c-bdede75d0cfb).html

Workplace Conflict and Individual Well-Being

Maria T. M. Dijkstra

MariaDijkstra.book Page i Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

Dijkstra, Maria T. M.Workplace Conflict and Individual Well-Being / Maria T. M. Dijkstra, Amsterdam:KLI (KLI Dissertatiereeks 2006-1)

ISBN-10: 90-76269-47-5ISBN-13: 978-90-76269-47-4

Cover/Illustrations: Wendelien Schönfeldwww.wendelienschonfeld.nl

Lay-out: Textcetera, Den Haagwww.textcetera.nl

Printed by: Ridderprint, Ridderkerkwww.ridderprint.nl

Binded by: Van Waarden, Zaandam

MariaDijkstra.book Page ii Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

Workplace Conflict and Individual Well-Being

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctoraan de Universiteit van Amsterdamop gezag van de Rector Magnificus

prof. mr. P. F. van der Heijdenten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde

commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteitop donderdag 19 januari 2006, te 10.00 uur

door

Maria Theresia Martina DijkstraGeboren te Amsterdam

MariaDijkstra.book Page iii Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

Promotor: prof. dr. C. K. W. de DreuCo-Promotores: dr. D. van Dierendonck

dr. A. Evers

Overige ledenvan de promotiecommissie: prof. dr. W. Schaufeli

prof. dr. K. A. Jehnprof. dr. N. R. Andersonprof. dr. M. H. W. Frings-Dresendr. B. Beersma

MariaDijkstra.book Page iv Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

Voor jou Matthijs

ik was bang om door de mand te valleniemand zeier is geen mand

Freek de Jonge

MariaDijkstra.book Page v Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

MariaDijkstra.book Page vi Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

Contents

List of tables xi

List of figures xiii

Chapter 1Workplace Conflict and Individual Well-Being:An Introduction 1

Introduction 3Workplace Conflict 4

Conflict and conflict management 7Conflict and Well-Being: Theory and Research Findings 9

Well-being and stress 10Psychological complaints 11Physical complaints 11Burnout 12Relationship between conflict and well-being 13

The Present Dissertation 151. Conflict and reactions on conflict are confounded 152. Conflict may affect well-being via its effects on organizational stress. 153. Conflict and well-being effects depend on personality 164. Conflict and well-being effects may depend on conflict management 16

Chapter 2Responding to Conflict at Work and Individual Well-Being:The Mediating Role of Flight Behavior and Feelings of Helplessness 19

Introduction 21Conflict as a stressor and individual well-being 21Control 23Organizational stress and well-being 24

Method 25Sample and procedure 25Measures 26Analysis 27

Results 27Measurement model results 27Structural model results 28

Discussion 29Contributions to theory 30Implications for practice 31Strengths and limitations 31Conclusion 32

MariaDijkstra.book Page vii Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

viii Contents

Chapter 3Conflict and Well-being at Work:The Moderating Role of Personality 33

Introduction 35Conflict and individual well-being 35

Study 1: The Moderating Role of Agreeableness 36Method 37Results 38

Discussion and Introduction to Study 2 40Method 42Results 43

General Discussion and Conclusion 46Contributions to theory 47Implications for practice 48Conclusion 49

Chapter 4Conflict at Work, Psychological Strain, and Burnout:The Moderating Influence of Conflict Management 51

Introduction 53Conflict at work and individual well-being 54Conflict management 54The present study: Hypotheses and overview 56

Study 1 56Method 56Results 58



General Discussion and Conclusion 76Implications for theory 76Limitations and implications for practice 78Conclusion 79

Chapter 5General DiscussionIntroduction 83

Summary of the main findings 84Implications and contributions 86Implications for practice 88Limitations and directions for future research 89

Conclusion 93

MariaDijkstra.book Page viii Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

Contents ix

Chapter 6 References 97Nederlandse Samenvatting 111Dankwoord 117

MariaDijkstra.book Page ix Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

MariaDijkstra.book Page x Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

List of tables

Chapter 15Table 1 Perceived amount of stress as related to workplace conflict12Tabel 2 Example of indicators of poor well-being

Chapter 228Table 1 Descriptive statistics and inter correlations of variables28Table 2 Goodness – of fit – indices for measurement and structural

models

Chapter 339Table 1 Correlations (Study 1)39Table 2 Sample size, means and standard deviations of the study

sample and a norm group40Table 3 Hierarchical regression results for agreeableness as

moderator of the conflict – well-being relationship (Study I)44Table 4 Correlations (Study 2)44Table 5 Size, means and standard deviations of the study sample

and a norm group44Table 6 Hierarchical regression results for emotional stability and

extraversion as moderators of the conflict – well-being relationship (Study 2)

Chapter 458Table 1 Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and

correlations (Study 1)60Table 2 Active conflict management strategies as moderator of the

conflict – psychological strain relationship (Study 1)62Table 3 Passive conflict management strategies as moderator of the

conflict – psychological strain relationship (Study 1)65Table 4 Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and


conflict – psychological strain relationship (Study 2)67Table 6 Passive conflict management strategies as moderator of the

conflict – psychological strain relationship (Study 2)71Table 7 Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities. and


conflict – exhaustion relationship (Study 3)74Table 9 Passive conflict management strategies as moderator of the

conflict – exhaustion relationship (Study 3)

MariaDijkstra.book Page xi Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

MariaDijkstra.book Page xii Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

List of figures

Chapter 15Figure 1 Percentage of employees experiencing psychological strain,

as a consequence of workplace conflict9Figure 2 Dual concern model17Figure 3 Model of relationships between workplace conflict and

employee well-being

Chapter 225Figure 1 Theoretical model 29Figure 2 Final model completely standardized solution

Chapter 340Figure 1 The moderating effects of agreeableness on the

relationship between conflict and individual well-being (Study 1)

45Figure 2 The moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship between conflict and individual well-being (Study 2)

45Figure 3 The moderating effect of emotional stability on the relationship between conflict and indivdiual well-being (Study 2)

Chapter 461Figure 1 The moderating effects of problem solving on the

relationship between conflict and psychological strain (Study 1)

61Figure 2 The moderating effect of avoiding on the relationship between conflict and psychological strain (Study 1)

63Figure 3 The moderating effect of yielding on the relationship between conflict and psychological strain (Study 1)

69Figure 4 The moderating effect of avoiding on the relationship between conflict and psychological strain (Study 2)

69Figure 5 The moderating effect of yielding on the relationship between conflict and psychological strain (Study 2)

75Figure 6 The moderating effect of avoiding on the relationship between conflict and exhaustion (Study 3)

75Figure 7 The moderating effect of yielding on the relationship between conflict and exhaustion (Study 3)

Chapter 583Figure 1 Model of relationships between workplace conflict and

employee well-being

MariaDijkstra.book Page xiii Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

MariaDijkstra.book Page xiv Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

Chapter 1

Workplace Conflict and Individual Well-Being:

An Introduction

MariaDijkstra.book Page 1 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:26 PM

An introduction 3

Introduction

Interpersonal conflict is among the most common human experiences and inher-ent to social interaction and organizational life (e.g., Katz & Kahn 1978; March &Simon, 1958). Whenever individuals come together at work, their differences interms of power, values, interests and attitudes contribute somehow to the devel-opment of opposing forces: to the evolvement of conflict. Past research and theo-retical development have greatly advanced our understanding of the potentialcosts and benefits of conflict for the well-being of the organization in terms ofperformance and productivity. Unfortunately, far less attention has been paid tothe consequences of conflict for the well-being of the individual members oforganizations in terms of psychological strain, satisfaction and happiness. This israther surprising given the organizational costs that are associated with the con-sequences of reduced employee well-being such as poorer quality of work per-formance, increased absenteeism and high levels of turn-over (Cooper &Marshall, 1976). The focal subject of the studies reported in this dissertation isthe relationship between workplace conflict and individual well-being. In tryingto disentangle this relationship I will specifically include the role that is played bypersonality characteristics and conflict management strategies. The particulargoal of this dissertation is to investigate how these variables influence the rela-tionship between workplace conflict and well-being.

The goal of this introductory chapter is threefold. The first objective is to intro-duce the key concepts of conflict, conflict management and well-being. The sec-ond purpose is to consider the role of conflict in the broader context oforganizational life and to integrate conflict theory with the literature on stress andwell-being. Finally, the third aim is to identify possible voids in research on therelationship between conflict and individual well-being, which will set the stagefor the empirical studies reported in this dissertation. As an outline of the thingsto come, I will first elaborate on the antecedents, occurrence, and consequencesof workplace conflict and the ways that the conflict is responded to. Then the con-struct of well-being will be considered. Different conceptualizations of well-beingas well as the aspects of this rather broad construct that pertain directly to theresearch in this dissertation are discussed. Subsequently the connection betweenconflict, conflict reactions and employee well-being will be made, and I willreview the relevant research literature. The chapter will conclude with an outlineof the chapters to follow.


4 Chapter 1

Workplace Conflict1

It is widely known and accepted that interpersonal conflict at work is inevitableand natural. However, facts and figures on the occurrence of conflict just becameavailable the last decade. Although a number of studies is available (e.g., Engers,1995; Hubert, 2002), three will be discussed in some depth.

1. First, under the authority of the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employ-ment an inventory on workplace conflict and absenteeism was made. In a repre-sentative sample of the working population of the Netherlands (N = 69,090) over50% of the employees reported to sometimes have a conflict with colleagues(2.2% reported to have conflicts often or always). Furthermore almost 38% of theemployees sometimes had a conflict with a superior (4% percent reported to haveconflicts with a superior often or always). Interestingly, results also revealed thatabsenteeism among employees experiencing conflict is more frequent thanabsenteeism among employees that do not experience conflict.

2. In a compiled sample of 2476 workers, from eleven Dutch organizations ofdifferent types, respondents indicated to what extent they experienced stress atwork as being a consequence of conflict with others. The sizes of the organiza-tions varied from 32 employees to 436 employees. The mean age of the respond-ents was 38 years with a range from 16 to 61 years and 53% of the respondentswere male.

To measure the occurrence of conflict related stress at work we used one itemfrom the Dutch translation of the occupational stress indicator (Evers, Frese, &Cooper, 2000). Respondents were required to rate the item “clashes with others”in terms of the degree of pressure they perceived it placed on them. The item wasmeasured on a 6 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very definitely is a source ofstress) to 6 (very definitely is not a source of stress). In order to get an indicator of theamount of perceived conflict related stress, frequencies of score 1 (very definitely isa source of stress) and 2 (definitely is a source of stress) were added. Results showedthat over 16% of the respondents reported, “clashes with others” at work as animportant source of stress.

To explore the possible differences between organization types, the organiza-tions were grouped into four sectors, 1: organizations on a primarily profit-mak-ing basis, 2: army and police, 3: (in-patient) healthcare institutions and 4: civilservice organizations. Figure 1 presents an overview of the perceived stress inrelation to work place conflict among the four sectors. In testing the differencesbetween the four sectors analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significanteffect of ‘sector’, F (3, 2472) = 115.52, p < 0,01. As shown in Table 1, Tukey’s HSD

1. Parts of this chapter are based on De Dreu, Van Dierendonck, and Dijkstra (2004).


An introduction 5

tests revealed that employees working in healthcare institutions (M = 3.38) andarmy & police workers (M = 3.24) reported more conflict related stress than work-ers in civil services (M = 2.33) and workers in ‘Profit Organizations’ (M = 2.35).

Figure 1Percentage of employees experiencing psychological strain, as a consequence of workplace conflict (N = 2476)

Table 1Perceived amount of stress as related to workplace conflict

Note. Means in the same row, that do not share a common letter in the subscript differ at p < .001 inTukey’s Honestly Significant Difference-tests.

Most salient in these data is the high percentage of perceived stress as caused byworkplace conflict in healthcare institutions, and in army and police. It’s easy toimagine that jobholders in this line of work face strong emotional and psycholog-ical demands. Work processes in healthcare institutions are fundamentally con-cerned with getting involved with care-recipients and their reactions on thethreatening aspects of illness (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Jackson, Schwab, &Schuler, 1986), whereas army and police workers face the constant risk of the

Sector

profitN = 416

army & policeN = 433

healthcareN = 941

civil serviceN = 686

MSd

2.35a1.31

3.24b1.37

3.38b1.40

2.33a1.27

6,7

17,4

25,1

7,5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

sector

profit making organizations

army & police

healthcare institutions

civil services


6 Chapter 1

occurrence of violence and aggression. Exposure to such enduring stressors, as Iwill discuss in more detail later on, will heighten irritability and therefore mayeasily set the stage for conflict.

An alternative explanation derives from two characteristics by which both‘healthcare institutions’ and ‘army/police’ distinguish themselves from the othertwo sectors. The hierarchical structure so typical for these organizations, withwork processes arranged according to strict rules and principles leave open littlespace for employee decision latitude. Therefore possibilities to actively manageconflict situations are small.

3. A large survey study by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Liv-ing and Working Conditions revealed that 9% of the 21.500 respondents was con-fronted with bullying behavior (Merllié & Paoli, 2001), that 2% faced sexualharassment, and that 2% faced (threats of) physical violence from co-workers orsupervisors. These forms of workplace bullying represent a rather extreme andintense form of conflict (Zapf & Gross, 2001), and generalized to the Europeanlabor force this means that about 15 million people face, on a continuous and sys-tematic basis, bullying behavior, sexual harassment, or physical aggression in theworkplace (e.g., Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996).

From these three examples it follows that interpersonal conflict is a seriousissue in organizations. In fact, of all the things that turn the organization into astressful place where people prefer to leave rather than stay, conflict with supervi-sors or colleagues assumes a prominent role. For example, engineers namedinterpersonal conflict most frequently as the top stressor at work (Newton &Keenan, 1985), and female nurses mentioned interpersonal conflict together withinsecurity about knowledge and skills to be their most important stressor (Parkes,1986). Smith and Sulsky (1995) surveyed over employees in a variety of occupa-tions from three different organizations and found that almost 25% of therespondents nominated interpersonal issues as their most bothersome job stres-sor (see also Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989; Prosser et al., 1997).Moreover, De Dreu, Van Dierendonck and De Best-Waldhober (2002) argue thatthe occurrence of conflict is likely to increase in the years to come. Tendencies toreplace bureaucratic rules and regulations with self-managed teams and empow-ered employees imply that individuals need to negotiate on a daily basis theirduties rights and responsibilities (Pfeffer, 1998). The growing diversity of thework force (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) comes together with heterogeneous valueand belief systems that bear the potential for misunderstanding and disrespect.Moreover, increased specialization in terms of educational and professional back-ground, together with greater complexity of internal and external relations, boostsboth information dependency among key players within organizations and theneed to coordinate and work together. Such intensified interdependency is justone step away from misunderstanding, disagreement, annoyance, and irritation.


An introduction 7

Although the above clearly shows that workplace conflict is omnipresent, fre-quent, and one of the more important stressors, it is not always clear what con-flict is and how it should be defined. In the next section we deal with this issueand also consider the critical distinction between the occurrence of conflict andthe way conflict is responded to.

Conflict and conflict managementConflict is often seen as a fight, a struggle, or the clashing of opposed principles(e.g., Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1983). This perspective involves conflict issues(what is the conflict about), feelings and cognitions (within-party experiences),and conflict management (between-party experiences) (Pondy, 1967; Schmidt &Kogan, 1972). Although it may be extremely difficult to separate the two it shouldbe recognized that it is essential to strive toward an explicit distinction betweenthe initiation of conflict (within-party experience), and the way that it is reactedupon (between-party experience). Separation of the experience of conflict fromthe subsequent reaction to it is important because conflict at work is oftenavoided, people remain inactive when conflict emerges, or they induce conflictwithout knowing it (Kolb & Bartunek, 1992; O’Connor, Gruenfeld & McGrath,1993). These situations go unrecognized as long as we solely define conflict asstruggle and fight. Avoiding and ignoring conflict, or by assuming an inactiveand passive stance, may be especially detrimental for individual well-being, thusrendering it even more important to distinguish between the occurrence andmanagement of conflict. Also, for a good understanding of the possible influenceof conflict on individual well-being, it is important to distinguish different typesof conflict, that is, the conflict issues involved.

In this dissertation, conflict is viewed as a process that begins when an indi-vidual or group perceives differences and opposition between oneself and anotherindividual or group about interests, beliefs, values or perceptions of reality (e.g.,De Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999; Pruitt, 1998; Schmidt & Kochan, 1972;Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Thomas, 1992; Wall & Callister, 1995). Within workorganizations, several authors have distinguished conflict processes evolvingaround work and task-related issues, or around socio-emotional and relationshipissues (e.g., Amason, 1996; De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997; Jehn, 1995). Exam-ples of task conflict are conflicts about the distribution of resources, about proce-dures and policies, and about judgments and interpretation of facts. Examples ofrelationship conflict are conflicts about personal taste, about political preferences,about values, and about interpersonal style2.

2. There is some debate about the psychometric properties of the existing scales to measure task andrelationship conflict (e.g., Amason, 1996), and about the differential relationship with teamperformance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In the research reported in the current dissertation,this distinction is not considered further. I will return to this in the General Discussion inChapter 5.


8 Chapter 1

How individuals respond to conflict issues depends on their concern for theirown outcomes and for the opposing party’s outcomes. According to Dual Con-cern Theory (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; see also Blake &Mouton, 1964; Thomas, 1992), conflict management is a function of high or lowconcern for self combined with high or low concern for other3. High self concernand low concern for the other results in a preference for forcing – trying to imposeone’s will onto the other side. Forcing involves threats and bluffs, persuasivearguments, and positional commitments. Low self concern and high concern forthe other results in a preference for yielding, which is oriented towards acceptingand incorporating the other’s will. It involves unilateral concessions, uncondi-tional promises, and offering help. Low self concern and low concern for theother results in a preference for inaction and avoiding, which involves a passivestance, attempts to reduce and downplay the importance of the conflict issues,and attempts to suppress thinking about them. High self concern, and high con-cern for the other, finally, produces a preference for problem solving, which is ori-ented towards achieving an agreement that satisfies both own and the other’saspirations as much as possible. Problem solving involves an exchange of infor-mation about priorities and preferences, showing insights, and making tradeoffsbetween important and unimportant issues. The four conflict management strat-egies are pictured in figure 2.

In Dual Concern Theory, concern for self and concern for other are predictedby one’s personality and the situation (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000; Pruitt& Rubin, 1986; Van de Vliert, 1997). Stable individual differences, such as socialvalue orientation, power motivation, and need for affiliation, as well as situationcues such as incentives, instructional primes, time pressures, level of aspiration,and power preponderance, predict conflict management through their influenceon self concern and concern for the other (De Dreu & Carnevale, 2003; Pruitt,1998; Van de Vliert, 1997).

Although situational influences may cause individuals to adopt different con-flict management strategies across time, work settings are often highly stable andquite predictable. Employees interact with the same co-workers, incentive struc-tures do not change overnight, employees do the same kind of work for longerperiods of time, and they face the same (interpersonal) problems on a recurringbasis. In addition, individuals within the same unit, team or department tend toinfluence one another (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977), thus creating their own socialenvironment with, most likely, rather stable and socially shared preferences for,

3. The labels for these two dimensions vary. Concern for self is sometimes labeled “resistance toconcession making” (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992), “concern for the task” (Blake & Mouton, 1964),or “assertiveness” (Thomas, 1992). Sometimes, concern for other is labeled “concern for people”(Blake & Mouton, 1964), or “cooperativeness” (Thomas, 1992). The specific labels used, or thespecific ways these dimensions are operationalized, does not seem to influence its effects (DeDreu, Weingart & Kwon, 2000).


An introduction 9

and views about, the tasks to be done and the ways of dealing with one another(Mohammed, Klimoski, & Rentsch, 2000).

Figure 2Dual concern model

An implication of these notions is that work teams and work units are likely todevelop a conflict culture. Units within organizations, or even entire organizations,develop over time a relatively stable set of orientations toward, and strategies tomanage conflict within that unit, or between that unit and relevant outsiders suchas other units within the organization, clients, and the like (Nauta, De Dreu &Van der Vaart, 2002). Thus, in some units or in some organizations employeesmay develop a shared tendency to view conflict as negative and annoying, whe-reas in other units, or other organizations, employees may develop a shared ten-dency to view conflict as exciting and providing opportunity. Likewise, in someunits or in some organizations employees may develop a shared tendency toapproach and manage conflict through problem solving and open-mindeddebate, whereas in other units, or other organizations, employees may develop ashared tendency to approach and manage conflict by assuming a passive stance.It is this conflict culture that can have long-term consequences for both the workunit’s effectiveness and individual well-being.

Conflict and Well-Being: Theory and Research Findings

As mentioned, the literature on conflict and conflict management rarelyaddressed individual well-being as an antecedent, or consequence of workplace

Forcing

Avoiding yielding

problem solving

Concern for other

Concern for self

High

HighLow


10 Chapter 1

conflict. Addressing this issue is a key purpose of the present dissertation. First Iwill introduce in more detail the broad and rather ambiguous concept of well-being, and how it is related to stress and psychological strain.

Well-being and stressWell-being, a concept associated with quality of life, is generally looked upon as abroad area of scientific interest rather than a single specific construct (Kahn &Juster, 2002). The category of phenomena embraces four large concepts includ-ing pleasant affect (e.g., joy, contentment, happiness), unpleasant affect (e.g.,guilt, anxiety, depression), life satisfaction (e.g., desire to change life, satisfactionwith current, past and future life) and domain satisfactions (e.g., satisfaction withwork, family). In short (subjective) well-being is defined as a person’s affectiveand cognitive evaluations of his or her life (Diener, Lucas & Oishi, 2002: Diener,Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999).

Apart from this generally agreed upon conceptualization of well-being there isa large amount of slightly different but related ways of conceptualizing well-being(e.g., Argyle, 1987; Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999; Okun & Stock, 1987;Ryff, 1989; Sheldon & Bettencourt, 2002) and as a result in research on well-being a scatter of conceptual levels in its operationalization and measurementexists (Kahn & Juster, 2002). Central in most work on well-being in organizatio-nal psychology is stress – an ambiguous concept that is used as an overarchingrubric encompassing the (inadequate) adaptation of individuals to their environ-ment, and feelings of distress resulting in various psychological, physiological,and behavioral consequences (Quick, Quick, Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997). In thestress literature one may differentiate between the stressor, the stress response,and the stress outcome, which is referred to as distress or strain (Quick et al.,1997; Jones & Bright, 2001). In stress-full situations there is a tendency of ‘hyper-activity’, an overly strong and inadequate activation of the regulatory body sys-tems (central nervous system, hormonal system and cardio vascular system(Gaillard, 1996: Jones & Bright, 2001). Hyperactivity disrupts the balance bet-ween the regulatory systems, not in the least because energetic and emotionalreactions tend to linger on much longer than the situation that sets off the reac-tions. For example a serious performance interview with overtones of disapprovalmay be followed by a sleepless night for the employee in question. Workload,unethical behavior by colleagues, social exclusion, time pressure, downsizing,and organizational change programs, are other examples of situations that mayset off the above-described hyperactive state and therefore are referred to as stres-sors (Jones & Bright, 2001). In principle the individual’s regulator system has theability to recover from the state of hyperactivity educed by the stressor. However,an insufficient recovery from this hyperactive state will result in the accumulationof effects and the disruption will become chronic (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004;Frankenhauser, 1975).


An introduction 11

There is evidence that prolonged hyperactivity negatively impacts the immunesystem, so in the long run, will also increase susceptibility to “real” illness. Theextended elevation of arousal levels goes together with an increase in the releaseof cortisol. This corticosteroid has been shown to cause an atrophy of the lymp-hoid structures and therefore acts to impair the circulatory system of the body(Stroebe & Stroebe, 1995). Injuring the function of the immune system in thisway leaves the organism open to viruses, bacteria and parasites, resulting ininfections and other “real” illnesses (Clow, 2001; see also Evans, Hucklebridge, &Clow, 2000).

In sum, (prolonged) exposure to stressors at work may result in behavioralconsequences such as absenteeism, accident proneness, and drug abuse, psycho-logical consequences such as depression, psychosomatic complaints, and burn-out, or medical consequences such as heart disease (Quick et al., 1997).

In studies that explore the relationship between conflict and individual well-being, commonly used indicators of poor well-being are (1) psychological com-plaints (2) physical complaints and (3) feelings of burnout.

Psychological complaintsPsychological reactions that are related to the experience of stressors typicallyrange from, feelings of upset, worry, and feelings of not being able to manage(Jones & Bright, 2001) to feelings of irritation, to anger (Newton & Keenan, 1985)and anxiety, (Buunk & Gerichauzen, 1993). Table 2 shows an example of itemsreferring to these complaints.

Physical complaintsEmployees experience, one time or another, headaches, tense muscles, racinghearts and other bodily sensations. These so-called physical complaints signalthat the body is dealing, or trying to deal, with environmental demands (Pen-nebaker, 1982). The complaints may vary between gastrointestinal symptoms(e.g., nausea, stomach cramps), respiratory symptoms (e.g., pressure on chest,unable to breath deeply enough), cardiac symptoms (e.g., rapid heart rate, pound-ing of heart), dizziness and fainting, headaches, and tingling sensations in thelimbs (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). Tabel 2 shows an example of items referringto these complaints.


12 Chapter 1

Table 2Example of indicators of poor well-being

BurnoutIf the above mentioned complaints are ignored for a longer period of time, orwhen only makeshift measures are brought into action, these complaints maybecome chronic and feed into feelings of burnout. Burnout can be considered asa long-term stress reaction that is caused by the prolonged exposure to job stress.

Indicator Items Scale

Pschychological complaints

You worry long about mistakes made in the past

Absolutely true – Absolutely not true

Sometimes, on a particular working day you feel confused for no apparent reason

Almost never – Very often

When something goes wrong, you feel uncertain and panicky

Almost never – Very often

Concerning work and life in general you consider yourself to be a worrier

Definitely – Definitely not

Physical complaints

Never – Frequently

Feeling dizzy

Having headache

Feeling unaccountably tired

Feeling short of breadth

Burnout Never – Always

I feel, my job mentally exhausts me

A whole day of working puts a heavy burden on me

At the end of a working day I feel empty

When I wake up in the morning and face another day working I feel tired


An introduction 13

The term ‘burnout’ refers to the draining of energy, that is, more energy is lostthan replenished, analogous to a car-battery which will run empty if not enoughenergy is generated from the dynamo (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). Burnoutconsists of three dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism and reduced personal accom-plishment (Maslach & Leiter, 1997). Exhaustion refers to mental and physicalex-haustion, a feeling of being overextended. One feels drained, used up and unableto unwind and recover. Cynicism refers to a cold and distant attitude toward workand the people on the job. Cynicism results from defensive coping with thedemands of the job (Van Dierendonck, Schaufeli, & Buunk, 2001), an inadequateattempt to protect oneself from stressful organizational circumstances and disap-pointments. Reduced personal accomplishment is the third burnout dimension thatrefers to doubt in one’s ability to make a difference, signifying an increasing per-ception of incompetence at work Table 2 shows an example of items referring tothese feelings.

Relationship between conflict and well-beingFor a variety of reasons that are unrelated to conflict at work, employees may expe-rience reduced well-being, feel less satisfied with, and committed to their work.These exogenous factors may, through their effects on well-being, produce conflictat work. Physical complaints negatively affect the individual’s problem solvingcapacity, his or her task focus, and his or her ability to make good and thoroughdecisions (De Dreu, Van Dierendonck, & Dijkstra, 2004). The potential effect ofexperiencing lower levels of wellbeing on interpersonal relationships can behypothesized based on studies on depression. Research has shown that individu-als interacting with depressed people get into a negative mood themselves and thisleads them to withdraw from these people (Coyne, 1976). Sacco’s social-cognitivemodel of interpersonal processes in depression states that the display of negativeemotions inhibits support from others (Sacco, 1999). Similarly, enduring stressheightens irritability, and tendencies to distance oneself from one’s (social) envi-ronment. Such tendencies at distancing oneself from others are likely to lead toless constructive ways of dealing with conflicts, such as contending or avoiding,and this in turn may further intensify the conflict. To put it bluntly: An individualunder enduring stress is not a very effective employee, and is certainly not fun hav-ing around. The implication is that employees under stress, and those with lowwell-being, may trigger conflicts with colleagues, and are more prone to get intoconflict with their colleagues and supervisors due to poor performance. This ideais consistent with longitudinal studies showing that detrimental work conditions –like conflict – can be the result rather than cause of an employee’s poor well-being(Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996).

Low well-being not only triggers conflict, but can also be the result of it for aswas described earlier conflict operates as a stressor. Conflict, involves emotionssuch as anger, disgust and fear, as well as physical reactions as accelerated heart


14 Chapter 1

beat and increased muscle tension (McEwen, 1998, Quick et al., 1997). In addi-tion, interaction with conflict opponents may go hand in hand with verbal, andsometimes physical violence resulting in sour throats, bloody noses, and twistedarms. Less severe forms of conflict can have, however, systematic impact on well-being as well. Several studies by Spector and colleagues speak to this (Spector,Chen, & O’Connell, 2001: Spector & Jex, 1998). In these studies, individual well-being was measured with a Physical Symptoms Inventory which contains tenitems including “During the past 30 days did you have … ‘an upset stomach ornausea?’, ‘trouble sleeping?’, ‘chest pain?’, and ‘headache?’”. Spector and Jex(1998) summarized the findings of thirteen samples involving over 3,000 emplo-yees. Their meta-analysis showed a moderate and positive correlation betweenconflict at work and physical complaints.

In another study, Spector, Chen and O’Connell (2000) found positive andmoderate correlations between conflict at work and anxiety and frustration, and asmall but significant correlation between conflict at work and physical complaints.Many other studies, often using different measurement scales, reported highlysimilar results (see, e.g., Beehr, Drexler, & Faulkner, 1997; Frone, 2000;Hillhouse, 1997; Rahim, 1983; Shirom & Mayer, 1993). Finally, a number of stu-dies revealed moderately positive correlations between conflict at work and theexhaustion dimension of burnout (Brondolo, et al., 1998; Burke & Leiter, 1992;Leiter, 1991; Rainey, 1995; Richardsen, Taylor, Daniel, Leith, & Burke, 1990; VanDierendonck, Schaufeli, & Sixma, 1994).

Quite obviously, in the short run, conflict has more negative than positive con-sequences for wellbeing. In the long run, however, matters may be more compli-cated. Enduring conflict for example may, apart from the direct consequences ofthe prolonged state of hyperactivity for well-being, also reinforce rumination andalcohol intake. Therefore these behavioral reactions indirectly may negativelyaffect the physical and psychological wellbeing of the individuals involved (Coo-per & Marshall, 1976; Danna & Griffin, 1999). In other words, the occurrence ofconflict at work results in a decline in physical and psychic functioning which, inthe long run, produces physical complaints, and feelings of burnout.

Finally, it seems quite plausible that related variables such as job satisfactionand organizational commitment suffer as a function of enduring conflict. Lowe-red satisfaction and commitment have been shown to turn into absenteeism,withdrawal behaviors including sabotage and theft, and turn-over (Rusbult, Far-rell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). For instance, a meta-analysis of the conflict literature showed that conflict in teams is negatively rela-ted to team-level satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Team-level satisfactionis likely to influence individual level job satisfaction. People’s emotional state isinfluenced by that of other team members through a process called emotionalcontagion, the tendency to automatically converge emotionally to another person(Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993). Some studies have indeed shown that


An introduction 15

satisfaction with team functioning is related to job satisfaction and well-being(Van der Vegt, Emans, & van de Vliert, 2001; Jex & Thomas, 2003).

Taken together, there is reason to expect low well-being to trigger conflict atwork, and to expect that conflict at work deteriorate well-being, manifested in psy-chological strain, physical complaints and feelings of burnout. However, severalissues are noteworthy and the focus of the present dissertation.

The Present Dissertation

Issues derserving notice are discussed briefly and conclude this introductorychapter. In the chapters that follow, each of these issues is the focus of one ormore field studies.

1. Conflict and reactions on conflict are confoundedAlthough conflict scholars have made a strong case for separating the occurrenceof conflict from the way individuals manage these conflicts (e.g., De Dreu et al.,1999; Pondy, 1992; Pruitt, 1998; Thomas, 1992; Tjosvold, 1998), previous stud-ies on the relationship between conflict and individual well-being tend to con-found these two components of conflict at work. In many of the studies reviewedabove, the Interpersonal Conflict at Work scale (e.g., Spector & Jex, 1998) wasused. The scale contains four items including “How often do you get into argu-ments with others at work?”, “How often do other people do nasty things to youat work?”, “How often are people rude to you at work?” and “How often do otherpeople yell at you at work?” The scale thus collapses across two constructs thattend to be separated in conflict theory – the emergence of conflict, and conflictmanagement. Thus, it remains unclear whether it is the occurrence of conflict, orthe way conflicts are managed, that accounts for reduced individual well-being.Therefore in this dissertation in all six studies (study 1 through study 3.3) theoccurrence of conflict was measured by asking respondents how often they expe-rienced work place conflict. In Studies 3.1 – 3.3 we furthermore measured conflictbehavior by asking respondents what they would do when they have a conflict atwork.

2. Conflict may affect well-being via its effects on organizational stress.Enduring conflict may deteriorate the work climate. This means that the individ-ual is easily exposed to more and other forms of organizational stress that willbring about the state of hyper-activity and may disrupt the mental and physicalregulation process. (Gaillard, 1996). This process is also referred to a “loss-spiral”that exists when initial losses (caused by conflicts) result in a depletion ofresources, which will over time result in more losses (Hobfoll, 1989). In Chapter2, a field study (Study 1; Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck, & Evers, 2005) is reportedinvolving a healthcare institution in which the hypothesis was tested that conflict


16 Chapter 1

at work and concomitant reductions in control motivation (e.g., flight reactions,feelings of helplessness) result in the experience of more organizational stressand therefore in more psychological and physical complaints.

3. Conflict and well-being effects depend on personalityThe strength of the relationship between workplace conflict and well-being in theresearch reviewed in this work is without exception, moderate at best. An expla-nation may be that certain job stressors, such as workplace conflict, impact someemployees stronger than others (e.g., Parkes, 1994; Warr, 1987). Moderators,therefore possibly play an important role. In the specific situation of conflict as ajob stressor, personality may moderate the relationship between workplace con-flict and well-being. To better understand these issues, in Chapter 3 the moderat-ing influence of the Big Five factors of agreeableness, extraversion, and emotionalstability on the relationship between conflict and well-being was examined. Intwo field studies, (Studies 2.1 and 2.2; Dijkstra, et al., 2005) one involving a man-ufacturing organization and one involving a healthcare organization, it washypothesized that conflict was negatively associated with well-being, especiallywhen individuals were low in agreeableness, low in extraversion, or low in emo-tional stability.

4. Conflict and well-being effects may depend on conflict managementBesides the possibility that personality characteristics may play an important partin the relationship between workplace conflict and employee well-being there isthe likelyhood that conflict management strategies similarly influence this rela-tionship. Consistent with conflict theory, in Chapter 4 we argue that the relation-ship between conflict at work and individual well-being and health is moderatedby the way conflict is managed. Cross-sectional data were gathered from studentswith part-time jobs (Study 3.1) healthcare workers (Study 3.2) and employees ofseveral local government departments (Study 3.3). Specifically it was hypothe-sized that conflict is related to stress and feelings of burnout, especially whenconflict is managed passively (e.g., through avoiding, and yielding). It was furtherhypothesized that active conflict management strategies (dominating, collaborat-ing) amplified the relationship between conflict and employee well-being. Theresearch questions are schematically summarized in Figure 3. Chapter 5 providesa discussion of the contributions and limitations of the present dissertation andoutlines a number of avenues for future research.


An introduction 17

Figure 3Model of relationships between workplace conflict and employee well-being

Relationships represented by arrows are discussed in this dissertationRelationship represented by dashed arrow is not discussed in this dissertation

workplaceconflict

personalitycharacteristics

conflictmanagement

organizationalstress

feelings oflosing control

employeewell-being


Chapter 2

Responding to Conflict at Workand Individual Well-Being:

The Mediating Role of Flight Behavior and Feelings of Helplessness

Adapted from: Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck, & Evers (2005)


The Mediating Role of Flight Behavior and Feelings of Helplessness 21

Introduction

Conflict is strongly associated with working in organizations and in the nearfuture this relationship probably will become even stronger. With organizationsbecoming increasingly delayered in their structure (Pfeffer, 1998), and with thegrowing diversity of the work force (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) as well as thehigher level of education and specialization of the employees, the need to coordi-nate and work together is increasing. The consequential heterogeneous value andbelief systems combined with the growing information dependency bears thepotential for misunderstanding, disagreement and irritation (De Dreu, Van Dieren-donck, & De Best-Waldhober, 2002).

What consequences conflict has largely depends on the way employeesrespond to the conflict situation. Although there are some positive outcomes thatcan be the result of coping constructively with conflict (Arnold & O’Connor,1999; De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000), hostile exchanges and competitiveapproaches often produce increased absenteeism, turnover, and job dissatisfac-tion (Spector & Jex, 1998; Tjosvold, 1998). Also, in looking at the consequencesof conflict for individual well-being there is a series of studies that show mild tomoderate positive correlations between some measure of conflict and psychoso-matic complaints, psychological strain, and burnout (e.g., Brondolo, et al., 1998;Spector, Chen, & O’Connell, 2000; Van Dierendonck, Schaufeli, & Sixma, 1994).

One conclusion that may be drawn from these studies is that conflict may actas a stressor. However, these studies do not inform us about the nature of therelationship between conflict – the stressor – and the way it is responded to onthe one hand and indicators of well-being on the other. The question of how con-flict is related to deteriorated well-being remains therefore unanswered. Second,until now, the possible mediating intrapersonal processes in the relationship bet-ween conflict and individual well-being have been largely ignored. Researcherstend to focus on specific ways of handling conflict and tend to ignore within-per-son processes. Conflict management is what people who experience conflictintend to do as well as what they actually do (Van de Vliert, 1997). Reacting to aconflict behaviorally though, is not the only way of responding to conflict. In ourstudy we will take a broader perspective and focus on the role of coping mecha-nisms as ways of responding to conflict, other than conflict management strate-gies. In trying to shed more light on the nature of the relationship betweenconflict and individual well-being, we will look upon conflict as a stressor andborrow from approaches used in studying stress.

Conflict as a stressor and individual well-beingStress research is concerned with the (inadequate) adaptation of individuals totheir environment and with the resulting physiological, behavioral and psycho-logical consequences (Quick, Quick, Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997). As suggested by


22 Chapter 2

Hobfoll (1989), loss or the threat of loss is a central element in this process. Histheory of Conservation of Resources, is based on the supposition that people tryto protect everything, material and immaterial, that they value. These ‘values’ arecalled resources. An actual or a perceived (imminent) loss of those resources isenvisaged as sufficient for producing a reaction of striving to minimize the netloss of resources (Hobfoll, 1989). This reaction is associated with physiologicaland psychological responses.

Most research on stress in organizations is concerned with circumstances andevents that threaten resources such as the amount of time one has available fortask completion, the budgets we can work with, the self-image, or the amount ofcontrol one experiences. All of these actual or perceived (job) stressors, may bringabout the reaction of striving to minimize the net loss of resources through(mal)adaptive physiological and psychological responses.

In reviewing the literature, Jex and Beehr (1991) specified interpersonal stres-sors as one of the more detrimental job stressors. As an example, they took thework of Newton and Keenan(1985) who asked young engineers to describe stress-ful incidents on the job as well as their reactions to these incidents. Interestingly,the most common stressors mentioned were “time-wasters” and interpersonalconflict. Parkes (1986) used a similar strategy to classify stressful incidentsamong female nursing students and found the most important stressors to beinsecurity about knowledge and skills and, again, interpersonal conflict. Smithand Sulsky (1995) surveyed over 600 people in a variety of occupations fromthree different organizations and found that almost 25% of the respondentsnominated interpersonal issues as their most bothersome job stressor (see alsoProsser et al., 1997). In their examination of daily stressors Bolger, DeLongis,Kessler, & Schilling (1989) found that interpersonal conflicts are by far the mostupsetting of all daily stressors, accounting for more than 80% of the explainedvariance in daily mood. Their results also revealed that conflicts with friends,neighbors and coworkers are more distressing than those with family members.From the above we may conclude that, indeed, conflict acts a major stressor.

Stressors in general, and conflict in particular, potentially have a strong effecton the well-being of individuals (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). Well-beingis a subjective experience and can be defined as a person’s cognitive and affectiveevaluations of his or her life (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2002), and as such it refersto the extent that a person feels healthy, satisfied with, and even happy about life(Rainey, 1995; Richardsen, Burke, & Leiter, 1992; Van Dierendonck, Schaufeli, &Sixma, 1994).

Conflict emerges when an individual or group perceives an interdependentother individual or group to oppose one’s own interests, beliefs, values, or percep-tions of reality (e.g., De Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999; Pondy, 1992; Pruitt,1998; Thomas, 1992; Wall & Callister, 1995). The mere experience of discord, diver-gence of interests, perceptions, values, and beliefs is emotional and likely to elicit



anger, disgust and fear, to threaten one’s self-esteem (e.g., Frone, 2000), and torequire cognitive resources to cope with the situation. It follows that being in con-flict with someone at work, brings about strong feelings of unpleasantness and allkinds of other stress responses (e.g., McEwen, 1998; Quick, et al., 1997). Indeed ina growing series of studies mild to moderate positive correlations were found bet-ween some measure of conflict and psychosomatic complaints, psychologicalstrain, and burnout (for a review, see De Dreu, van Dierendonck, & Dijkstra, 2004)revealing that conflict at work as a stressor may have a significant impact on thewell-being of employees. In our study we expect to replicate the negative correlationbetween the occurrence of conflict and individual well-being (Hypothesis 1).

ControlAs stated earlier in this article, the consequences of conflict for individual well-being are dependent on the ways an individual responds to this stressor. Withinthis context, control is an important psychological construct that in past researchhas shown its relevance for physical and psychological well-being (e.g., Affleck,Tennen, Pfeiffer, & Fifield, 1987; Skinner, 1996; Steptoe & Appels, 1989).Although individuals differ in the extent to which they like to exercise controlover their environment, the need to control the environment seems central to thehuman species (Burger & Cooper, 1979; Parkes, 1989). The need to master couldeven be more pervasive than sex, hunger and thirst in the lives of animal andman and therefore may be one of the strongest motivations and may be a basichuman need (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Deci & Ryan, 1985). The advantages of being incontrol for health and mood have been demonstrated across the human life span,from childhood, through middle adulthood to older adulthood (Abeles, 1990;Averill 1973; Rodin, 1986; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1989; Shapiro, Sandman, Gross-man, & Grossman, 1995). Furthermore, in the area of work and organizationalpsychology, evidence has been found to suggest that a high level of work controlpositively influences well-being (Karasek et al., 1988; Perrewe & Ganster, 1989).Consequently and in accordance with Hobfoll (1989), lack of this importantresource or even the threat of losing it, is generally believed to induce feelings ofdistress. In the end, when the situation is perceived as uncontrollable, this actualor perceived loss of resources may result in physical or psychological withdrawal(Seligman, 1979).

A reaction that is likely to occur when an individual faces the threat of losingcontrol symbolized by the stressor is the manifestation of feelings of helpless-ness. Lack of control initially will lead to feelings of anger and hostility as well asto attempts to regain control. When unsuccessful, the individual will learn thathis actions are not connected with the outcome and therefore expect future outco-mes also to be independent of his actions. Ultimately the individual gives up anyattempt to alter his situation and will consciously experience feelings of helpless-ness, which up to that point only had been latently present (Seligman, 1979). In


24 Chapter 2

the context of conflict at work and following this line of reasoning, it is hypothesi-zed that individuals who experience conflict would develop growing feelings ofloosing control and, as a result would respond with feelings of helplessness(Hypothesis 2).

Alternatively, however some individuals may prevent feelings of losing controlfrom becoming manifest by mentally withdrawing from situations that cannot becontrolled. These individuals will, to put off their minds, engage in all kinds ofdistracting behaviors (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1994) trying, in a sense, to flee fromthe situation. Therefore we expect that the more an individual experiences con-flict, the more this individual engages in flight behavior (Hypothesis 3). In ourline of reasoning, evidently one cannot engage in both strategies at the sametime, therefore two separate paths appear in our model.

Organizational stress and well-beingIn responding to stressors in general and to conflict in particular the individualphysically (e.g., increased blood pressure), emotionally (e.g., fear), and behavio-rally (e.g., withdrawal) responds to the actual, or imminent loss of control. Thisreactivity is adaptive and in itself not detrimental. Hence one day of extremelyhard work, or an incidental large and fundamental conflict with a colleague, willnot result in symptoms of deteriorated well-being. However, by experiencing feel-ings of helplessness, as well as by exhibiting flight behavior, the actual (conflict)situation will remain unchanged. The problem is not solved. This enduring con-flict may deteriorate the work climate and this means that the individual is easilyexposed to more and other forms of organizational stress that will force him toadapt to this new perceived or actual threats of losing control. It is this prolongedreactivity, that will disrupt the mental and physical regulation process; and causessymptoms of strain (Gaillard, 1996).

We therefore expect that, through its influence on helplessness and flightbehavior, conflict frequency would be positively related to organizational stress(Hypothesis 4).

Hobfoll (1989) refers to this process as to a “loss-spiral” that exists when ini-tial losses (caused by conflicts) result in a depletion of resources (through theireffects on helplessness and flight behavior), which will over time result in morelosses (caused by more organizational stress).

In line with this reasoning, we expect organizational stress to mediate therelationship between helplessness and individual well-being, such that helpless-ness, through its effect on organizational stress will result in diminished well-being (Hypothesis 5).



Figure 1 Theoretical Model

Finally we expect organizational stress to mediate the relationship between flightbehavior and individual well-being such that flight behavior, through its effect onorganizational stress will result in diminished well-being (Hypothesis 6). Figure 1shows our hypothesized model.

Method

Sample and procedureThe study participants were members of the nursing and ancillary staff of aninstitution for people with an acute handicap (e.g. being paralyzed as well asblind). Out of 348 employees, 191 returned the questionnaire (response rate of55%) of whom 83% (N = 159) were female and 96% (N = 183) were Dutch nationals(4% did not answer this question). The mean age of the employees was 36.5 years(SD = 9.2), and average tenure was 5.73 years (SD = 5.89) Of all respondents,19.9% (N = 38) were working 33 hours a week or more, 59% (N = 112) were work-ing in irregular shifts and 9% (N = 17) fulfilled an executive function.

All employees received a letter from the research team, inviting them to par-ticipate in the study emphasizing the importance of participating as well as itsvoluntary and anonymous character. The letter further explained the purpose ofthe study as being concerned with work conditions. The executives of 14 subdivi-sions, which were all part of the institution, but were situated on different loca-tions, distributed the questionnaires. The questionnaires were administeredduring daytime work hours (they were sent to the home addresses of employeeswho were not present at that particular point in time).

Helpless-ness

Occurrenceof Conflict

Flightbehavior

OrganizationalStress

Well-being


26 Chapter 2

MeasuresWell-being. The Dutch adaptations of the mental & physical health scales (Evers,Frese, & Cooper, 2000) of the Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) were used tooperationalize the well-being of respondents. The mental-health scale consistedof 13 items, tapping a range of mental-health symptoms, which were rated on 6-points Likert-type scales, some of which were reverse scored. A sample item is:“Do you find yourself experiencing fairly long periods in which you feel melan-choly for no apparent reason?” The physical-health scale consisted of 13 itemsrelating to somatic symptoms. Respondents were asked to rate the extent towhich they experienced the symptoms during the last three months on 6-pointsLikert-type scales from 1 (never) to 6 (frequently). Sample items are: “Inability toget to sleep”, and “Feeling unaccountably tired”. For both scales, a lower scoreindicated greater well-being. The health scale consisted of the items of the com-bined mental and physical subscales. Cronbach’s alpha’s were .85 and. 81, respec-tively.

Organizational stress. Three relevant subscales of the Dutch adaptation of thesources-of-stress scale of the OSI (Evers et al., 2000) were used that give scores ofjob stressors. Each subscale consisted of 8 items and measured respectively fac-tors intrinsic to the job (sample item: “Working a lot of hours”); the managerialrole (sample item: “Ambiguity about your responsibilities”); and organizationalstructure and climate (sample item: “Covert discrimination and favoritism”).Respondents were asked to rate the items in terms of the (perceived) degree ofpressure each factor may place on them. A 6-point Likert scale was used, rangingfrom 1 (a very small degree) to 6 (a very large degree). Cronbach’s alpha’s were.80, .86, and .84 respectively.

Flight behavior. A subscale of the Dutch adaptation of the Occupational StressIndicator (Evers et al., 2000) was used which assesses this coping strategy. Theitems were rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (fre-quently). Sample items are: “I notice that I drink more alcohol when I have prob-lems”, and “When there are problems I tend to watch more TV”. Cronbach’salpha was .55.

Helplessness. We used the Dutch adaptation of the individual influence sub-scale of the Locus of Control scale of the OSI (Evers et al., 2000) to measure therespondent’s perceptions about the amount of influence any individual can havewithin the organization. The five items of this scale were rated on a 6-point Likertscale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (frequently). Sample items are: “I have no say inthe assignments I get at my work”, and: “My work is just a cog in the machineover which I have little control”. Cronbach’s alpha was .71.

Occurrence of Conflict. We asked employees how often they experienced con-flicts about tasks and personal matters work (2 items). The answering scaleranged from 1 (almost never), to 5 (very often). Cronbach’s alpha was .57.



AnalysisStructural equation modeling using Lisrel 8.54 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) wasemployed to assess the fit of the proposed model. We performed the two-stepstructural equation modeling approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing(1988). First the measurement model was assessed to validate the operationalisa-tion of the theoretical constructs. Second, the structural equation model, specify-ing the relations among the latent variables, was tested. The structural modelconsists of five hypothetical constructs, or latent variables, that are estimated byone or more empirical, manifest variables that are directly observed. In the meas-urement model, each latent variable was indicated by either the separate items (i.e.,helplessness and flight behavior) or by the subscales (i.e., physical and mentalhealth ). Conflict was estimated by the two items on task and personal conflict asdescribed in the method section.

The goodness-of-fit of the models was evaluated using relative and absoluteindices as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1998). The absolute goodness-of-fitindices calculated were the chi-square goodness-of-fit index and the standardizedroot-mean-square residual (SRMR). A value of .08 or less is considered as indica-ting a relatively good fit for the SRMR. The relative goodness-of-fit indices com-puted were the comparative fit index (CFI) and the non-normed fit index (NNFIor TLI). For both indices, values equal or greater than 0.95 are considered as indi-cating a good fit.

Results

Measurement model resultsTable 1 contains the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of variables onwhich the LISREL analyses were based. Table 2 contains the goodness-of-fit statis-tics obtained from analyzing the measurement model. The comparative fit indi-ces show a non satisfactory fit to the data, the CFI was .84, the NNFI was .84 andthe SRMR was .07. In order to find out what caused the relatively low fit, we firstchecked the significance of the factor loadings of the measurement model. Theywere all significant. The modification indices of the indicators also showed thatthe low fit was not due to misspecification of the measurement model but due toignored variance between measurement errors. Ignoring correlated measure-ment errors in a model affects not only the goodness-of-fit indices but also theparameters in the model (Reddy, 1992). Allowing those measurement errors tobe correlated will result in a more accurate estimation of the structural parame-ters. The error variances of eight item-pairs were allowed to correlate. The result-ing model provided an excellent fit to the data, the CFI was .96, the NNFI was .95and the SRMR was .06.


28 Chapter 2

Table 1Descriptive statistics and inter correlations of variables (N=191)

Note. *p < .05, ** p < .01

Structural model resultsThe second phase was the structural modeling procedure. The hypothesizedmodel was fitted to the data. According to both incremental fit indices, the fit ofthe hypothetical model is quite satisfactory with values of .96 and .96 (seeTable 2). This is confirmed by the SRMR (.06) that is with a value of .06 belowthe .08 threshold. We can conclude that this model provided a good fit to the dataaccording to the criteria formulated by Hu and Bentler (1998).

Table 2Goodness – of – fit indices for measurement and structural models

The completely standardized solution of the model (see Figure 2) shows that con-flict is positively related to helplessness and flight behavior. Both helplessnessand flight behavior are related to more organizational stress, which is negativelyrelated to well-being.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Task conflict2. Personal conflict3. Flight behavior4. Helplessness5. Intrinsic work

stressors6. Structure and

climate stressors7. Role stressors8. Physical health9. Mental health

2.371.851.844.682.98

3.45

2.924.923.78

.95

.96

.510.761.02

1.16

1.11.64.40

.51**

.21** .18*.22**

.35**

.23**-.18*-.06

.26** .19* .18*

.31**

.21** -.18* -.08

(.55) .09 .40**

.35**

.43**-.36** -.33**

(.71).23**

.40**

.35**-.19*.06

(.80)

.65**

.82**-.29**-.23**

(.84)

.74**-.34**-.15

(.86)-.34**-.25**

(.81).42** (.85)

χ2 df CFI NNFI SRMR

Measurement modelMeasurement model, adjustedHypothesized model

229.30154.11155.00

125117122

.84

.96

.96

.84

.95

.96

.07

.06

.06



Figure 2Final model completely standardized solution

Note. The relations between the error terms are not depicted for reasons of clarity

Our hypothesized model specified a mediating role of helplessness and flightbehavior between conflict and organizational stress. For a variable to function as amediator three conditions should be met (Baron & Kenny, 1986): a) the indepen-dent variable should be related to the mediator, b) the mediator should be relatedto the outcome variable, and c) the relation between the independent variable andthe outcome variable should be significantly reduced if the paths defined under aand b are controlled for. The correlations in Table 1 showed that originally con-flicts, flight behavior, helplessness and all three of the organization stressors weresignificantly related, thus satisfying the required conditions for testing mediation.In the final model (Figure 2), there is no direct path between the occurrence ofconflict and organizational stress, so condition c holds, flight behavior andhelplessness function as mediators.

Discussion

From past research we know that conflict at work is associated with psychosomaticcomplaints, and other stress-related indicators such as chronic fatigue (e.g., DeDreu et al., 2002; Spector & Jex, 1998). Unclear was how responding to this stres-sor influenced the relationship between the occurrence of conflict and individualwell-being. Until now researchers did not address the mediating role of conflictmanagement strategies in the interplay between conflict and well-being. By not

Helpless-ness

Organizationalstress

Occurrenceof Conflict

Well-being

Flightbehavior

.36 .40

.32.39

.63

.77

.81personalconflicts

Intrinsicphysicalhealth

mentalhealth

Role

taskconflicts

.77 .46.76

.62

.65 .44

.51

.51.41

.46

.55.27 .75

.60

.60

Structure & climate


30 Chapter 2

restricting ourselves to this behavioral way of responding to conflict (i.e. handlingthe conflict) but by taking a broader perspective from stress theory, we addressedthis issue.

Results of our study confirmed the important role of conflict as a major stres-sor at work. Furthermore, and in support of our hypotheses results showed thatresponding to this stressor with feelings of helplessness and with flight behavioris associated with the experience of more organizational stress, which results indeteriorated well-being. We could also confirm the two separate paths indicatingthe independence of the constructs of feelings of helplessness and flight beha-vior. These results provide further insight into the complex interplay between con-flict at work and individual well-being. By looking at conflict as a stressor, thesignificance of the concept of control helps us to explain how actual or perceivedloss of control will determine the choice for particular ways of responding to con-flict. In what follows, we address several contributions to conflict theory, and dis-cuss some practical implications of our results.

Contributions to theoryIn the past three decades, a tremendous amount of research has focused on theways people manage conflict in the workplace, and how this affects individualand group performance. This research generally shows that under specific condi-tions, individuals and groups can benefit from conflict – conflict increases indi-vidual creativity (Nemeth, 1986), it stimulates group innovation (De Dreu &West, 2001; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001; West & Anderson, 1996), andwhen conflict is managed through constructive problem solving, it generallyincreases individual and group effectiveness (Tjosvold, 1998). This conflictresearch has, however, largely ignored the potentially detrimental consequencesof conflict for employee well-being, and as such, a one-sided theory tends toemerge.

Studies in the domain of occupational health have dealt with the possible nega-tive consequences of conflict for individual well-being, and these studies generallyshow negative but small to moderate correlations between conflict at work, andindicators of well-being including psychosomatic complaints, feelings of burnout,and negative affect (De Dreu et al., 2002; Spector & Jex, 1998). Thus, a first contri-bution of the current work is that it shows that conflict at work can seriously affectemployee well-being, and that much of this effect is related to the way individualsrespond to the conflict.

We argued and showed that the occurrence of conflict at work tends to berelated to increased tendencies to respond to conflict in passive, non-confrontingways. These types of coping are at odds with findings from earlier research thatpositive effects of conflict come about especially when conflict is managed in aconstructive problem solving way (De Dreu et al., 2000; Arnold & O’Connor,1999). We may now conclude that the occurrence of conflict does not automati-



cally trigger this (constructive) problem solving behavior and therefore the possi-ble positive consequences of conflict are unlikely to come about in an easy way.

Identifying reduced well-being as a consequence of conflict suggests an ongo-ing negative spiral (De Dreu, et al., 2000; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994; Tjosvold,1998) in which conflict deteriorates well-being, which in turn reduces theemployee’s propensity to manage the conflict constructively, which in turn raisesthe probability of future conflict, and so on. Clearly, longitudinal research testingthis negative spiral model is needed.

Implications for practiceThe strongest implication for practice is that the occurrence of conflict is relatedto deteriorated well-being, and that the measurement of occurrence of conflict atwork should become an important tool for consultants in diagnosing and advis-ing organizations with high rates of turn-over, sick leaves, and absenteeism. Fur-thermore, our work showed that because conflict produces passive andinadequate coping behavior it will lead to more organizational stress. It follows,that one should fight this natural propensity, by staying away from passivity, andmanage the conflict constructively instead.

From the perspective of occupational health, managers and human resourceofficials may take responsibility and consider conflict and how conflict is dealtwith in a serious way. Within the more general framework of the organizationalstrategy of stress management for example training packages and courses may beoffered. These tools may help employees who are in conflict to refrain from pas-sive responses and prevent negative consequences for individual well-being toarise.

Strengths and limitationsMost research on conflict in the workplace has focused on behavioral and mate-rial outcomes of conflict such as joint outcomes and performance. By doing so,the consequences of conflict in cognitive and emotional terms have rarely beenconsidered. In our study we showed that it is just the occurrence of these emo-tional and cognitive responses to conflict that produce more organizational stressand therefore negatively influences well-being.

Although the results of our study supported our theoretical model severalissues require attention. One is the cross-sectional nature of the study limitingcausal interpretations. We propose directional relations between the constructs,however, we cannot rule out the alternative model in which reduced well-beingleads to organizational stress which in turn through the influence of responses ofhelplessness and flight behavior results in more conflict. So future researchusing a cross-lagged design with longitudinal data is needed to further strengthenour theoretical model. Secondly, conflict at work was measured with only twoitems, and the reader may wonder whether this measure assessed conflict at work


32 Chapter 2

in a reliable and valid way. However, the items exclusively focused on the occur-rence of conflict, eliminating possible confounding with the way conflicts aremanaged (Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck, Evers, & De Dreu, 2005). That we replica-ted past results, showing a moderately negative relation between conflict andindividual well-being provides further confidence in the adequacy of our conflictmeasure. The internal consistency of the scale that measures flight behavior wassomewhat low (.55). However, one might argue that internal consistency is hardlyrelevant for this scale, since the items do not refer to a particular underlying con-struct and therefore need not necessarily correlate (see also Spector & Jex, 1998).The negative impact on the validity of our results is reduced since we analyzedthe relationships between latent variables.

ConclusionConflict at work acts as a major stressor and responding to this stressor in passivenon confronting ways is not only likely to occur, but will also put into operation anegative spiral. The initial increase in the experience of organizational stress, thatis the diminished actual or perceived loss of control will, in the end, result inreduced well-being. It is suggested that the deterioration of well-being mayweaken the tendency to respond to conflict in a cooperative way (e.g. problem sol-ving behavior). This possibility should be further examined for it is just this coo-perative way of responding to conflict that has proven to generate the best resultsin fighting the negative consequences of conflict.


Chapter 3

Conflict and Well-being at Work:

The Moderating Role of Personality

Adapted from Dijkstra, Van Dierendonck, Evers & De Dreu (2005)


The Moderating Role of Personality 35

Introduction

Conflict is inherent to working in organizations (Katz & Kahn, 1978), and conflictresearch has made great progress in uncovering when, why, and how conflict ismanaged and impacts individual, team, and organizational effectiveness (forreviews and discussions, see e.g., De Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999; Tho-mas, 1992; Tjosvold, 1998; Wall & Callister, 1995). Few studies, however, addres-sed the possible relations between conflict on the one hand, and individual well-being, including psychosomatic complaints, and poor mental health, on theother. This is remarkable for several reasons. First, the relationship between con-flict and well-being is intuitively appealing, but intuition requires empirical testsfor proper action to be justified. Second, it has been reported that over 7% of allemployees on sick leave attribute their poor mental health to conflict at work(Engers, 1995). Third, research has shown that 2 – 4% of the European workforceis subject to systematic bullying and mobbing at work. These are considered to besevere cases of conflict that may result in symptoms of post-traumatic stressdisorder (Einarsen, 2000). These numbers trigger the need for policy makers todesign interventions, and such interventions need to be based on sound empiri-cal research. Thus, for both theoretical and applied reasons, a better understan-ding of the interrelations between conflict, and individual well-being is needed.Notwithstanding the intuitive appeal of the conflict – well-being relationship, pastreviews of the relevant literatures have indicated that the relationship betweenconflict and health-related variables is weak to moderate at best (De Dreu, VanDierendonck, & De Best-Waldhober, 2002; Spector & Jex, 1998). This points tothe possibility that important moderators of the conflict – well-being relationshipexist and have, thus far, been overlooked. In fact, work on stress and well-beinghas pointed to the potentially important moderating role of personality (e.g., Bol-ger & Zuckermann, 1995), but in conflict theory and research on conflict andhealth, the role of personality has been largely ignored. In this study, we fill thisgap.

Conflict and individual well-beingConflict is broadly defined as the process in which an individual or group per-ceives an interdependent other individual or group to oppose one’s own interests,beliefs, values, or perceptions of reality (e.g., De Dreu et al., 1999; Pruitt, 1998;Schmidt & Kochan, 1972; Thomas, 1992; Wall & Callister, 1995). The mere expe-rience of discord, tension, and divergence of interests, perceptions, values, andbeliefs is emotional and likely to elicit anger, disgust and fear, to threaten one’sself-esteem, and to require cognitive resources to cope with the situation (e.g.,Frone, 2000; Warr, 1990). Anticipating or being in conflict is stressful and affectsthe individual’s well-being – peoples emotional and cognitive evaluations of theirlives (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003; see also Rainey, 1995; Richardsen, Burke, &


36 Chapter 3

Leiter, 1992; Van Dierendonck, Schaufeli, & Sixma, 1994). Well-being is reflectedin measures of (life) satisfaction, psychosomatic complaints, burnout, and mentalhealth, among other things (Van der Doef & Maas, 1999). Indeed, there is a grow-ing number of studies that has shown mild to moderate positive correlationsbetween some measure of conflict and psychosomatic complaints (e.g., Spector,Chen, & O’Connell, 2000; Spector & Jex, 1998), psychological strain (Beehr,Drexler, & Faulkner, 1997; Shirom & Mayer, 1993), and burnout (Brondolo et al.,1998; Leiter, 1991; Rainey, 1995; Richardsen et al., 1992; Taylor, Daniel, Leith, &Burke, 1990; Van Dierendonck et al., 1994).

Despite the fact that conflict is considered as among the most potent stressorsin working life (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989; Newton & Keenan1985; Parkes, 1986; Smith & Sulsky, 1995), the strength of the relationshipbetween conflict and well-being is, without exception, moderate at best. An expla-nation may be that certain job stressors, such as workplace conflict, impact jobstrain more for some employees than for others (e.g., Parkes, 1994; Warr, 1987).For example, Hotard, McFatter, McWhirter, and Stegall (1989) showed that intro-verted and not extraverted individuals with poor social relationships experiencedlow subjective well-being. Elovainio, Kivimäki, Vahtera, Virtanen, and Keltikan-gas-Järvinen (2003) showed that neuroticism, the counterpart of emotional stabil-ity, strengthened the relationship between injustice perceptions and sicknessincrease in men. These studies thus point to the potentially important role of per-sonality as a moderator of the relationship between stressors and indicators ofwell-being. Therefore we argue that, in the specific situation of conflict as a jobstressor, personality may moderate the relationship between conflict and well-being in a similar way.

Study 1: The Moderating Role of Agreeableness

Interpersonal conflict necessarily involves more than one individual as well assome form of interaction. Consequently interpersonal conflict is concerned withsocial relations. A personality trait that is concerned with social relations is theBig Five factor agreeableness (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). It dis-tinguishes itself from the other big-five personality factors in the involvementwith motives for maintaining harmonious social relations (Jensen-Campbell &Graziano, 2001). Agreeableness is related to “pro-social motives”, aimed atseeking good outcomes for oneself as well as for other group members (Barry &Friedman, 1998; Beersma & De Dreu, 2002), and also to “the need for affilia-tion”, a recurrent preference in thought and behavior for experiences of establis-hing, maintaining, and restoring a positive affective relationship (Atkinson,Heyns, & Veroff, 1954). Moreover, agreeableness is associated with “the need forintimacy”, the recurrent preference in thought and behavior for experiences ofwarm, close, and communicative interactions with others. Individuals high in



agreeableness are trusting, cooperative, altruistic, compliant, and “moved byothers” (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Those who are low in agreeableness have beendescribed as antagonistic, competitive, cynical, callous, ruthless, and cruel, andthey tend to experience and express hostility.

Suls, Martin, and David (1998) took a perspective from person-environmentfit, arguing that people react best to situations in which their characteristics aresimilar to other individuals or features of the environment and react worse tosituations in which there is a mismatch (Lewin, 1935). They found that agreeablepersons experienced more subjective distress when they encountered interperso-nal conflict. Likewise, Moskowitz and Coté (1995) found that agreeablenessenhanced the negative influence of conflict on negative affect because, as theseauthors reasoned, engaging in behaviors that conflict with one’s traits (e.g. beingsarcastic while generally being an agreeable person) leads to more negative affect.However, once conflict is experienced, agreeableness may color the ways in whichindividuals perceive, interpret or make sense of that conflict situation (Bono,Boles, Judge, & Lauver, 2002). High agreeable individuals may in their pursuit ofharmonious relations generate more positive attributions to otherwise provoca-tive behavior than low-agreeable persons would do (Graziano et al., 1996). This inturn allows them to minimize the negative impact of conflict (Kinnunen, Ver-mulst, Gerris, & Mäkikangas, 2003). Together, the above reveals that high agreea-bleness most likely buffers people from conflict experiences. We thus predictedthat the negative relationship between conflict at work and individual well-beingwould be stronger for individuals low rather than high in agreeableness (Hypo-thesis 1).

MethodSample and procedure. The study participants were members of the nursing andancillary staff of a geriatric hospital. Out of 204 employees, 173 returned thequestionnaire (response rate of 85%) of whom 73% (N = 126) were female and94% had Dutch nationality (6% did not answer the question). The mean age ofthe employees was 41 year (SD = 11.04), the mean length of service was 6.78 year(SD = 6.20), and the mean number of working hours was 28.94 (SD = 8.34).

All employees received a letter from the research team, inviting them to parti-cipate in the study and emphasizing the importance of participating as well as itsvoluntary and anonymous character. The letter further explained the purpose ofthe study as being concerned with working conditions and satisfaction at work.The questionnaires were administered during daytime work hours. They weresent to the home addresses of employees who were not present at that particularpoint in time.

Measures. To measure well-being we used a shortened (i.e., 5 items) version ofthe Dutch adaptation of the mental health scale of the Occupational Stress Indica-tor (Evers, Frese, & Cooper, 2000), which measures the frequency of (non)-occur-rence of cognitive symptoms of stress. Sample items are: “Are you feeling tense?”


38 Chapter 3

and “Do you feel you’ve handled difficulties at work well?” We removed one itemthat considerably undermined the internal consistency of the scale. Questionswere rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating better mentalhealth. Past research has established the psychometric properties of the scale,showing high validity and reliability.

Agreeableness was measured with a shortened scale (i.e., 6 items) of the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI), assessing agreeableness (Hendriks, Hofstee,De Raad, & Angleitner, 1995). The FFPI results from the Abridged Big FiveDimensional Circumplex taxonomic model of traits (Hofstee, de Raad, & Gold-berg, 1992). Researchers in the field tend to converge on the Five Factor Model(FFM) as providing a comprehensive structure for the study of personality (Wig-gins & Trapnell, 1997). This concord of opinion originates in empirical workpointing unequivocally toward a five-factor model (Digman, 1990; Goldberg1981; John, 1990) as well as in the theoretical explanations that have been offeredfor the empirical symmetries.

Respondents indicated the extent to which statements characterized theirbehavior using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Sample items are: “Gets angry easily” and “Likes to do things for others.”Past validation studies have shown good to excellent reliability for the sub-scalemeasuring agreeableness (e.g., Hendriks et al., 1995; Saucier, 2002). A lowerscore reflects lower agreeableness.

The occurrence of conflict was assessed by asking employees, how often theyexperienced conflict at work (1 = almost never, to 5 = very often). Although multipleitem scales are preferable to single-item measures in most situations, single-itemmeasures may represent viable alternatives when one seeks, as we did in ourstudy, to attain global one-dimensional information about a construct (Hudy,1998). Furthermore, single-item measures only pose a problem when unexpectedresults are obtained, not when supportive effects are observed (and reliabilityneeds not to be invoked as a possible alternative for not finding a predictedeffect).

ResultsDescriptive statistics. Correlations are shown in Table 1, and as can be seen, conflictwas correlated with agreeableness as well as with individual well-being. The corre-lation between well-being and agreeableness was not significant. In general, corre-lations were small to moderate, suggesting that common-source variance is not amajor problem in these data. In Table 2, means and standard deviations of thepopulation under study as well as those of a norm group are presented. The tableshows that the respondents in the current study did not differ in the amount ofconflict they experience, but do score somewhat higher on agreeableness and onwell-being.



Moderating role of agreeableness. To test the prediction that agreeableness moder-ates the negative relation between the occurrence of conflict and individual well-being; a hierarchical regression was performed. Individual well-being served asthe dependent variable. Results are shown in Table 3. The occurrence of conflictand agreeableness were entered in step 1, and in step 2 the interaction betweenconflict and agreeableness was entered. Following the advice by Aiken and West(1991), predictor variables were centered at the mean before calculating theircross-product terms. Inspection of the Variance Inflation Factors showed these tobe below 3.0 in all cases, indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem(Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Results showed that the step 1 variables explained a significant amount of var-iance, R2 = .06, F(2, 153) = 4.47, p = .013, such that more conflict (β = -.18,t = -2.24, p = .027) related negatively to individual well-being. Consistent withHypothesis 1, results further showed that the interaction term entered in step 2accounted for a significant increase in explained variance, ΔR2 = .03, F(1, 152) =4.63 p = .033. The interaction effect is plotted in Figure 1. Testing the slopes of theregression lines revealed that, as predicted, conflict was negatively related to well-being, but only when individuals are low (β = -.30, t = -3.09, p = .002) and nothigh (β =-.006, t < 1.00, ns) in agreeableness.

Table 1Correlations (Study 1)

Note. *p < .05; ** p < .01

Table 2Sample size, means and standard deviations of the study sample and a norm group

Note. *p < .01.

Scale 1 2

1. Conflict 2. Agreeableness3. Well-being

--.27**-.21*

- .14

Scale Respondents in Study 1 Norm group t

N M SD N M SD

ConflictAgreeablenessWell-being

166165158

1.834.003.83

1.05.58.78

1370a

786b

1383c

a. The norm group consists of employees from the ministry of justice, an ICT company, asuperstore, a newspaper publishing company, and a healthcare institution.

b. The norm group consists of university students and employees from a newspaper publishingcompany, and an ICT company.

c. The norm group consists of employees from the ministry of justice, an ICT company, asuperstore, a newspaper publishing company, and a healthcare institution.

1.913.803.34

.87

.50

.69

1.10*-4.53*-8.39*


40 Chapter 3

Table 3Hierarchical regression results for agreeableness as moderator of the conflict – well-being relationship (Study 1)

Note. *p < .05.

Figure 1The moderating effect of agreeableness on the relationship between conflict and individ-ual well-being (Study 1)

Discussion and Introduction to Study 2

The results of Study 1 replicate the finding from past research that conflict atwork is negatively related to individual well-being. The more important contribu-tion of Study 1 is, however, that it showed that this general tendency is moderatedby the individual’s level of agreeableness – for individuals low in agreeablenessthe relationship between perceived conflict and well-being is particularly pro-nounced. This finding was as predicted, and provides an answer not only to thequestion why previous work always found relatively weak correlations betweenconflict at work and employee well-being. The finding also makes it plausible,

R ΔR2 βStep 1

Conflict Agreeableness .24 .01

-.18* .11

Step 2

Conflict x Agreeableness .29* .03* .17*

-1sd +1sd

Conflict frequency

Low AgreeablenessHigh Agreeableness

4,04

3,56

3,95 3,94

3

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4

4,2

Wel

l-bei

ng



that the specific ways agreeable people interpret and perceive conflict situationsto maintain positive social relations, prevent them from experiencing the nega-tive consequences of conflict for well-being. Finally it proved again the strongconnection between agreeableness and social relations and therefore its relevancefor interpersonal conflict.

Although agreeableness is unique in its connection to motives for maintain-ing positive social relations, two other personality factors may play a critical rolein moderating the relationship between conflict and well-being. In Study 2 weexamined extraversion, and emotional stability. Like agreeableness, extraversionis recognized for its importance to social relations (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano,2001). The concept of introversion-extraversion – originally introduced by Jung(1921) – is extremely important in trait psychology. This can be illustrated by thefact that an extraversion factor is included in almost every multi-dimensional per-sonality inventory (for an overview, see Watson & Clark, 1997; see also Digman,1990; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987;Tellegen, 1985). Extraverted individuals are generally positive, sociable (i.e. gre-garious, warm), assertive, energetic, and joyful, and they show a preference forand enjoyment of others’ company (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Watson & Clark,1997). Through their positive orientation towards the world in general and tosocial interactions in particular, extraverted individuals may well interpret a con-flict situation in a way that buffers the negative influence on their well-being. Wetherefore predict that the negative relationship between conflict at work and indi-vidual well-being would be stronger for individuals low rather than high in extra-version (Hypothesis 2).

As mentioned, in addition to extraversion, Study 2 included emotional stabil-ity as a potential moderator. Emotional stable individuals are secure, relaxed, self-sufficient, not anxious, and tolerant of stress (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998)while emotionally unstable individuals can be described as having the tendencyto experience negative affect and emotions such as sadness, fear and guilt, angerand hostility. Emotional stability is negatively related to the experience of inter-personal stressors (Cimbolic Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999), to conflict fre-quency as well as to the affect intensity associated with that conflict (Bolger &Zuckerman, 1995; McFatter, 1998; Suls et al., 1998). If low emotional stabilitycould lead people to experience more conflict and if more perceived conflict rep-resents a highly stressful environment it follows that emotionally unstable per-sons are more vulnerable to deteriorated well-being than emotionally stablepeople when confronted with perceived conflict in the workplace (Hypothesis 3).Testing these predictions was the goal of Study 2.


42 Chapter 3

MethodSample and procedure. The study participants were employees of a company spe-cializing in the development and construction of food processing systems. On therequest of the company a study was initiated regarding work, well-being andstress related variables. Out of 364 employees 308 returned the questionnaire(response rate of 85 %) of whom 89 % (N = 273) were male, and 77 % were Dutchnationals (21 % did not answer the question, the remaining 2 % of the employeeswere Italian, Moroccan, or Turkish nationals). The mean age of the employeeswas 44.93 (SD = 10.41), the mean length of service was 21.32 years (SD = 13.01),and the mean number of working hours was 38.25 (SD = 4.34).

All employees received a letter from the research team, inviting them to par-ticipate in the study emphasizing the importance of participating as well as itsvoluntary and anonymous character. The letter further explained the purpose ofthe study, which was threefold: (a) to get a picture of the degree to which employ-ees experience occupational stress, (b) to gain inside into the existing differencesbetween teams regarding occupational stress, and (c) to shed light on the circum-stances associated with occupational stress in order to improve the situationwhere necessary. The questionnaires were administered in small groups, duringwork hours (they were sent to the home addresses of employees who were notable to attend these group sessions).

Measures. To assess well-being we used the Dutch adaptation of the mentalhealth scale of the Occupational Stress Indicator (Evers et al., 2000), which meas-ures the frequency of (non)-occurrence of cognitive symptoms of stress. The scaleconsisted of 13 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale of which 5 items were reversescored. Past research has established the psychometric properties of the scale,showing high validity and reliability. Lower scores indicate poorer mental health.

Conflict frequency was measured as in Study 1.Emotional stability and extraversion were measured with a shortened version of

the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI), assessing the Big Five factors of per-sonality (Hendriks et al., 1995). The FFPI results from the Abridged Big FiveDimensional Circumplex taxonomic model of traits (Hofstee et al., 1992). Weused the scales for extraversion (5 items), and emotional stability (5 items).Respondents indicated the extent to which statements characterized their behav-ior using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Some of the items were reverse coded. Past work by Hofstee et al. (1992)has revealed good to excellent psychometric properties for these scales. Sampleitems are: “Takes time out to chat”, “Gets the party going” (extraversion), “Is ableto see the best in a situation”, and “readily overcomes setbacks” (emotional stabil-ity). A lower score indicates a less strong personality trait.



ResultsDescriptive Statistics. Correlations between the variables are shown in Table 4. Ascan be seen, individual well-being was correlated with extraversion, and withemotional stability. Also, conflict frequency was negatively related to individualwell-being. In general, correlations were small to moderate, suggesting that com-mon-source variance was not a major problem in these data. In Table 5, meansand standard deviations of the sample and a norm group were presented.Respondents in this study did not differ from those of the norm group withregard to conflict, emotional stability, and extraversion. However, they did reportlower well-being.

Moderating Role of Emotional Stability and Extraversion. To test the predictionthat emotional stability (Hypothesis 2), and extraversion (Hypothesis 3) moderatethe negative relation between the occurrence of conflict and individual well-being, two sets of hierarchical regressions were performed. In each model, indi-vidual well-being served as the dependent variable. The occurrence of conflict andemotional stability (or extraversion) were entered in step 1, and in step 2 the inter-action between conflict and emotional stability (or extraversion) was entered. Fol-lowing the advice by Aiken and West (1991), predictor variables were centered atthe mean before calculating their cross-product terms. Inspection of the VarianceInflation Factors showed these to be below 4.6 in all cases, indicating that multi-collinearity is not a problem (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Results are summarized in Table 4. As can be seen, in both analyses, the step1 variables explained a significant amount of variance, such that more conflict,less extraversion, and lower emotional stability related negatively to individualwell-being. More important is that the interaction terms entered in step 2accounted for a significant increase in explained variance, indicating that bothemotional stability and extraversion moderate the relationship between conflictfrequency and individual well-being. The interaction effects are plotted in Figure2, and 3. As can be seen, more conflict is negatively related to well-being, but onlywhen individuals are low (β =-.28, t = -4.52, p = < .001) and not high (β = -.08,t = -1.45, p = .15) in emotional stability. Also, more conflict is negatively related towell-being for individuals both high and low in extraversion, but this relationshipis stronger for individuals low on extraversion (β = -.33, t = -4.83, p = < .001) thanfor individuals high on extraversion (β = -.16, t = -2.54, p = .01). These results sup-port Hypothesis 2 and 3, respectively.


44 Chapter 3

Table 4Correlations (Study 2)

Note. *p < .05; *** p < .001 (N = 304)

Table 5Size, means and standard deviations of the study sample and a norm group

Note. *p < .05

Table 6Hierarchical regression results for emotional stability and extraversion as moderators ofthe conflict – well-being relationship (Study 2)

Note. Unstandardized coefficients are reported; Standard errors are reported in parentheses.*p < .05; ** p < .001

Scale 1 2 3

1. Conflict 2. Extraversion3. Emotional stability 4. Well-being

--.09-.14*-.25***

-.32***.27***

-.67***

Scale Respondents Norm group

N M SD N M SD t

1. Conflict 2. Extraversion3. Emotional stability 4. Well-being

304308307304

2.023.503.583.68

.95

.64

.64

.63

1370a

790b

785c

1305d

a. The norm group consists of employees from the ministry of justice, an ICT company, asuperstore, a newspaper publishing company, and a healthcare institution.

b. The norm group consists of university students and employees from a newspaper publishingcompany, and an ICT company.

c. The norm group consists of university students and employees from a newspaper publishingcompany, and an ICT company.

d. The norm group consists of employees from electronical contractors, a government departmentfor radio communication, the police, an insurance company, a health and safety executive, and anursing home.

1.913.483.544.94

.87

.56

.59

.75

-.20-.51-.995.44*

Extraversion Emotional stability

1 2 1 2

Step 1 (Main effects)

Conflict ExtraversionEmotional stability

-.18** (.04) .29** (.06)

NA

-.19 ** (.04) .29** (.06)

NA

-.13** (.03)NA

.75** (.05)

-.13** (.03)NA

.74** (.05)

Step 2 (Interaction)

Conflict x ExtraversionConflict x Emotional stability

.15* (.06)NA

NA .12* (.06)

R2

ΔR2 .12** .14**

.02 .46** .47**

.01



Figure 2The moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship between conflict and individ-ual well-being (Study 2)

Figure 3The moderating effect of emotional stability on the relationship between conflict andindividual well-being (Study 2)

-1sd +1sdConflict frequency

Low ExtraversionHigh Extraversion

4,79

4,3

4,95

4,72

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

Wel

l-b

ein

g

-1sd +1sdConflict frequency

Low Emotional StabilityHigh Emotional Stability

4,73

4,18

5

4,92

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

Wel

l-b

ein

g


46 Chapter 3

General Discussion and Conclusion

Conflict at work has often been seen as a threat to individual satisfaction andwell-being, yet only a handful of studies have addressed this issue systematically.From this past research we knew that conflict at work is associated with psychoso-matic complaints, feelings of burnout, and stress-related indicators such aschronic fatigue (e.g., De Dreu, et al., 2002; Spector & Jex, 1998). It remainedunclear, however, what role personality dimensions play in the relationshipbetween the occurrence of conflict, and the individual’s well-being. In two studieswe addressed these issues. Our results showed that conflict frequency is moder-ately and negatively related to individual well-being, especially when individualsare low in agreeableness (Study 1), extraversion (Study 2), or emotional stability(Study 2). Our results indicate why so often relatively weak relations between con-flict at work and individual health and well-being are reported, and also demon-strate that the relationship between conflict and well-being is not as straight-forward as some of us may have thought.

One could argue that the additional explained variance of the interactioneffects was low. It has, however, been shown that moderation analysis with hierar-chical regression analysis are strongly attenuated by correlated error terms andthat artifact interactions cannot be created (Evans, 1985; Chaplin, 1991). Theseand other studies warn against the very real possibility of type 2 errors when try-ing to detect interaction effects. A rough rule suggested by Evans (1985) is to take1% explained variance as the criterion as to whether or not a significant effectexists. In our study, the explained variance of the significant interactions met thiscriterion (1% and 2%, respectively).

Our findings are consistent with physiological reactivity literature (e.g., Smith,1992; Suls & Wan, 1993) as well as with research showing that individuals low onagreeableness react to conflict with greater negative affect than those that arehigh in agreeableness (Graziano et al., 1996). Suls et al. (1998) found, however,just the opposite results and reported agreeable and not disagreeable individualsto react with more negative affect on conflict. This finding supported their situa-tional congruence model, which proposes that individuals should experiencemore positive affect in situations that are compatible with their personality(Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984). However, in their study, the amount of con-flict was identified from diary items that related to interpersonal conflict. Classifi-cation occurred by the authors and after joint consultation, which resulted in a(relatively) objective measure of the amount of conflict. Therefore it may very wellbe that a diary item was not rated as a conflict whereas the agreeable author of thediary report certainly had perceived (and reacted to) it as such. In the presentstudy conflict was defined in terms of experienced opposed interest beliefs andvalues and therefore used self reports to measure the (perceived) occurrence ofconflict. These differences in the way conflict is measured or conceptualized may



have contributed to the contrasting results. Future research is needed to concludethis issue.

Another issue here is the possible argument that our self-report measure ofagreeableness may be distorted by self favoring biases, after all, agreeableness isassociated with socially valued traits and pro-social motives and therefore can be asocial desirability artifact. We do not think this is likely because a recent study byGraziano and Tobin (2002) could not prove that agreeableness is easily manipu-lated or distorted by self favoring biases, and concluded that “Agreeableness andthe motives for maintaining positive relationships with others are trans historicalregularities and may appear because they are authentic, enduring aspect of per-sons” (p. 724).

A final point we consider important is the cross-sectional nature of our data.Although the results of our study supported our hypotheses, in which we pro-posed directional relations between conflict and individual well-being, we cannotrule out the alternative in which reduced well-being leads to more conflict. Futureresearch using a cross-lagged design with longitudinal data is needed to establishcausal relationships.

Contributions to theoryIn the past three decades, a large amount of research has focused on the wayspeople manage conflict in the workplace, and how this affects individual andgroup performance. This research generally shows that under specific conditions,individuals and groups can benefit from conflict – conflict increases individualcreativity (Nemeth, 1986), it stimulates group innovation (De Dreu & West, 2001;Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001; West & Anderson, 1996), and when conflictis managed through constructive problem solving, it generally increases individ-ual and group effectiveness (Tjosvold, 1998). This conflict research has, however,largely ignored the consequences of conflict for employee well-being and health,and as such, a one-sided theory tends to emerge.

Studies in the domain of occupational health, however, have dealt with conse-quences of conflict for health and well-being, and these studies generally showsmall to moderate negative correlations between the amount of conflict at workand health indicators, including psychosomatic complaints, feelings of burnout,and negative affect (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001; Spector &Jex, 1998). The relatively small correlations found in these studies may suggestthat the negative consequences of conflict are of lesser importance, or, alterna-tively that some people are more affected by conflict than others. On the basis ofpersonality psychology, we argued and showed that indeed, individuals low inagreeableness, low in extraversion, and low in emotional stability all are affectedby the occurrence of conflict more than those high in agreeableness, high inextraversion, and high in emotional stability. Thus, an initial contribution of thecurrent work is that it shows that the occurrence of conflict at work can seriously


48 Chapter 3

affect employee well-being, but that much of its effect depends on how theinvolved employees with their particular personality characteristics interpret andreact to this conflict situation. It is this interaction between person and environ-ment that produces (reduced) well-being.

We further showed that the moderating potential of personality characteristicsin general stressor and strain relations, manifests itself also in the specific case ofconflict as a stressor and the well-being of individuals at work. In the area of workand organizational psychology so far, personality characteristics have been stud-ied almost completely with reference to job-performance. Conscientiousness, forexample, has received much attention in the human resource selection area, andacross many studies conscientiousness appeared to be significantly correlatedwith performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount 1991; Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones,2001). As a result, this trait is viewed as the one global factor that is importantacross all jobs (Fritzsche, McIntire, & Powell Yost, 2001; Hough & Ones, 2001).In focusing on individual well-being we showed that personality factors may notonly be significant predictors of organizational effectiveness through their influ-ence on performance; in the long run, they may just as well contribute to the sur-vival of the organization through their effects on individual well-being.

Implications for practiceThe most straightforward implication for practice is that the occurrence of con-flict relates to individual well-being, and that the occurrence of conflict at workshould become part of the checklist consultants use when advising organizationswith high rates of turn-over, sick leave, and absenteeism.

A second implication for practice relates to our findings concerning the mod-erating role of personality. One way to use current insights is to closely follow andmonitor individuals low in agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stabilitywhen they encounter conflict. It is these people who are especially vulnerable andsuffer the strongest health consequences. However, such application may meetwith several ethical problems, such as the extent to which information about anemployee’s personality profile should and can be used to fine-tune monitoringselection and advice. A possible escape in this context is the tool of training.Although personality characteristics cannot be changed overnight, individualscan be taught to deal with the inconvenient consequences of their personalitystructure. The importance of emotional stability suggests for example that coach-ing and training programs focused on enhancing a person’s stability could verywell have also positive implication for their ability to handle conflicts. Examplesof such programs are given by Freedy and Hobfoll (1994), and Van Dierendonck,Garssen, & Visser (2005). Instead of increasing the capability of handling theconsequences of their personality characteristics, another option may be tochange the environment of the employee. Individuals, most vulnerable to thenegative consequences of conflict should then occupy less conflict prone places in



the organization and as a result, make a better ‘fit’ with their environment(Kristof, 1996).

ConclusionIn this article we showed that conflict adversely affects well-being, but that thepersonality differences in agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stabilityweaken the negative consequences conflict has for individual well-being. Weargued that individuals high in agreeableness, extraversion and emotional stabil-ity interpret conflict situations differently from individuals that can be character-ized as disagreeable, introvert and neurotic. Indeed, it is low agreeable, lowextraverted, and low emotionally stable individuals that suffer most from conflict.Future research could focus on the mechanisms through which the well-being ofagreeable, extraverted and emotionally stable individuals suffers less from con-flict than their disagreeable, extraverted neurotic co-workers.


Chapter 4

Conflict at Work, Psychological Strain, and Burnout:

The Moderating Influence of Conflict Management


The Moderating Influence of Conflict Management 53

Introduction

Stress at work is important. In the United States alone, the costs of job stress toemployers exceeds $300 million annually in absenteeism, tardiness, burnout,lower productivity, high turnover, worker’s compensation and health insurancecosts (National Safety Council, 1995). Interestingly, of all the things that turn theorganization into a stressful place where people prefer to leave rather than stay,conflict with supervisors or colleagues assumes a prominent role. For example,engineers named interpersonal conflict most frequently as the top stressor atwork (Newton & Keenan, 1985), and female nurses mentioned interpersonal con-flict together with insecurity about knowledge and skills to be their most impor-tant stressor (Parkes, 1986). Smith and Sulsky (1995) surveyed employees in avariety of occupations from three different organizations and found that almost25% of the respondents nominated interpersonal issues as their most bother-some job stressor (see also Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989; Prosseret al., 1997). A survey on working conditions carried out by the European Founda-tion for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2000) revealed that10% of the European work force (approximately 13 million individuals) is the vic-tim of physical violence, intimidation, and bullying (see also Einarsen, 2000;Neuman & Baron 1998), and more than 7% of all employees on sick leaveattribute their situation to conflict at work (Engers, 1995).

Given the cost associated with stress at work, and the prominent role interper-sonal conflict appears to play, it is surprising that relatively little systematicresearch is available about the relationship between conflict and individual healthand well-being – the cognitive and affective evaluations of one’s life in terms ofhealth, satisfaction, and happiness (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Kahne-man, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999). The available work tends to limit itself to provi-ding correlations between general measures of conflict on the one hand, andindicators of poor health (e.g., psychosomatic complaints, burnout) on the other(for reviews see De Dreu, Van Dierendonck, & De Best-Waldhober, 2002; Spector& Jex, 1998). All in all, this past work supports the idea that conflict and stress arelinked, but fails to model the conflict – well-being relationship in terms of media-ting and moderating variables, and fails to identify individual and organization-level antecedents and consequences.

To fill this void, the present research builds on conflict theory and makes anexplicit distinction between the occurrence of conflict at work, and the way con-flict is managed (De Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999; Pruitt, 1998; Thomas,1992; Wall & Callister, 1995). We will argue that more passive conflict manage-ment styles, such as avoiding and yielding, amplify the negative relationshipbetween conflict and employee well-being, whereas more active conflict manage-ment styles, such as forcing and collaborating, reduce this negative relationship.We tested this general hypothesis in three cross-sectional studies among students


54 Chapter 4

with part-time jobs (Study 1), healthcare workers (Study 2), and employees froma telecom company and three divisions of a local government (Study 3).

Conflict at work and individual well-beingConflict is broadly defined as the process emerging when an individual or groupperceives an interdependent other individual or group to oppose one’s interests,beliefs, values, or perceptions of reality (e.g., De Dreu et al., 1999; Pruitt, 1998;Schmidt & Kogan, 1972; Thomas, 1992; Wall & Callister, 1995). To most peopleconflict elicits negative emotions including anger, disgust, and fear. Conflict oftencomes hand in hand with ego-threat (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; DeDreu & Van Knippenberg, 2005; Frone, 2000), and cognitive and motivationalresources are required to cope with this aversive situation. Indeed, when in con-flict, the individual’s adrenaline levels go up, heartbeat accelerates, and muscletension increases (McEwen, 1998; Quick, Quick, Nelson, & Hurell, 1997).

When conflict prolongs, the concomitant high levels of stress-hormones candeplete the physiological system (McEwen, 1998), and produce psychosomaticcomplaints including lasting headaches, upset stomach, and loss of concentra-tion (e.g., Spector, Chen, & O’Connell, 2000; Spector & Jex, 1998). Indeed, anumber of studies found mild to moderate positive correlations between somemeasures of conflict and psychological strain (Beehr, Drexler, & Faulkner, 1997;Shirom & Mayer, 1993), or between conflict and indicators of burnout (Brondoloet al., 1998; Leiter, 1991; Rainey, 1995; Richardsen, Burke, & Leiter, 1992; Taylor,Daniel, Leith, & Burke, 1990; Van Dierendonck, Schaufeli, & Sixma, 1994).

Close inspection of the measures of conflict included in the aforementionedresearch reveals that these tend to mix the occurrence of conflict with the wayconflict is managed. In many of the studies reviewed above, the InterpersonalConflict at Work scale (e.g., Spector & Jex, 1998) was used. The scale containsfour items including “How often do you get into arguments with others atwork?”, “How often do other people do nasty things to you at work?”, “How oftenare people rude to you at work?” and “How often do other people yell at you atwork?”. The scale thus collapses across two constructs that tend to be separated inconflict theory – the emergence of conflict, and conflict management. In otherwords, it remains unclear whether it is the occurrence of conflict, the way con-flicts are managed, or a combination of the two that accounts for reduced indivi-dual well-being (De Dreu, Van Dierendonck, & Dijkstra, 2004).

Conflict managementConflict management is what people who experience conflict intend to do as wellas what they actually do (Van de Vliert, 1997). Although conflict managementstrategies can be classified in numerous ways, researchers tend to converge onthe four-way taxonomy that includes two pro-active and two more passive ways ofmanaging conflict (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Thomas, 1992; Van de Vliert &



Euwema, 1994). Pro-active strategies include forcing and problem solving.Forcing – trying to force and/or persuade the other to yield – includes threats,physical or verbal force, explicit demands, expressing commitment to unalterablepositions, and imposing deadlines. Problem solving – trying to achieve an agree-ment that satisfies both own and the other’s aspirations as much as possible –involves an exchange of information about priorities and preferences, showinginsights, and making tradeoffs between important and unimportant issues.When forcing or problem solving, the individual’s attitude is promotion-focusedand oriented towards the attainment of desired outcomes. Conflict parties “keeptheir eyes on the ball,” and behave in an assertive way – they are in control of theirown actions and, at least partially, their outcomes (Van de Vliert & Euwema,1994).

Passive conflict management strategies include avoiding and yielding. Avoidinginvolves moving away from the settlement of the conflict, either through inactionor withdrawing. Taking a passive stance, attempts to reduce and downplay theimportance of the conflict issues, and attempts to suppress thinking about themare examples of this strategy. Yielding, finally, involves lowering one’s aspirationsand is oriented towards accepting and incorporating the other’s will. It involvesunilateral concessions, unconditional promises, and offering help. When avoidingor yielding, individuals focus on renouncement of outcomes, parting with theissue of the conflict, and giving up whatever is at stake. Parties lack advocacy fortheir own position (Tidd & Friedman, 2002) and behave as passive recipients oftheir counterpart’s actions and initiatives (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, &Nauta, 2001; Friedman, Tidd, Currall, & Tsai, 2000; Rahim & Magner, 1995; Vande Vliert, Euwema, & Huismans, 1995).

The distinction between active and passive conflict management strategiesresonates with the control/escape distinction made in the stress and coping liter-ature (e.g., Latack, 1986; Latack & Havlovic, 1992). Coping strategies were arguedto be potentially beneficial or detrimental, based on the degree to which they exhi-bit control – “Consisting of both actions and cognitive reappraisals that are proac-tive, take-charge in tone”– or escape – “Consisting of both actions and cognitivereappraisals that suggest an escapist, avoidance mode” (Latack, 1986, p. 378).

Work on stress at work has consistently shown that lack of control enhancesthe negative impact of stressors on individual well-being (e.g., Carver & Scheier,1994; Shapiro & Schwarz, 1996). In fact, Carver and Scheier concluded that avoi-dance types of coping with stressors “typically work against people” (p. 184). Assuch, it may well be that pro-active ways of managing conflict, in which indivi-duals take and maintain control, reduce the negative effects of conflict on indivi-dual well-being. Passive ways of managing conflict such as avoiding and yielding,in which individuals abandon their goals, amplify the negative effects of conflicton individual well-being.


56 Chapter 4

The present study: Hypotheses and overviewWe argued that although conflict is often mentioned as the top stressor at work,its relationship with employee health and well-being is poorly understood. Basedon conflict theory, and work on active versus passive coping strategies, we pro-posed that conflict management moderates the negative relationship betweenconflict at work and employee well-being. Specifically, we predict that the nega-tive relationship between conflict and indicators of well-being are weaker themore individuals engage in problem solving (Hypothesis 1a) or forcing (Hypothe-sis 1b). In addition, we predict that the negative relationship between conflict andwell-being is stronger the more individuals engage in avoiding (Hypothesis 2a) oryielding (Hypothesis 2b).

Predictions were tested in three studies involving students with part-timejobs, healthcare workers, and employees from a telecom company and three divi-sions of a local government. These different samples cover a range of professionsand jobs, and replication across studies informs us about the external validity ofour findings. In addition, we used different indicators of individual well-being.Because the immediate response to stressors at work usually is psychologicalrather than physical, we used a measure of psychological strain in Studies 1 and2. However, past work in this area has quite frequently examined indicators ofburnout (Maslach, Leiter, & Schaufeli, 2000). Burnout can be seen as the result ofprolonged exposure to psychological strain. To increase comparability with pre-vious work, we measured burnout in Study 3.

In all three studies we used a cross-sectional design, and relied on self-reports.This raises the issue of common-method variance. However, our hypothesesinvolved interaction effects which are usually less subject to method bias thansimple main effects (McClelland & Judd, 1993), we used validated instruments asmuch as possible (Spector, 1987), and replicated effects in several different samp-les. Therefore, we felt that common-method bias does not represent a seriousvalidity threat in our studies. We return to this issue in the General Discussion.

Study 1

MethodSample and procedure. Participants were 104 psychology students (41% male),who participated for course credits. Age ranged from 17 to 53 (M = 23.5). All par-ticipants had part-time jobs at the time of participation, and worked in adminis-trative, service, and production jobs. Participants were seated in large classroomsat reasonable distance from each other. They received a booklet containing gen-eral instructions and several questionnaires (see under “measures”). They wereasked to read the instructions and to complete the questionnaires at their ownpace, without consulting other people. Upon completion, the researcher collectedall materials, and provided the respondent with a written debriefing. Respond-



ents were given the possibility to withdraw from participation (i.e., having theirdata discarded before analyses) but this option was never used.

Measures. Well-being was measured with the Dutch adaptation of a subscale ofthe Occupational Stress Indicator (Evers, Frese, & Cooper, 2000). This scale con-tained 13 items concerned with symptoms of psychological strain, such as feelingmelancholy, miserable, panicky, upset, and worried. Each item had six responsechoices, but they varied across items. However, all items were scored such thathigher scores indicated higher psychological strain (i.e., lower well-being).

Occurrence of conflict was assessed by asking participants to think about anongoing relationship in which conflicts emerged. They were then asked to indi-cate what kind of situation this was (work, study group, leisure, other), and tokeep this situation in mind while answering all other questions. We then askedrespondents how often they experienced conflicts about tasks and personal mat-ters at work (1 = almost never to 5 = very often).

Conflict management was measured with the Dutch Test for Conflict Handling(De Dreu, et al., 2001; Van de Vliert, 1997). Respondents were asked to reporthow they behave in the case of a conflict. The instrument has 16 items (fouritems per conflict management strategy: forcing, problem solving, avoiding andyielding), to be answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost never), to 5 (veryoften). Sample items are: “I push my own point of view” (forcing), “I stand for myown and other’s goals and interests” (problem solving), “I try to avoid a confronta-tion with the other” (avoiding), and “I concur with the other party” (yielding).Cronbach’s alphas were .83 for forcing, .78 for problem solving, .71 for avoiding,and .74 for yielding.

Control variables. Although not very strong, there tend to be gender differencesin the way people manage conflict (e.g., Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999). Further-more, past work on stress at work revealed differences in the way men andwomen perceive and cope with stressors (e.g., Almeida & Kessler, 1998; Matud,2004; Ptacek, Smith, & Dodge, 1994; Turner, Wheaton, & Lloyd, 1995). Finally,there are consistent gender differences in anxiety and depression (e.g., Barnett,Biener, & Baruch, 1987; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987; Weissman et al., 1996). Likegender, age seemed a relevant control variable as well. Not only does age correlatewith well-being (Siu, Spector, Cooper, & Donald, 2001), it is also associated withcontrol beliefs (Lachman & Weaver, 1998) and locus of control (White & Spector,1987). Finally, there is some evidence that older people have higher propensity tomanage conflict through problem solving (Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joire-man, 1997). To exclude the possibility that gender and age differences account for(some of) the relationships in our data, we included gender and age as controlvariables.

Because respondents were free to think of situations in which their conflictsemerged it is possible that not all of them referred to conflict in a work situation.In fact, 43% of the participants referred to a conflict situation at work, whereasrespectively 18% and 21% either referred to leisure activities in a group or to acti-


58 Chapter 4

vities in a study group. The remaining 17% of the participants reported ‘other’conflict situations. We decided to enter “type of situation” as a control variable inthe regression analyses as well.

ResultsDescriptive Statistics. Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and cor-relations for the variables are shown in Table 1. As can be seen, the occurrence ofconflict as well as avoiding and yielding were positively correlated with psycholog-ical strain, whereas for forcing and problem solving these correlations were nega-tive. Furthermore, yielding was negatively correlated with forcing and positivelywith avoiding. These correlations are consistent with those found in previousstudies (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2001; Rahim & Magner, 1995).

Table 1Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations (Study 1, N = 104)

* Note. NA = Not Applicable; *p < .05; ** p < .001.

Hypothesis tests. The predictions could be tested in a number of ways. One possi-bility would be to compute all main effects and all interactions involved in allhypotheses and to test all predictions at once. However, such a strategy suffersfrom a number of problems. First, it would artificially increase multicollinearityproblems because interaction terms overlap (e.g., Cortina, 1993). Second, itwould reduce the degrees of freedom available for a specific hypothesis test, anissue that is particularly troubling because interaction terms in field researchhave inherent low power already (McClelland & Judd, 1993). Third and finally,differences in construct reliability across conflict management strategies wouldbias results in favor of some (e.g., inaction) and against other (e.g., yielding) con-structs (Busemeyer & Jones, 1983; Jaccard & Wan, 1995). All three problemsincrease Type II error when testing for interaction effects and thus lead to anoverly conservative test of our predictions.

To circumvent these issues we decided to compute for each hypothesis a sepa-rate hierarchical regression, and to replicate this in three studies (see also below).Psychological strain served as the dependent variable, and in the first step wealways entered sex, age, and conflict situation as control variables. In the secondstep main effects (occurrence of conflict, and the particular conflict management

Scale M SD α 2 3 4 5 6

1. Conflict 2. Forcing 3. Avoiding 4. Problem solving5. Yielding6. Psychological Strain

2.252.762.833.863.123.63

.83

.79

.75

.65

.60

.68

NA.83.71.78.74.87

-.15 -.02-.20

-.14-.01-.17

-.00-.45** .46**-.07

.33**-.22* .22*-.27* .22*



strategy) were entered, and in the third step we entered the interaction betweenthe occurrence of conflict, and the particular conflict management strategy. Con-sistent with Aiken and West (1991) we centered variables before entering theminto further analyses and computations.

Active conflict management strategies were represented by forcing and problemsolving. In Hypothesis 1a and 1b we predicted that forcing and problem solving,respectively, would moderate the relationship between conflict and psychologicalstrain. Results are shown in Table 2. With regard to forcing, it can be seen thatthe control variables in step 1 explained a significant amount of variance. Morepsychological strain was reported when respondents were female, and whenrespondents were referring to a conflict situation other than at work. The analysisfurther showed that the main effects in step 2 explained a significant amount ofadditional variance: respondents reported more psychological strain when con-flicts occurred frequently, and less psychological strain when conflicts were man-aged through forcing. The interaction term entered in step 3 did not explain anyadditional variance, ΔR2 = .02, F(1, 94) = .11, p = .15, and the regression weight forthe interaction between conflict and forcing was not significant. Hypothesis 1athus received no support.

With regard to problem solving, it can be seen that the main effects in step 2explained a significant amount of additional variance: respondents reported morepsychological strain when conflicts occurred frequently, and less psychologicalstrain when conflicts were managed through problem solving. Entering the inter-action term in step 2 further showed a significant increase in explained variance,ΔR2 = .04, F(1, 94) = 6.02, p = .016. Analysis of the slopes of the regression linesrevealed that the relationship between conflict and psychological strain wasweaker for individuals high (B = .24, t = 2.30, p = .024) rather than low (B = .62,t = 4.68, p < .001) in problem solving (see Figure 1). Hypothesis 1b thus receivedsupport.


60 Chapter 4Ta

ble

2A

ctiv

e co

nflic

t m

anag

emen

t str

ateg

ies

as m

oder

ator

of t

he c

onfli

ct –

psy

chol

ogic

al s

trai

n re

latio

nshi

p (S

tudy

1, N

= 1

04)

Forc

ing

Prob

lem

Sol

ving

12

32

3

Step

1 (

Con

trol

s)

Age

Sex

Situ

atio

n

-.01

(.01

) .3

2*(.

14)

.39*

*(.

14)

-.01

(.01

) .3

0*(.

12)

.50*

**(.

13)

-.01

(.01

) .3

5**

(.13

) .5

0***

(.13

)

-.01

(.01

) .3

5**

(.12

) .4

1**

(.14

)

-.01

(.01

) .4

0**

(.12

) .4

2**

(.13

)

Step

2 (

Mai

n ef

fect

s)

Con

flict

(C

)Fo

rcin

g (F

)P

robl

em S

olvi

ng (

PS)

.32*

**(.

07)

-.16*

(.08

)N

A

.30*

**(.

08)

-.17*

(.08

)*N

A

.31*

**(.

08)

NA

-.19*

(.10

)

.36*

**(.

08)

NA

-.18*

(.09

)

Step

3 (

Inte

ract

ion)

C x

FC

x P

S-.1

3(.

09)

NA

NA

-.24*

(.10

)

R2

ΔR

2 .1

1**

.11*

* .3

0***

.19*

** .3

2***

.02

.30*

** .1

9***

.34*

** .0

4*

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

coef

ficie

nts

are

repo

rted

in m

odel

s 1-

3; s

tand

ard

erro

rs a

re r

epor

ted

in p

aren

thes

es.

Not

e. N

A =

not

app

licab

le; *

p <.

05;

**p

< .0

1; *

** p

< .0

01.



Figure 1The moderating effect of problem solving on the relationship between conflict andpsychological strain (Study 1)

Figure 2The moderating effect of avoiding on the relationship between conflict andpsychological strain (Study 1)

Study 1

1,43

2,28

1,46

1,78

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

-1sd +1sd

Conflict frequency

Psyc

holo

gica

l str

ain

Low on Problem SolvingHigh on Problem Solving

Study 1

2,19

2,33

2,12

2,87

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

-1sd +1sd

Conflict frequency

Psyc

holo

gica

l str

ain

Low on AvoidingHigh on Avoiding


62 Chapter 4Ta

ble

3P

assi

ve c

onfli

ct m

anag

emen

t st

rate

gies

as

mod

erat

or o

f the

con

flict

– p

sych

olog

ical

str

ain

rela

tions

hip

(Stu

dy 1

, N =

104

)

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

coef

ficie

nts

are

repo

rted

in m

odel

s 1-

3; s

tand

ard

erro

rs a

re r

epor

ted

in p

aren

thes

es.

Not

e. N

A =

not

app

icab

le; *

p <.

05;

**p

< .0

1; *

** p

< .0

01.

Avo

idin

gYi

eldi

ng

12

32

3

Step

1 (

Con

trol

s)

Age

Sex

Situ

atio

n

-.01

(.01

) .3

2*(.

14)

.40*

*(.

14)

-.01

(.01

) .3

7**

(.12

) .5

1***

(.13

)

-.01

(.01

) .3

6**

(.11

) .4

7***

(.13

)

-.01

(.01

) .3

6**

(.12

) .4

9***

(.13

)

-.01

(.01

) .3

8**

(.12

) .4

5**

(.13

)

Step

2 (

Mai

n ef

fect

s)

Con

flict

(C

)A

void

ing

(A)

Yiel

ding

(Y)

.35*

**(.

07)

.24*

*(.

08)

NA

.33*

**(.

07)

.21*

*(.

08)

NA

.34*

**(.

07)

NA

.27*

*(.

10)

.33*

**(.

07)

NA

.22*

(.10

)

Step

3 (

Inte

ract

ion)

C x

AC

x Y

.18*

(.08

)N

AN

A .2

2*(.

10)

R2

.11*

* .1

1**

.34*

** .2

2***

.37*

** .0

3* .3

3***

.22*

** .3

6***

.04*

ΔR

2



Passive conflict management strategies were represented by avoiding and yielding.In Hypothesis 2a and 2b we predicted that avoiding and yielding, respectively,would moderate the relationship between the occurrence of conflict at work andpsychological strain. Results of the relevant regression analyses are given in Table3. With regard to avoiding, results showed that the main effects in step 2explained an additional amount of variance, such that both conflict and avoidingwere positively related to psychological strain. Results further showed that theinteraction term entered in step 3 accounted for a significant increase in explainedvariance. As can be seen in Figure 1, conflict was positively related to psychologicalstrain, but only when individuals were high (B = .56, t = 5.21, p < .001) and notwhen they were low (B = .23, t = 1.93, ns) on avoiding (see Figure 2). This supportsHypothesis 2a.

With regard to yielding, results showed that the main effects in step twoexplained an additional amount of variance: Conflict and yielding both positivelyrelated to psychological strain. Entering the interaction term in step 2 furthershowed a significant increase in explained variance. As can be seen in Figure 2,conflict was positively related to psychological strain more when individuals werehigh (B = .55, t = 5.22, p < .001), rather than low (B = .23, t = 2.09, p = .040) onyielding (see Figure 3). This supports Hypothesis 2b.

Figure 3The moderating effect of yielding on the relationship between conflict andpsychological strain (Study 1)

Study 1

1,43

1,75

1,45

2,22

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

-1sd +1sd

Conflict frequency

Psyc

holo

gica

l str

ain

Low on YieldingHigh on Yielding


64 Chapter 4


The results of Study l replicated past work showing that conflict at work is nega-tively related to individual well-being (De Dreu et al., 2002, 2004; Spector & Jex,1998). In addition, we replicated past work showing that men report less psycho-logical strain than women (e.g., Barnett, Biener, & Baruch, 1987; Nolen-Hoek-sema, 1987; Weissman et al., 1996). Finally, Study 1 provides new evidence thatpeople engaging in active conflict management strategies such as forcing andproblem solving experience less psychological strain, whereas those engaging inmore passive strategies such as avoiding and yielding experience more strain (e.g.,Friedman et al., 2000).

The more critical contribution of Study 1 is that it provided support for threeof the four hypotheses we advanced with regard to the ways conflict managementstrategies moderate the relationship between conflict at work and psychologicalstrain. As predicted, this relationship was stronger for individuals low in problemsolving, high in avoiding, and high in yielding. Thus, we have some first evidencethat engaging in active conflict management strategies reduces, and engaging inpassive conflict management amplifies the negative relationship between conflictand psychological strain.

Although results were promising, a few cautionary remarks are in order. First,because we found no support for our hypothesis about the moderating effect offorcing, conclusions regarding active conflict management need to be taken withcare. Second, though our sample involved people with job experience manyreported they had non-work situations in mind when responding to our meas-ures. This means we need to be careful with generalizing Study 1 findings towork settings. Thus, to assess the robustness and generality of our findings, weconducted Study 2. In Study 2, we tested the same hypotheses with a sample ofemployees from a healthcare institution.

MethodSample and procedure. Participants were members of the nursing and ancillarystaff of an institution for people with an acute handicap (e.g. being paralyzed aswell as blind). Out of the 348 employees, 191 returned the questionnaire(response rate of 55%) of which 83% (N = 159) were women. The mean age of theemployees was 36.5 year (SD = 9.2), and the mean length of service was 5.73 year(SD = 5.89) Of all respondents, 20% (N = 38) were working 33 hours a week ormore, 59% (N = 112) were working in irregular shifts and 9% (N = 17) had mana-gerial responsibilities.

All employees received a letter from the research team, inviting them to par-ticipate in the study. The letter emphasized the importance of participating aswell as its voluntary and anonymous character. The letter further explained thatthe study was concerned with job conditions and issues related to satisfaction,



and promised an analysis of aggregated results for all who participated. Question-naires were administered during daytime work hours, or were sent to the homeaddresses of employees who could not be reached at work. Employees were askedto return completed questionnaires within two weeks to the research team usingthe pre-stamped return envelope.

Measures. We used the same measures as in Study 1, and we controlled forgender and age.

ResultsDescriptive statistics. Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities (Cronbach’salpha), and correlations are shown in Table 4. As can be seen, the occurrence ofconflict was not correlated with psychological strain. Except for problem solving,all conflict management strategies were positively related to psychological strain.Furthermore, forcing was positively related with problem solving and avoidingwas positively correlated with yielding.

Table 4Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations (Study 2, N = 191)

Note. NA = not applicable; *p < .01; ** p < .001.

Hypothesis tests. To test our hypotheses, we followed the same procedure as inStudy 1. Results are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6. Overall, results showedthat step 1 variables explained a significant amount of variance because more psy-chological strain was reported when respondents were of lower age.

Scale M SD α 2 3 4 5 6

1. Conflict 2. Forcing 3. Avoiding 4. Problem solving5. Yielding6. Psychological strain

2.102.322.713.803.073.78

.83

.70

.63

.52

.47

.40

.75

.68

.67

.58

.85

.13 -.03 .10

.06

.24**

.04

-.03 .05

.38** .07

.08

.18*

.22* -.03 .20**


66 Chapter 4Ta

ble

5A

ctiv

e co

nflic

t m

anag

emen

t str

ateg

ies

as m

oder

ator

of t

he c

onfli

ct –

psy

chol

ogic

al s

trai

n re

latio

nshi

p (S

tudy

2, N

=19

1)

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

coef

ficie

nts

are

repo

rted

in m

odel

s 1-

3; s

tand

ard

erro

rs a

re r

epor

ted

in p

aren

thes

es.

Not

e. N

A =

not

app

licab

le; *

p <.

05;

**p

< .0

1; *

** p

< .0

01.

Forc

ing

Prob

lem

Sol

ving

12

32

3

Step

1 (

Con

trol

s)

Age

Sex

-.06

*(.

03)

.10

(.08

)-.0

5(.

03)

-.14

(.08

)-.0

6(.

03)

-.14

(.08

)-.0

6*(.

03)

-.11

(.08

)-.0

6*(.

03)

-.12

(.08

)

Step

2 (

Mai

n ef

fect

s)

Con

flict

(C

)Fo

rcin

g (F

)Pr

oble

m S

olvi

ng (

PS)

-.02

(.04

)-.1

2**

(.04

)N

A

-.02

(.04

)-.1

2**

(.04

)N

A

-.03

(.04

)N

A-.0

1(.

06)

-.03

(.04

)N

A-.0

1(.

06)

Step

3 (

Inte

ract

ion)

C x

FC

x P

S-.0

1(.

05)

NA

NA

-.05

(.06

)

R2

.0

4*

.04*

-.08*

*-.0

4*-.0

8*-.0

0-.0

4-.0

1-.0

5-.0

0Δ

R2



Tabl

e 6

Pas

sive

con

flict

man

agem

ent

stra

tegi

es a

s m

oder

ator

of t

he c

onfli

ct –

psy

chol

ogic

al s

trai

n re

latio

nshi

p (S

tudy

2, N

=19

1)

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

coef

ficie

nts

are

repo

rted

in m

odel

s 1-

3; s

tand

ard

erro

rs a

re r

epor

ted

in p

aren

thes

es.

Not

e. N

A =

not

app

licab

le; *

p <.

05;

**p

< .0

1; *

** p

< .0

01.

Avo

idin

gYi

eldi

ng

12

32

3

Step

1 (

Con

trol

s)

Age

Sex

-.06*

(.03

) .1

0(.

08)

-.07*

(.01

) .0

8(.

08)

-.06

(.03

) .0

5(.

08)

-.06*

(.03

) .0

9(.

08)

-.06

(.03

) .0

8(.

08)

Step

2 (

Mai

n ef

fect

s)

Con

flict

(C

)A

void

ing

(A)

Yiel

ding

(Y)

.03

(.04

) .1

5**

(.05

)N

A

.01

(.03

).1

5**

(.05

)N

A

.03

(.04

)N

A .1

6*(.

06)

.02

(.03

)N

A .1

9**

(.06

)

Step

3 (

Inte

ract

ion)

C x

AC

x Y

.20*

**(.

05)

NA

NA

.17*

(.08

)

R2

.03*

.03*

.09*

* .0

6**

.16*

** .0

7***

.07*

* .0

4* .1

0**

.02*

ΔR

2


68 Chapter 4

Active conflict management strategies were represented by forcing and problemsolving. With regard to forcing (Hypothesis 1a), results showed that step 2 variablesexplained an additional amount of variance, such that forcing was positively relatedto psychological strain. Entering the interaction term in step 3 did not account for asignificant increase in the explained variance, ΔR2 < .001, F(1, 177) = .02, p = .89.As in Study 1, Hypothesis 1a received no support.

With regard to problem solving, results showed that neither step 2 variables(main effects) nor the interaction term in step 3 accounted for a significantincrease in explained variance. In contrast to Study 1, Hypothesis 1b thus receivedno support.

Passive conflict management strategies were represented by avoiding and yield-ing. With regard to avoiding, results showed that step 2 variables explained anadditional amount of variance, such that avoiding positively related to psychologi-cal strain. Results further showed that the interaction term entered in step 3accounted for a significant increase in explained variance. Consistent withHypothesis 2a, conflict was positively related to psychological stress, but onlywhen individuals were high on avoiding (B = .29, t = 3.15, p = .002). When theywere low on avoiding, conflict even was negatively related to psychological strain(B = -.24, t = -2.14, p = .05; see Figure 4).

Figure 4The moderating effect of avoiding on the relationship between conflict and psychologi-cal strain (Study 2)

Study 2

3,32

3,223,2

3,62

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

-1sd +1sd Conflict frequency

Psyc

holo

gica

l str

ain




With regard to yielding, results showed that step 2 variables explained an addi-tional amount of variance, such that yielding related positively to psychologicalstrain. Entering the interaction term in step 3 further showed a significantincrease in explained variance (ΔR2 = .02, F(1, 176) = 4.70, p = .031). Consistentwith Hypothesis 2b, conflict was positively related to psychological strain, butonly when employees were high (B = .22, t = 2.19, p = .030) and not low (B = -.12,t = -1.08, ns) on yielding (see Figure 5).

Figure 5The moderating effect of yielding on the relationship between conflict and psychologicalstrain (Study 2)


In Study 2 we replicated some key results from the first study – passive conflictmanagement strategies such as avoiding and yielding amplified the relationshipbetween conflict and psychological strain. This finding is important because itpertains to employees in work organizations, not just students remembering amore or less recent situation.

Study 2 also replicated the non-result for forcing, and failed to find significanteffects for problem solving. This result is important because it suggest that activeconflict management strategies have less of an impact in moderating the conflict– strain relationship. We return to this possibility after we have reported theresults of Study 3.

Study 2

3,22 3,123,26 3,44

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5

6


Psyc

holo

gica

l str

ain



70 Chapter 4

As mentioned, in Study 3 we replaced the measure of psychological strainwith a measure of burnout: “A persistent, negative, work-related state of mind innormal individuals that is primarily characterized by exhaustion, which is accom-panied by distress, a sense of reduced effectiveness, decreased motivation, andthe development of dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours at work” (Schaufeli &Enzmann, 1998, p.36). We measured burnout for two reasons. First, demonstra-ting the same relationships with different operationalizations of the same super-ordinate construct (well-being) would increase our confidence in the generality ofour findings. Second, burnout can be seen as the long-term result of enduringpsychological strain, and burnout has been demonstrated to pose substantial coston individuals, their organizations, and society at large (Maslach et al., 2000).

MethodSample and procedure. Participants came from a telecom company and three divi-sions of a local government. A total of 305 questionnaires were sent out, and 161useful ones were returned (response rate of 58%). The mean age of the respond-ents was 41.7 years (SD = 9.1) ranging from 23 years to 60 years. The meanamount of work experience was 18.97 year (SD = 10.7) while the mean length ofservice in the current organization was 8.1 year (SD = 7.9). The majority of therespondents (87%) worked 32 hours a week or more, 34% were executives and68% were men. In all four organizations we employed the same procedures asused in Study 2.Measures. The occurrence of conflict and conflict management strategy was assessedby using a four-item measure that involved questions about the type of conflict(see De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), and the hierarchical relationship. We askedemployees how often, during the past three months, they experienced conflictabout task-related issues with peers, about socio-emotional issues with peers,about task-related issues with their supervisor, and about socio-emotional issueswith their supervisor (1 = almost never to 5 = very often). We varied the order inwhich we asked about conflict situations but because initial analyses revealed noorder effects and a one-dimensional construct (Cronbach’s alpha = .69), wedecided to collapse ratings across order and items.

For each of the four possible conflict situations, conflict management wasmeasured with the Dutch Test for Conflict Handling (De Dreu et al., 2001; Van deVliert, 1997), the same instrument we used in Studies 1 and 2. Scales for forcing,problem solving, avoiding and yielding were computed by aggregating the fourscores on the particular conflict management strategy. Cronbach’s alpha’s were.90 (forcing), .93 (problem solving), .93 (avoiding), and .87 (yielding) respectively.

Burnout was measured with the UBOS (Utrechtse Burnout Schaal) developedby Schaufeli and Van Dierendonck (2000). The UBOS is a Dutch version of theMaslach Burnout Inventory (MBI, Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1997). Items wererated on 7-point scales, ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Sample items are:



“When I wake up in the morning and face another day working I feel tired”(exhaustion), “At work I feel very self-confident” (competence), and I am not asenthusiastic about my work as I used to be” (distance). The reliabilities, using Cron-bach’s alpha, were .89, .74, and .82 respectively.

Table 7Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations (Study 3, n= 161)

Note. *p < .05; ** p < .001.

ResultsDescriptive statistics. Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities (Cronbach’salpha) are shown in Table 7. As can be seen, exhaustion was correlated with theoccurrence of conflict as well as with avoiding conflict. Forcing was correlatedwith both problem solving and yielding, and avoiding was also correlated with ayielding conflict management strategy.

Hypothesis tests. To test predictions regarding the moderating effects of conflictmanagement strategy on the negative relation between the occurrence of conflictand exhaustion, the same procedure was followed as in Study 1 and 2. Exhaustionserved as the dependent variable and in the first step of the hierarchical regres-sion analysis we entered gender, and age as control variables. (We tested our pre-dictions for all three dimensions of the burnout scale. Results revealed no effectswhatsoever for the self-efficacy scale, and marginally significant results for cyni-cism that patterned like the results for the central burnout dimension of exhaus-tion. Specific detail can be obtained from the first author.)

Results showed (Table 8 and 9) that step 1 variables explained a significantamount of variance, R2 = .08, F(2, 133) = 5.82, p = .004, such that more exhaus-tion was reported when respondents were of a higher age. We tested the predic-tion that forcing moderates the positive relation between the occurrence ofconflict and exhaustion (hypothesis 1). Results showed that after entering the con-trol variables in step 1 the main effects in step 2 explained an additional amountof variance, ΔR2 = .09, F(2, 131) = 7.49, p = .001. Inspection of the regressionweights in Table 8 shows that more conflict was positively related to exhaustion.Results further showed that the interaction term entered in step 2 did not accountfor a significant increase in explained variance, ΔR2 = .01, F(1, 130) = 1.26,p = .264. Hypothesis 1a received no support.

Scale M SD α 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Conflict 2. Forcing 3. Avoiding 4. Problem solving5. Yielding6. Exhaustion7. Distance8. Competence

2.132.722.783.712.933.002.665.04

.76

.69

.81

.62

.471.281.22

.90

.69

.83

.89

.86

.81

.89

.75

.74

.09 .10.08

-.16.22*.04

.04

.21*

.39**

.34**

.35**

.12

.30**-.00.12

.35**-.09-.17* .20*-.00 .62**

-.13.15.31**

-.12.04

-.16-.36**


72 Chapter 4

Results (Table 8) did not support Hypothesis 1b either. As can be seen in Table 8,after control variables were entered in step 1, the main predictors in step 2explained an additional amount of variance, ΔR2 = .08, F(2, 133) = 6.51, p = .002,such that more conflict was related to more psychological strain. The main effectfor problem solving was, however, not significant. Furthermore, the interactionterm entered in step 3 did not account for a significant increase in explained vari-ance, ΔR2 = .01, F(1, 132) = 1.78, p = .18.

With regard to the prediction that avoiding moderates the negative relationbetween the occurrence of conflict and exhaustion (Hypothesis 2a), resultsshowed that after entering control variables in step 1 main predictor variables instep 2 explained an additional amount of variance, ΔR2 = .15, F(2, 132) = 13.06,p < .001 (see also Table 9). More conflict and more avoiding were related to moreexhaustion. The interaction term added in the third step explained an additionalamount of variance in exhaustion, ΔR2 = .02, F(1, 131)= 4.06, p = .046. The inter-action effect is plotted in Figure 6. Testing the slopes of the regression linesrevealed that conflict was positively related to exhaustion, but only when individu-als were high (B = .28, t = 2.63, p = .010) and not low (B = .08, t < 1.00, ns) onavoiding. Hypothesis 2a thus received support.

Results also supported Hypothesis 2b – yielding moderates the negative rela-tion between the occurrence of conflict and exhaustion. As can be seen in Table 9,step 2 variables explained an additional amount of variance, ΔR2 = .10, F(2, 129) =8.12, p < .001, such that both conflict and yielding positively related to exhaustion.The interaction term added in the third step explained an additional amount ofvariance in exhaustion, ΔR2 = .05, F(1, 128)= 8.65, p = .004. The interaction effectis plotted in Figure 7. Testing the slopes of the regression lines revealed that con-flict was positively related to exhaustion, but only when individuals were high(B = .37, t = 3.56, p = .001) and not low (B = .05, t < 1.00, ns) on yielding.



Tabl

e 8

Act

ive

conf

lict

man

agem

ent

stra

tegi

es a

s m

oder

ator

of t

he c

onfli

ct –

exh

aust

ion

rela

tions

hip

(Stu

dy 3

, N =

161

)

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

coef

ficie

nts

are

repo

rted

in m

odel

s 1-

3; s

tand

ard

erro

rs a

re r

epor

ted

in p

aren

thes

es.

Not

e. N

A =

not

app

licab

le. *

p <.

05;

**p

< .0

1; *

** p

< .0

01.

Forc

ing

Prob

lem

Sol

ving

12

32

3

Step

1 (

Con

trol

s)

Age

Sex

.04*

*(.

01)

.24

(.24

).0

4**

(.01

).4

0(.

23)

.04*

*(.

01)

.39

(.23

)-.0

3**

(.01

) .3

7(.

24)

-.03*

*(.

01)

.39

(.24

)

Step

2 (

Mai

n ef

fect

s)

Con

flict

(C

)Fo

rcin

g (F

)Pr

oble

m S

olvi

ng (

PS)

.46*

*(.

15)

.31

(.16

)N

A

.44*

*(.

15)

.31

(.16

)N

A

.54*

**(.

15)

NA

.13

(.17

)

.51*

*(.

15)

NA

.09

(.17

)

Step

3 (

Inte

ract

ion)

C x

FC

x P

S-.2

3(.

21)

NA

NA

-.26

(.20

)

R2

ΔR

2 .0

8**

.08*

*.1

8***

.09*

* .1

8***

.01

.15*

** .0

8**

.16*

** .0

1


74 Chapter 4Ta

ble

9P

assi

ve c

onfli

ct m

anag

emen

t st

rate

gies

as

mod

erat

or o

f the

con

flict

– e

xhau

stio

n re

latio

nshi

p (S

tudy

3, N

= 1

61)

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

coef

ficie

nts

are

repo

rted

in m

odel

s 1-

3; s

tand

ard

erro

rs a

re r

epor

ted

in p

aren

thes

es.

Not

e. N

A =

not

app

licab

le. *

p <.

05;

**p

< .0

1; *

** p

< .0

01.

Avo

idin

gYi

eldi

ng

12

32

3

Step

1 (

Con

trol

s)

Age

Gen

der

.04*

*(.

01)

.24

(.24

).0

3**

(.01

).3

0(.

22)

.03*

*(.

01)

.25

(.22

).0

4**

(.01

).3

9(.

24)

.04*

*(.

01)

.39

(.23

)

Step

2 (

Mai

n ef

fect

s)

Con

flict

(C

)A

void

ing

(A)

Yiel

ding

(Y)

.48*

*(.

14)

.44*

*(.

13)

NA

.42*

*(.

14)

.46*

**(.

13)

NA

.51*

*(.

15)

NA

.48*

(.24

)

.48*

*(.

15)

NA

.57*

(.24

)

Step

3 (

Inte

ract

ion)

C x

AC

x Y

.30*

(.15

)N

AN

A.8

2**

(.28

)

R2

ΔR

2.0

8**

.08*

*.2

3***

.15*

**.2

5***

.02*

.19*

**.1

0***

.24*

**.0

5**



Figure 6The moderating effect of avoiding on the relationship between conflict and exhaustion(Study 3)

Figure 7The moderating effect of yielding on the relationship between conflict and exhaustion(Study 3)

Study 3

0,83

1,1

1,21

2,13

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

-1sd +1sd

Conflict frequency

Exh

aust

ion


Study 3

0,63 0,8

0,62

1,81

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3


Exh

aust

ion



76 Chapter 4

General Discussion and Conclusion

The results of three different field studies involving students with part-time jobs,healthcare workers, and employees in a manufacturing firm showed (1) the emer-gence of conflict at work is moderately related to psychological strain and burnoutrelated exhaustion; (2) active conflict management strategies such as forcing orproblem solving do little to reduce these negative effects of conflict on well-being;and (3) passive conflict management strategies such as avoiding and yieldingamplify the negative impact conflict at work has on employee well-being. Thiswork thus shows that conflict at work matters, but especially when employeesmanage it in passive ways.

The positive results for passive conflict management strategies were as pre-dicted, as was the moderately negative association between the occurrence of con-flict and indicators of well-being. The consistent failure to support ourhypotheses regarding active conflict management suggests we need to adapt ourtheory and search for conceptual (rather than methodological) explanations. Inaddition to doing this, we will discuss several implications for conflict and stressresearch, address some limitations of the present research, and highlight practi-cal implications of our conclusions.

Implications for theoryPast work on the conflict – strain relationship almost without exception usedmeasures that mixed questions about the emergence and occurrence of conflict,and about the way conflicts were handled. As a result, the relationship betweenconflict at work, and employee strain and well-being remained poorly under-stood. To redress this situation, we separated the emergence of conflict from theway conflict was managed, and tested for main effects as well as interactioneffects.

A first finding of theoretical import is that the emergence and occurrence ofconflict in and by itself, and regardless of the way conflict is managed, is relatedto psychological strain and exhaustion. However, some inconsistencies emerged.In Study 1 (see Table 1), the zero-order correlation between the occurrence of con-flict and psychological strain was positive and significant, r(104) = .33, p < .001,but in Study 2 this correlation was non-significant, r(191) = .08 (see Table 4). InStudy 3, the correlation between the occurrence of conflict and exhaustion waspositive and significant, r(161) = .35, p < .001, as was the correlation with psycho-logical distance, r(161) = .35, p < .001. The size of these correlations, as well as thevariation between studies, matches the results reported in past work. One inter-esting avenue for future research is to conduct a meta-analysis of this and pastwork, to approximate the population correlation and to detect relevant moderatorvariables.



One critical moderator of the conflict – strain relationship was hypothesizedto be the way employees manage their workplace conflicts. As predicted, passiveways of managing conflict, including avoiding and yielding, amplified the nega-tive relationship between the occurrence of conflict on the one hand, and psycho-logical strain and exhaustion on the other. We return to this finding below.Unexpectedly, however, active ways of managing conflict including forcing andproblem solving, did not moderate the conflict – strain relationship. Engaging inforcing or problem solving did neither prevent conflict from exerting its harmfulinfluence on well-being nor reverse these negative consequences.

Before offering an explanation for the non-results regarding pro-active conflictmanagement, we wish to emphasize that current results cannot be understood interms of the classic distinction between being cooperative and constructive, orcompetitive and hostile (e.g., Deutsch, 1973; Tjosvold, 1998). Common sensemay suggest that being cooperative and constructive mitigates negative effects ofconflict on well-being, whereas being competitive and hostile might amplify sucha relationship. Clearly, our results contradict common sense. Being cooperativeeither had no effect (i.e., problem solving), or amplified the negative relationshipbetween conflict and strain (i.e., yielding). Being competitive and hostile eitherhad no effect (i.e., forcing), or amplified the conflict – strain relationship (i.e.,avoiding). Whereas the cooperation – competition distinction has important andwell-supported theoretical implications when it comes to building interpersonalrelationships and profiting from conflict in economic terms (cf., De Dreu, Wein-gart, & Kwon, 2000; Deutsch, 1973; Tjosvold, 1998), the distinction appears to beless useful when it comes to understanding the conflict – psychological strainrelationship.

One explanation for the non-result on forcing and problem solving behaviormay be related to the other party’s reaction. Managing conflict in an active way isassociated with feelings of self-worth, self-efficacy, and reduced tension (De Dreuet al., 2000; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994) that are in turn all positively related towell-being. It is likely though that whether active conflict management indeedpositively influences the negative relationship between conflict and well-beingdepends on the reaction of the opponent. If the opponent would react to activeconflict management with forcing behavior, this will most probably escalate theconflict, thereby seriously reducing the quality of the social relationship. Giventhe fact that conflict is an interdependent process (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993), andgiven the importance of social relations for individual well-being (Baumeister,1995; Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Myers, 1999) it may be thatthe positive consequence of parties’ own active conflict management strategiesfor well-being are canceled out by the negative consequences of other parties’forcing reaction. In addition, if an opponent reacts to problem solving with ayielding or avoiding response, this may result in feelings of disappointment, frus-tration, anger and incompetence to alter the situation. Therefore, the positive


78 Chapter 4

influence of active conflict behavior on well-being may be ‘undone’ by its negativeside effects. In sum, the impact of active strategies is not as straightforward as theimpact of passive conflict behavior, which has proven to unconditionally strengthenthe negative relationship between workplace conflict and employee well-being.

The above explanation points to an interesting avenue for future research.New studies exploring the conflict – well-being relationship should take the oppo-nent’s reaction to conflict management behaviors into account in order to findout whether the opponent’s reaction indeed moderates the effects of active con-flict management on well-being. Expanding on this type of work may givenfurther insight into the psychological processes and consequences of passive andactive conflict management.

Limitations and implications for practiceOur findings are based on correlational studies only and leave open the possibil-ity of reverse causality. It is possible that reduced well-being leads people to expe-rience more conflict. Most likely, however, is that there exists a reciprocal andmutually reinforcing relationship between conflict and psychological strain.Experimental or cross-lagged studies should be conducted to examine whetherthe conflict-strain relationship is indeed reciprocal, or one-directional.

A problem that is associated with the use of questionnaires is the likelihood ofsocial desirability and self-serving biases in conflict behavior. Past research, how-ever, revealed little evidence of these confounds (De Dreu et al., 2001: Rahim &Magner, 1995). The DUTCH has been shown to have high convergent validitybetween self- and peer assessments and observed behavior (De Dreu et al., 2001),and the psychological strain questionnaire we used is psychometrically sound(Evers et al., 2000). However, it may be worth considering designs in which con-flict is induced or observed, and psychophysiological measures are taken. Suchwork would neatly complement the current evidence based on self-report.

Countering these limitations is that we obtained a systematic pattern ofresults across three independent samples. This inspires confidence in the conclu-sion that conflict at work is detrimental to the well-being of employees and bymanaging the conflict in a passive way the situation is growing worse. This rela-tes to one practical implication of our results, which is to closely follow and moni-tor individuals who are used to engaging in yielding and avoiding conflictmanagement strategies. It is these people who are especially vulnerable and suf-fer the strongest health consequences. However, such application may meet withseveral ethical problems, such as the extent to which information about emplo-yees should and can be used to fine-tune monitoring selection and advice. A pos-sible escape in this context is the tool of training. Although conflict managementstrategies are fairly stable and cannot be changed overnight, individuals can betaught to deal with the inconvenient consequences of their passive conflict beha-vior. Examples of such programs are given by Freedy and Hobfoll (1994), and by



Van Dierendonck, Garssen, and Visser (2005). Instead of managing behavior con-sequences, an option from the viewpoint of person-environment may be to changethe environment of the employee. Individuals, most vulnerable to the negative con-sequences of conflict should then occupy less conflict prone places in the organiza-tion and as a result, make a better ‘fit’ with their environment (Kristof, 1996).

ConclusionAlthough the occurrence of conflict at work is inevitable, when it comes to thewell-being of individuals at work, a conflict situation is not a desirable workingcondition. This applies especially to those employees who are tending to engagein an avoiding or yielding conflict management strategy. Precisely these passiveways of handling a conflict further jeopardize the well-being of the employee. Inshort, employees and their managers should avoid avoiding conflict.


Chapter 5

General Discussion


General Discussion 83

Introduction

This dissertation is about the ways that workplace conflict is related to individualwell-being. A model was proposed in which workplace conflict affects well-beingvia its influence on perceived control and organizational stress (see Figure 1).This part of the model was examined in Chapter 2. In addition the model pre-dicted that the effects of conflict on well-being depend on personality, whichnotion was the central theme of Chapter 3. Finally the model identifies a relation-ship between conflict and well being in which the effects of conflict on well-beingare contingent on conflict management. This moderating role of conflict manage-ment was the central issue of Chapter 4. To better understand the relationshipbetween workplace conflict and employee well-being, we looked beyond the con-flict domain and used approaches from the realm of stress. Therefore in this the-sis workplace conflict was regarded as a stressor. Furthermore, the occurrence ofworkplace conflict was separated from the ways employees react upon the con-flict. Earlier studies tend to mix the occurrence of conflict with the way conflict ismanaged. By operating this way, it could not be determined whether it is the fre-quency component, the behavior component, or a combination of the two thataccounts for reduced individual well-being. To fill this void, throughout all studieswe explicitly asked the respondents how often they experienced conflict. Subse-quently we asked them how they did behave in the specific situation of a conflictat work.

Figure 1Model of relationships between workplace conflict and employee well-being

Relationships represented by arrows are discussed in this dissertationRelationship represented by dashed arrow is not discussed in this dissertation

workplaceconflict

personalitycharacteristics

conflictmanagement

organizationalstress

feelings oflosing control

employeewell-being


84 Chapter 5

In what follows, the main findings of the empirical studies reported in the pre-ceding chapters will be summarized in light of the proposed model. Subse-quently, the major implications and contributions of this research will behighlighted. Finally limitations of the present approach will be discussed anddirections for future research will be outlined.

Summary of the main findingsThe first empirical study, which was reported in Chapter 2, set out to examine themediating influence of conflict responses on the relationship between workplaceconflict and employee well-being. Based on the existing conflict and stress litera-ture the hypothesis was formulated that conflict at work and its responses wouldresult in the experience of more organizational stress and therefore in reducedwell-being. This hypothesis was tested in a sample of nurses and members of theancillary staff of a healthcare institution (Study 1, N =191). Using structural equa-tion modeling it was found that conflict was negatively related to perceived con-trol, and that these responses mediated the relationship between conflict andorganizational stress. Finally, increases in organizational stress were related toreduced well-being. Results of our study confirmed the important role of conflictas a stressor at work. Moreover these findings suggest that conflict ‘shrinks’ theamount of control an employee perceives, resulting in a preference for passiveways of responding to conflict, thereby bringing on the negative consequences.

To gain further insight into the relationships that have been found betweenconflict and individual well-being, the moderating influence of the Big Five fac-tors of agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability was examined inChapter 3. Two field studies, one involving a healthcare organization (Study 2.1,N = 173) and one involving a manufacturing organization (Study 2.2, N = 308)were conducted. On the basis of the literature it was argued that agreeablenessmost likely buffers people from conflict experiences and it was thus predicted thatthe negative relationship between conflict at work and individual well-being wouldbe stronger for individuals low rather than high in agreeableness. Results revealedthat, as predicted, conflict was negatively related to well-being, but only when indi-viduals are low and not high in agreeableness.

Study 2.2 built on the argument that extraverted individuals, through theirpositive orientation towards the world in general and to social interactions in par-ticular, may well interpret a conflict situation in a way that buffers the negativeinfluence on their well-being. It was thus predicted that the negative relationshipbetween conflict at work and individual well-being would be stronger for indivi-duals low rather than high in extraversion. Results showed that conflict was nega-tively related to well-being for individuals both high and low in extraversion, butthis relationship was stronger for individuals low rather than high on extra-version. Emotional stability was also considered to be a possible moderator of theconflict-well-being relationship. Because emotional stability is negatively related



to conflict frequency as well as to the affect intensity associated with that conflict(Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; McFatter, 1998; Suls, Martin, & David, 1998), it washypothesized that individuals low on emotional stability would be more influen-ced by conflict than emotionally stable people. This study revealed – again – thatconflict is related to reduced well-being, but only when individuals where lowrather than high in emotional stability.

The results of the two studies reported in Chapter 3 clarify why so often rela-tively weak relations between conflict at work and individual health and well-being are found. As was clearly demonstrated, some people are more affected intheir well-being by workplace conflict than others. When the moderating role ofpersonality is not taken into account, inconsistent and/or weak relationships bet-ween conflict at work and individual well-being are to be expected.

In Chapter 4 the focus was on the possible moderating role of conflict man-agement strategies. Based on conflict theory and work on active and passivecoping mechanisms, the distinction between active and passive conflict manage-ment strategies was associated with the control/escape distinction suggested byLatack (1986; Latack & Havlovic, 1992). It was proposed that pro-active ways ofmanaging conflict would reduce the negative effects of conflict on individual well-being, whereas passive ways of managing conflict such as avoiding and yieldingwould amplify these negative effects (Carver & Scheier 1994; Shapiro & Schwarz,1996). Cross-sectional data from students with part-time jobs (Study 3.1, N = 104),healthcare workers (Study 3.2, N = 191) and employees from a telecom companyand three divisions of a local government (Study 3.3, N = 161) were used to testour hypotheses.

Study 3.1 provided support for three out of the four hypotheses we advancedwith regard to the way conflict management strategies moderate the relationshipbetween conflict at work and psychological strain. As predicted, this relationshipwas stronger for individuals low in problem solving, high in avoiding, and high inyielding. We found no support for our hypothesis about the moderating effect offorcing. Therefore conclusions regarding active conflict management needed tobe taken with care. In order to assess the robustness and generality of our find-ings, in Study 3.2, we used a real life sample of employees from a healthcare insti-tution and used the same operationalizations as in study 3.1.

In Study 3.2 we replicated some key results from the first study – passive con-flict management strategies such as avoiding and yielding amplified the relation-ship between conflict and psychological strain. This study also replicated the non-result for forcing, and failed to find significant effects for problem solving. Thesefindings seemed to suggest that active conflict management strategies have lessof an impact in moderating the conflict – strain relationship.


86 Chapter 5

In Study 3.3 we included a four-item measure that involved questions about thetype of conflict (task, socio-emotional relations; see De Dreu & Weingart, 2003),and the hierarchical relationship (supervisor, colleague). This enabled us to gene-ralize our findings, further strengthening our confidence in the results, In addi-tion we replaced the measure of psychological strain with a measure of burnoutto gain insight into the long-term result of enduring psychological strain (Mas-lach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2000) and to increase our confidence in the generality ofour findings concerning well-being. In this study, again, we replicated the resultsfrom the two earlier studies concerning the amplifying effect of avoiding and yiel-ding on the relationship between workplace conflict and individual well-being.We did not find support for our hypotheses concerning the moderating influenceof problem solving and forcing. These findings suggest that for problem solvingand forcing other mechanisms are involved than for avoiding and yielding.

Taken together, the six field studies reported in this dissertation demonstratethat (1) conflict at work acts as a stressor and is negatively related to employeewell-being (Studies 1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3); (2) that conflict is related to a loss ofperceived control resulting in the experience of more work related stress which –in turn – reduces well-being (Study 1); (3) that low agreeableness, low extraversionand low emotional stability amplify the negative relationship between workplaceconflict and employee well-being (Study 2.1, 2.2) and (4) whereas passive conflictmanagement strategies amplify the negative relationship between workplace con-flict and employee well-being, active conflict management strategies have noamplifying or mitigating effect (Study 3.1, 3.2, 3.3). In the following section impli-cations and contributions are discussed.

Implications and contributionsThis present work reports the first systematic investigation of the effect of work-place conflict, conflict management, and personality characteristics on the well-being of employees. The integrated model that has resulted from this effortincreases our understanding of the dynamics between workplace conflict andemployee well-being. Below I address some key implications of the present workand discuss the main contributions and conclusions of this dissertation.

The focus on well-being. The first contribution of this dissertation is that itbroadened our scope on workplace conflict by including well-being as an impor-tant variable in the relationship between conflict at work and its possible conse-quences for organizational effectiveness. Until now, conflict research hasgenerated a number of studies concerning the possible consequences of conflictin work teams for individual and work-team effectiveness and productivity. Thesestudies revealed that under specific circumstances conflict at work may be func-tional and result in increased performance (De Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen,1999; Thomas, 1992; Tjosvold, 1998). The restricted attention on productivity,



and related variables is not surprising since “the most important long–range out-come of efficiency-generated surpluses are organizational growth and incrementsin the survival power of the organization” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 236; see also Dijk-stra, van Dierendonck, Evers, & De Dreu, 2005; Scott, 2003).

Although understandable, the confined attention on efficiency is unfortunatebecause it results in a rather one-sided understanding of the consequences organ-izational conflict can have (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005). In addition, hardly anyattention has been devoted to ‘soft’ outcomes including indicators of well-being.Other research on organizational behavior has shown negative relations betweenindicators of well-being and measures of performance (Bond & Bunce, 2003; Cot-ton & Hart, 2003; Staw & Barsade, 1993; Wright & Bonett, 1997; Wright & Cro-panzano, 2000; 2004). This points to the relevance of this ‘soft’ outcome ofconflict and conflict management. Consequences of conflict for individual andwork-team effectiveness may combine with consequences for individual well-being and influence long term organizational effectiveness. Raising performancethrough conflict stimulation, for example, (see Van de Vliert, 1997), may go at theprice of reduced employee well-being and thus inadvertently stimulate absen-teeism, involuntary turnover, and deviant workplace behaviors including sabotageand bullying (Robinson & Bennet, 1995). Therefore even if we were only interes-ted in the outcome of performance, it would be still worthwhile to take into consi-deration the possible consequences of conflict for well-being. Conflict mayinfluence work team effectiveness and performance directly and indirectlythrough its influence on employee-well-being.

Another reason for looking at well-being as an outcome variable of conflictand reactions on conflict derives from the altered view on the goals an organiza-tion should accomplish. Nowadays, a tendency can be observed to widen thescope of organizational goals beyond profit making, effectiveness and/or survival(Cascio, 2006). As a consequence moral duties and ethical values have beenrecognized not only as a mean to an end but also as an ambition in it self (see alsoScott 2003). This vision, in which companies should fulfill a conscious and struc-tural role in society is also reflected in the concept of Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR) defined as ‘A concept whereby companies integrate socialand environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactionwith their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’ (European Commission, DirectorateGeneral for Enterprise and Industry, 2004). The well-being of employees, in thisaltered vision not only serves as a means to an end, for example, productivity, butis also recognized as an organizational goal in itself (Cascio, 2006)). The presentwork enhances our knowledge of conflict as an important determinant of well-being and therefore directly relates to goal attainment of organizations and morefundamentally to their reason of existence.

Separating conflict from conflict management. As a second contribution of thisdissertation, conflict and conflict management were separated from each other.


88 Chapter 5

In earlier chapters of this work I highlighted the importance of distinguishingbetween the emergence of conflict and the reactions that follow the event. Afterall, we wish to establish whether it is the occurrence of conflict, the way conflictsare managed/reacted upon or a combinationof the two that accounts for reducedindividual well-being. Therefore in this dissertation the occurrence of workplaceconflict was separated from the intrapersonal and interpersonal processes thatare associated with it. Operating this way enabled us to locate the different pathsthrough which conflict and the following reactions are leading to reduced well-being of employees. As such it was shown that the sole occurrence of workplaceconflict is related to reduced well-being (as was pointed out in Study 1, 2.1, 2.2,3.1, & 3.3).

The role of passivity. In this dissertation the important role of passive employeereactions in the interplay between workplace conflict and employee well-beingcame to light and did so in two ways. First, by borrowing from stress literature theconnection was made between conflict and coping mechanisms and the conse-quences of conflict were considered in terms of intrapersonal processes involved.It turned out that the occurrence of conflict at work tends to be related toincreased feelings of helplessness and/or wanting to flee from (avoid) the situa-tion. Second, in looking at interpersonal conflict behavior it again became evidentthat giving up control, abandoning ones’ own goals will negatively affectemployee well-being (e.g. Carver & Scheier 1994; Shapiro & Schwarz, 1996).Taking a passive stance in a conflict situation at work will enhance the negativeinfluence on employee well-being. Whether this passivity pertains to within personprocesses or to between person processes makes no difference. Passivity thereforeseems to be an essential component in the process in which conflict deterioratesthe well-being of employees.

Implications for practiceFrom this work it becomes clear, that the measurement of the occurrence ofworkplace conflict should become an important tool for consultants in diagnosingand advising organizations with high rates of turn-over, sick leaves, and absen-teeism.

One should fight the tendency of being passive, that is stay away from passivity,and manage the conflict constructively instead. Within this context and from theperspective of occupational health, managers and human resource officialsshould pick up responsibility and consider conflict and conflict management in aserious way. Within the more general framework of the organizational strategy ofstress management, for example, training packages and courses may be offered.These tools may help employees who are in conflict to refrain from passive res-ponses and prevent negative consequences for individual well-being to arise.

Regarding the role of personality, current insights may be used to closely fol-low and monitor individuals low in agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional



stability when they encounter conflict. It is these people who are especially vul-nerable and suffer the strongest health consequences. However, such applicationmay meet with several ethical problems, such as the extent to which informationabout an employee’s personality profile should and can be used to fine-tunemonitoring selection and advice. A possible escape in this context is the tool oftraining. Although personality characteristics are fairly difficult to alter, indivi-duals can be taught to deal with the negative consequences brought about by theirpersonality structure.

Instead of increasing the capability of handling the consequences of their per-sonality characteristics, another option may be to change the environment of theemployee. Individuals, most vulnerable to the negative consequences of conflictshould then occupy less conflict prone places in the organization and as a result,create a better ‘fit’ with their environment (Kristof, 1996).

Limitations and directions for future researchCommon-method variance. All six studies reported of in this dissertation were con-ducted in field settings and self-reports were used to measure the constructs ofinterest. Although this is a commonly used approach in organization research,method variance, described as variance attributable to measurement methodrather than to the variables of interest (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Cook & Camp-bell, 1979) is a potential problem.

It is possible that acquiescence and social desirability, the most frequentlyfound sources on method variance in self-reports (Spector, 1987) accounted forthe correlations found between variables. Spector (1987) explored the existence ofmethod variance for affective and perceptual constructs, which are frequentlyused in organizational research. Among others, he presented data, on social desi-rability and acquiescene, and found little evidence for method variance as a bia-sing problem. The instruments that were used in the studies by Spector, were allproperly developed, well validated, with reasonably sound psychometric proper-ties and therefore probably are resistant to the method variance problem. Thesame methodological qualities and therefore the same conclusions may be attri-butable to the majority of the measures used in the studies reported in this disser-tation. Spector and Brannick (1995) in this context, argued that it makes intuitivesense that method variance would inflate correlations among variables assessedwith the same methods. However the results that they discussed in their articlesuggested that this effect is quite small and does not do much damage to conclu-sions based on the methods that are used in organizational research. Finally, animportant number of the hypotheses in this dissertation involved interactioneffects which are usually less subject to method bias than simple main effects(McClelland & Judd, 1993). Therefore, common method bias may not have beena severe ploblem.


90 Chapter 5

Direction of causality. Although it was recognized that conflict can be the resultrather than the cause of an employee’s poor well-being, in this dissertation con-flict was regarded as the independent variable whereas well-being was treated asthe dependent variable. In the proposed model the direction of the relationshipstherefore was from conflict toward well-being. However, relationships in our pro-posed model were all examined in cross-sectional studies meaning that we can-not rule out the possibility of a reversed model in which, reduced well-being willlead people to experience more organizational stress which will lead them toexperience more conflict. Yet, establishing the direction of causality was not infact the main purpose of this dissertation. Within that perspective, two remarksare in place.

First, it is plausible that reduced well-being, whether as a consequence of con-flict or by any other cause, will lead people to react in ways that will (further)increase the quantity of conflict (Hobfoll, 1989; see also Lepore, Evans, & Schnei-der, 1991; Van Dierendonck, 2004; Walton, 1969). Furthermore throughout thisdissertation the relationship between (increased) conflict and (reduced) well-being was repeatedly replicated. Possibly in this negative spiral, mechanismsunderlying the conflict–well-being relationship differ from mechanisms thatunderlie the well-being conflict mechanisms, so future research, using a cross-lagged design with longitudinal data is needed to further develop and strengthenthe theoretical model.

Second, we keep in mind, that our main findings refer to the conditional cir-cumstances under which the relationship between the occurrence of conflict andwell-being is strengthened. As a result the causal direction of that relationship isnot of particularly high significance. Nevertheless the need for longitudinalresearch remains.

Conflict issue. In this dissertation the relationship between conflict and well-being was studied without differentiating between type of conflict. This choice, inpart, was related to our conceptualization of conflict as a stressor. Regardless ofthe conflict issue this stressor elicits arousal and all kinds of unpleasant emotionsthat were expected and showed to be associated with reduced well-being. How-ever, two other arguments regarding the difference in types of conflict are to bemade here.

A classic distinction that is made concerning conflict issues is the one thatdivides between task-related issues (e.g scarce resources, policies, procedures androles) and social-emotional issues (e.g. norms, values, one’s personal or groupidentity) (Bales, 1954; Cosier & Rose, 1977; Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954). The distinc-tion is also referred to as cognitive versus affective issues. However, the correla-tion between these two types of conflict, consistently turns out to be ratherstrong. Simons and Peterson (2000) reported an average correlation betweentask and relationship conflict of r = .47, and the Dreu and Weingart (2003) pre-sented an average correlation between the two types of conflict while correcting



for measurement error of ρ = .54. Furthermore, in a convenience sample collec-ted in our research group and consisting of 3500 employees of 13 different orga-nizations, task and relationship conflict were correlated with correlations varyingbetween .35 and .78. The mean correlation was r = .59. All in all these correlationsshow that differential validity is quite low and therefore the two types of conflictmay substantially overlap.

Another point of thought here is that by distinguishing between “cognitive”and “affective” conflict, the conflict issue is easily confounded with the conflictreaction. A cognitive conflict then implicates a rational ‘clean’ way of handling thesituation and the possibility may be overlooked that a conflict about task is res-ponded to with hatred or jealousy. It also fails to notice that a conflict about, forexample, moral values can be approached in an intellective and rational way,because this ‘affective’ conflict is strongly associated with social emotional reac-tions. In other words the distinction between task and relationship conflict is notnecessarily an objective one (Bono, Boles, Judge, & Lauver, 2002). Rather, it is adistinction made by the individuals who experience the conflict and make attribu-tions about its causes. This notion is consistent with the idea that “cognitive deba-tes easily evoke affective issues” (De Dreu, 1997. p 17; Van de Vliert & De Dreu,1994; Walton, 1969), and with the concept of the ‘hostile attribution bias’ (Baron,1997). This bias refers to the tendency to perceive hostile intentions or motivesbehind the other disputant’s actions and behaviors leading disputants into anescalatory conflict spiral, in which cognitive conflict can be overruled by intensenegative emotions.

Given these considerations and for the purpose of investigating the relation-ship between conflict and well-being I would propose to abandon the distinctionbetween cognitive and affective conflict. Instead the focus should be on the waysthat the conflict is reacted upon: either in a more ‘cognitive/rational’, or in a more‘affective/emotional’ manner.

The other parties’ reaction. In Chapter 4, I argued that much of the effects thatworkplace conflict has on employee well-being depends on how the conflict isdealt with. The studies reported in this dissertation concentrate on the conflictmanagement strategies of a particular individual in order to draw conclusionsabout its effects on that same particular individual. However, as is embedded inthe term, interpersonal conflict is between two or more persons. This means thatthere is at least one other individual that also perceives the stressor and reactsupon it emotionally and behaviorally. Future research on conflict managementstrategies and its influence on employee well-being therefore should include theconflict management strategies of the opponent(s). A forcing opponent , forexample, may influence the focal individual (’s well-being) differently than doesan avoiding or yielding opponent.

In this dissertation conflict was considered to be a social stressor that elicitsemotions like anger, disgust and fear. Van Kleef, De Dreu and Manstadt (2004)


92 Chapter 5

used an experimental setting to investigate the ways in which one negotiator’semotions influence the other’s emotions, cognitions, and behavior. Theydiscovered that opponents’ emotions have pervasive effects on the focal person’sbehavior and outcomes, especially when the opponent is motivated as well as ableto act on the information available in the opponent’s emotions. However, in thestudy by Van Kleef et al., the focus was on concession making behavior. It wouldbe interesting to extent the study of the effects of emotion on conflict behavior byincluding influences on well-being and in doing so also consider conflict beha-viors other than concession making (yielding) like forcing, problem solving, andavoiding.

The role of activity. Engaging in active conflict management strategies did nei-ther prevent conflict from exerting its harmful influence on well-being norreverse the negative consequences. The mechanisms by which ‘activity’ exerts itsinfluence on the conflict well-being relationship may differ from the ones under-lying ‘passivity’. Identification of these mechanisms should be the subject offuture research.

From the individual to the group level. The associations between conflict andindividual health and well-being outlined in this dissertation were all located atthe individual level of analysis – the individual is experiencing conflict, reactupon it and manages it in a more or less effective way, and it is the individual’swell-being that is assumed to function as a consequence. In the first Chapter itwas noted that units within organizations, or perhaps even entire organizations,develop a conflict culture that determines how conflict is viewed and valued, whatconflict management strategies are deemed inappropriate, and so on. Thus, wemay have units in which conflict is a mere incompatibility of interests, and inwhich open minded debate and problem solving are seen as appropriate strate-gies for managing conflict. But we probably can also find units in which conflictis seen as identity-related, as a personal threat, and in which inaction and with-drawal are deemed appropriate strategies for managing conflict. It is this type ofconflict culture that most likely undermines individual health and well-being,because the various conflicts people encounter during work are more likely to betaken personal, and because the culture values inaction and passivity. For this ismerely speculating, future research is needed to identify, first of all, whether con-flict cultures can be meaningfully distinguished and, secondly, whether conflictculture has indeed reliable associations with individual well-being.

Further test of the proposed model. In this dissertation the moderating influenceof personality characteristics and conflict management strategies were examinedseparately. It is very likely though that personality characteristics influence prefer-ences for conflict management strategies. (e.g. De Dreu & Carnevale, 2003;Pruitt, 1998; Van de Vliert, 1997) This would mean that personality characteris-tics moderate the relationship between conflict and individual well-being throughtheir influence on conflict management strategies, implying that the relationship



between personality and the conflict-well-being relationship is mediated by con-flict management strategies. Future research should examine this possibility.

The relationships between variables of interest were tested in six differentstudies that, each separately, supported our proposed model. To further gain con-fidence in this model a longitudinal study is needed in which all variables of themodel are integrated. That way it can be tested if the complete model will holdup. It will also become possible to establish the proportion of explained varianceof the full model, which will allow us to decide if more variables need to be incor-porated in order to refine the model.

Conclusion

The present dissertation has addressed the relationship between workplace con-flict and individual well-being. The six studies that were reported advance ourknowledge about the influence that is exerted on this relationship by personalitycharacteristics, conflict management strategies and organizational stress. Theresults showed that conflict deteriorates well-being, especially when individualsare low in agreeableness, low in extraversion and low in emotional stability and/or are engaging in passive conflict management strategies. When individualsexperience interpersonal conflict this will lead them to suffer from more and dif-ferent types of organizational stress, which will diminish the employees well-being even more. Although there are many questions that remain, one thingbecame very clear: whether they are intrapersonal or interpersonal in all cases pas-sive reactions on conflict should be avoided. It is this passivity that furtherstrengthens the negative relationship between workplace conflict and employeewell-being. Confidence in the proposed model could be further strengthened bylongitudinal research. Also the relationship should be examined between person-ality characteristics and conflict management strategies. Furthermore, the loca-tion of the conflict management strategies of problem solving and forcing shouldbe identified. So I hope and trust that although this dissertation has come to anend now, the line of research on conflict and well-being has not.


Chapter 6

ReferencesNederlandse Samenvatting

Dankwoord


References

Abeles, R. P. (1990). Schemas, sense of control, and aging. In J. Rodin, C. Schooler, &K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Self-directedness: Causes and effects throughout the life course(pp. 85-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Pfeiffer, C., & Fifield, J. (1987). Appraisals of control andpredictability in adapting to a chronic disease. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 53, 273-279.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretinginteractions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Almeida, D. M., & Kessler, R. C. (1998). Everyday stressors and gender differences indaily distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 670-680.

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

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural modeling in practice: A reviewand recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness. New York: Methuen.Arnold, J. A., & O’Connor, K. M. (1999). Ombudspersons or peers? The effect of

third-party expertise and recommendations on negotiation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 84, 776-785.

Atkinson, J. W., & Heyns, R. W., & Veroff, J. (1954). The effect of experimental arousalof the affiliation motive on thematic apperception. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 49, 405-410.

Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship tostress. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 286-303.

Bales, R. F. (1954). How people interact in conference. Scientific American, 192, 31-35.Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Barnett, R. C., Biener, L., & Baruch, G. K. (1987). Gender & Stress. New York: The Free

Press.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. Baron, R. M. (1997). Positive effects of conflict: Insights from social cognition. In C.

K. W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations. London:Sage.

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

Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive andintegrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 345-359.

Baumeister, R. F. (1995). The personal story of an interpersonal psychologist. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism toviolence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review,103, 5-33.


98 References

Beehr, A. T., Drexler, J. A., Jr., & Faulkner, S. (1997). Working in small familybusinesses: Empirical comparisons to non-family businesses. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 18, 297-312.

Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation insmall groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive.Organizational Behavior, and Human Decision Processes, 87, 227-252.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert,S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2,pp. 193-281). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Blake, R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress

on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808-818.Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the

stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.Bond F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and job control in mental

health, job satisfaction, and work perforance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,1057-1067.

Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L, Judge, T. A, & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of personality intask and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311-344.

Brondolo, E., Masheb, R., Stores, J., Stockhammer, T., Tunick, W., Melhado, E., et al.(1998). Anger-related traits and response to interpersonal conflict among NewYork City traffic agents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2089-2118.

Burger, J. M., and Cooper, H. M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation andEmotion, 3, 381-353.

Busemeyer, J. R., Jones, L. E. (1983). Analysis of multiplicative combination rules:When the causal variables are measured with error. Psychological Bulletin, 98,549-562.

Buunk, A. P., & Gerrichauzen J. (1993). Stress en werk [stress and work]. Heerlen, TheNetherlands: Wolthers-Noordhof/Open Universiteit.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discrimination validation bythe multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Carnevale, P. J. D., & Pruitt, D.G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 43, 531-582.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in astressful transaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.

Cascio, W. F. (2006). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work, profits.New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personalitypsychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143-178.

Cimbolic Gunthert, K., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism indaily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1087-1100.

Clow, A. (2000). The physiology of stress. In F. Jones & J. Bright (Eds.), Stress: Myth,theory and research (pp. 47 - 61). London: Prentice Hall.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for thebehavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Concise Oxford Dictionary (1983). Oxford, England: University Press.


References 99

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and analysisissues for field settings. Chigago: Rand McNally.

Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: a review of theliterature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 49, 11-28.

Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research onjob burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621-656.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: Implications formultiple regression. Journal of Management, 19, 915-922.

Cosier, R. A., & Rose, G. L. (1977). The functions of social conflict. Glencoe, England:Free Press.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinicalpractice: The personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13.

Cotton, P., & Hart, P. M. (2003). Organizational well-being and performance: Areview of organizational health research. Australian, Psychologist, 38, 118-127.

Coyne, J.C. (1976). Depression and the responses of others. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 85, 186-193.

Danna, K., & Griffin, R.W. (1999). Health and wellbeing in the workplace: A reviewand synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357-384.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum Press.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (1997). Conflict management and performance. In C. K. W. DeDreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations. London: Sage.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Beersma, B. (2005). Conflict in organizations: Beyondeffectiveness and performance. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 14, 105-117.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Carnevale, P. J. (2003). Mtivational bases of informationprocessing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 235-291). New York:Academic Press.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma., & Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the work place. Journal ofOrganzational Behavior, 22, 645-668.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Harinck, F., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (1999). Conflict andperformance in groups and organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 14, pp.376-405). Chichester, England: Wiley.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (1997, Eds.). Using conflict in organizations.London, England: Sage.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Van Dierendonck, D., & De Best-Waldhober, M. (2002). Conflict atwork and individual well-being. In M. J. Schabracq, C. L. Cooper & J. A. M.Winnubst (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 495-515).Chichester, England: Wiley.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Van Dierendonck, D., & Dijkstra, M. T. M. (2004). Conflict at workand individual well-being. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 15,6-26.


100 References

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier toconstructive conflict management: Effects of mere ownership, processaccountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345-357.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, teammember satisfaction, and team effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 741-749.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives onintegrative negotiation: A Meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889-905.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: Theimportance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 1191-1201.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. NewHaven, CT, US: Yale University Press.

Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person x situation interactions:Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 47, 580-592.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science ofhappiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook ofpositive psychology. (pp. 463-473). Oxford, England: University Press.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science ofhappiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook ofpositive Psychology. (pp. 463-473). Oxford, England: University Press.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology,54, 403-425.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being:Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.Annual-Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Dijkstra, M. T. M. Van Dierendonck, D., & Evers, A. (2005). Responding to conflict atwork and individual well-being: The mediating mole of flight behavior andfeelings of helplessness. The European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 14, 119-135.

Dijkstra, M. T. M., Van Dierendonck, D., Evers, A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005).Conflict and well-being at work: The moderating role of personality. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 20, 87-104.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavianapproach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 379-401.

Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Virtanen, M., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L.(2003). Personality as a moderator in the relations between perceptions oforganizational justice and sickness absence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63,379-395.

Engers, R. W. V. (1995). Overspannen in de ziektewet. Een onderzoek naar oorzaken enhet verloop van ziekteverzuim wegens overspanning [Being overworked on sickness


References 101

benefit. Research on causes and course of sickness absence due to overstrain].Amsterdam: Tica.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variancein moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 36, 305-323.

Evans, P., Hucklebridge, F., & Clow, A. (2000). Mind, immunity and health. London:Free Association Books.

Evers, A., Frese, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Revisions and further developments ofthe occupational stress indicator: LISREL results from four Dutch studies.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 221-240.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck PersonalityQuestionnaire. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing service.

Frankenhauser, M. (1975). Experimental approaches to the study of catecholamines.In L. Levi (Ed.), Emotions: Their parameters and measurement (pp.209-234). NewYork: Raven Press.

Freedy, J. R., & Hobfoll, S. E. (1994). Stress inoculation for reduction of burnout: Aconservation of resources approach. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An InternationalJournal, 6, 311-325.

Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J.C. (2000). What goes aroundcomes around: The impact of personal conflict style on work group conflict andstress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11. 32-55.

Fritzche, B. A., McIntire, S. A., & Powell Yost, A. (2001). Holland type as a moderator ofpersonality-performance predictions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 422-436.

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testinga model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246-255.

Gaillard, A. W. K. (1996). Stress produktiviteit en gezondheid [Stress productivity andhealth]. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Developing a taxonomy of trait descriptive terms. In D. Fiske(Ed.), New directions for social and behavioural science, (No. 9, pp. 43-69). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceivinginterpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-835.

Graziano W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: dimension of personality orsocial desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70, 695-727.

Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision making groups.Human Relations.7, 367-381.

Hatfield, A., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 2, 96-99.

Hendriks, A. A., Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Angleitner, A. (1995). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI).Unpublished manuscript, Groningen, TheNetherlands.

Hillhouse, J.J. (1997). Investigating stress effect patterns in hospital staff nurses:Results of a cluster analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 1781-1788.


102 References

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizingstress. American Psychologist, 40, 513-524.

Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Fiveand circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 63, 146-163.

Hotard, S. R., McFatter, R. M., McWhirther, R. M., & Stegall, M. E. (1989). Interactiveeffects of extraversion, neuroticism, and social relationships onn subjectivewell-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 321-331.

Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity and use ofpersonality variables in industrial work, and organizational psychology. InN. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook ofindustrial, work & organizational psychology (pp. 233-277). London: Sage.

House, J.S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health.Science, 241, 540-545.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivityto under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.

Hubert Consult, (2002, January) Arbeidsconflicten en arbeidsuitval [Workplace conflictand absenteeism]. (V-O-203/P37). Leiden, The Netherlands: Author.

Hudy, M.J. (1998). Student evaluations of overall teaching effectiveness: Can single-item measures be justified? Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (10-B): 5682.

Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of interactioneffects between continuous predictors using multiple regression: Multipleindicator and structural equation approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 348-357.

Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., & Schuler, R. S. (1986). Toward an understanding of theburnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630-640.

Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments ofintragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator ofinterpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323-361.

Jex, M. S., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues inthe study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 9, 311-365.

Jex, S. W., & Thomas, J. L. (2003). Relations between stressors and group perceptions:Main and mediating effects. Work & Stress, 17, 158-169.

Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress, myth, theory and research. Harlow, England:Pearson.

John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in thenatural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.

Jöriskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago: ScientificSoftware International.

Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Karasek, R. A., Theorell, T., Schwarz, J. E., Schnall, P. L., Pieper, C. F., & Michele, J. L.

(1988). Job characteristics in relation to the prevalence of myocardial infarctionin the US Health Examination Survey (HES) and the Health and NutritionExamination Survey (HANES). American Journal of Public Health, 78, 910-18.


References 103

Kahn, R, & Juster, T. F. (2002). Well-being: Concepts and measures. Journal of SocialIssues, 58, 627-644.

Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonicpsychology. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations: Oxford, England:Wiley.

Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Mäkikangas (2003). Work-family conflictand its relations to well-being: The role of personality as a moderating factor.Personality and Individual differences 35, 1669-1683.

Kolb, D. M., & Bartunek, J. M. (Eds.) (1992). Hidden conflict in organizations:Uncovering behind-the-scenes disputes. London: Sage.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its concep-tualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). Sociodemographic variations in the sense ofcontrol byy domain: Findings from the MacArthur studies of midlife. Psychologyand Aging, 13, 553-562.

Latack J. C. (1986). Coping with job stress: Measures and future directions for scaledevelopment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 377-385.

Latack, J. C., & Havlovic S. J. (1992). Coping with Job Stress: a conceptual evaluationframework for coping measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 479-508.

Leiter, M. P. (1991). Coping patterns as predictors of burnout: The function of controland escapist coping patterns. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 123-144.

Lepore, S. J., Evans, G. W., & Schneider M. L. (1991). Dynamic role of social supportin the link between chronic stress and psychological distress. PsychologicalBulletin, 61, 899-901.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional

new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflictcommunications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-793.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford, England: Wiley.Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Third

edition. In C. P. Zalaquett & R. J. Wood (Eds)., Evaluating Stress: A book ofresources. (pp. 191-218). Lanham, MD, US: Scarecrow Education.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. How organizations causepersonal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2000). Job burnout. Annual Review ofPsychology, 52, 397-422.

Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality andIndividual Differences, 37, 1401-1415.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detectinginteractions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-389.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s “adequacy taxonomy”:Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and inquestionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.


104 References

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personalityacross instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,81-90.

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Seminars in medicine of the Beth Israel Deaconess MedicalCenter: Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New EnglandJournal of Medicine, 338, 171-179.

McFatter, R. M. (1998). Emotional intensity: Some components and their relations toextraversion and neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 747-758.

Merllié, D., & Paoli, P. (2001). Ten years of working conditions in the European Union.Dublin, Ireland: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living andWorking Conditions.

Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R., & Rentsch, J. R. (2000). The measurement of teammental models: We have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods, 3,123-165.

Moskovitz, D. S., & Coté, S. (1995). Do interpersonal traits predict affect? Acomparison of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 915-924.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1989). Five-factor model of personalityand performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. HumanPerformance, 11, 145-165.

Myers, D. G. (1999). Close relationships and the quality of life. In D. Kahneman, E.Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology(pp. 376-393). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Nauta, A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van der Vaart, T. (2002). Social value orientation,organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem solving. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 23, 199-213.

Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence.Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets.Journal of Management, 24, 3, 391- 419.

Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1985). Coping with work-related stress. Human Relations,38, 107-126.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Gender differences in unipolar depression: Evidence andtheory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259-282.

O’Connor, K. M., Gruenfeld, D. H., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). The experience andeffects of conflict in continuing work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 362-382.

Okun, M. A., & Stock, W. A. (1987). Correlates and components of subjective well-being among the elderly. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 6, 95-112.

Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: The role of individual differences,environmental factors, and situational characteristics. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 1277-1292.

Parkes, K. R. (1989). Personal control in an occupational context. In A. Steptoe & A.Appels (Eds.), Stress, personal control and health (pp. 21-47). Chichester, England:Wiley.


References 105

Parkes, K. R. (1994). Personality and coping as moderators of work stress processes:Models, methods and measures. Work and Stress, 8, 110-129.

Pennebaker, J. W. (1982). The psychology of physical symptoms. New York: Springer.Perrewe, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. (1989). The impact of job demands and behavioral

control on experienced job stress, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 1-17. Pfeffer, J. (1998). Understanding organizations: Concepts and controversies. In D. T.

Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & T. Susan (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. (Vol. 2,4th ed., pp. 733-777). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pondy, L. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 17, 296-320.

Pondy, L. (1992). Reflections on organizational conflict. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 13, 257-261.

Prosser, D., Johnson, S., Kuipers, E., Szmukler, G., Bebbington, P., & Thornicroft, G.(1997). Perceived sources of work stress and satisfaction among hospital andcommunity mental health staff, and their relation to mental health, burnout andjob satisfaction. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 43, 51-59.

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Belmont, CA, US:Brooks/Cole.

Pruitt, D. G. (1998). Social conflict. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbookof social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 470-503). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pruitt, D.G., & Rubin, J. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement.New York: Random House.

Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., & Dodge, K. L. (1994). Gender differences in coping withstress: When stressors and appraisal do not differ. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 20, 421-430.

Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J., Jr. (1997). Preventive stressmanagement in organizations. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Rahim, A. (1983). Measurement of organizational conflict. Journal of General Psychology,109, 188-199.

Rahim, A. M & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles ofhandling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invarianceacross groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 122-132.

Rainey, D.W. (1995). Stress, burnout, and intention to terminate among umpires.Journal of Sport Behavior, 18, 312-323.

Reddy, S. K. (1992). Effects of ignoring correlated measurement error in structuralequation models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 549-570.

Richardsen, A. M., Burke, R. J., & Leiter, M. P. (1992). Occupational demands,psychological burnout and anxiety among hospital personnel in Norway.Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 5, 55-68.

Robinson S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: Amultidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.

Rodin, J. (1990). Control by any other name: Defintitions, concepts, processes. In J.Rodin, C. Schooler, & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Selfdirectedness: Causes and effectsthroughout the life course (pp.1-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


106 References

Rothbaum, F. M., & Weisz, J. R. (1989). Child pathology and the quest for control.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate,and settlement (2nd ed.). New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchangevariables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses todeclining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599-627.

Ryff, C. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning ofpsychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.

Sacco, W. P. (1999). A social-cognitive model of interpersonal processes indepression. In: T. Joiner & J. C. Coyne (Eds.), The interactional nature ofdepression: Advances in interpersonal approaches (pp. 329-362). Washington, DC,US: American Psychological Association.

Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need satisfaction models of jobsatisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427-456.

Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2001) Predictors used for personnelselection: An overview of constructs, methods and techniques. In N. Anderson,D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work& organizational psychology (pp. 165-199). London: Sage.

Saucier, G. (2002). Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of the BigFive. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 1-31.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Utrechtse Burnout Schaal (UBOS),handleiding [Utrecht Burnout Scale, manual]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets &Zeitlinger.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, D. U. (1998). The burnout companion to study andpractice: A crirical analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.

Schmidt, S. M., & Kochan, T. A. (1972). Conflict: Toward conceptual clarity.Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 359-370.

Scott, W. R., (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Upper SaddleRiver. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Segerstrom, S. C., & Miller, G. E. (2004). Psychological stress and the humanimmune system: A meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. PsychologicalBulletin, 130, 601-630.

Seligman, M. E. (1979). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. Oxford,England: W. H. Freeman.

Shapiro, D. H., Sandman, C., Grossman, M., & Grossman, B. (1995). Aging and senseof control. Psychological Reports, 76, 1-3.

Shapiro, D. H., Jr., & Schwarz, C. E. (1996). Controlling ourselves, controlling ourworld: Psychology’s role in understanding positive and negative consequencesof seeking and gaining control. American Psychologist, 51, 1213-1230.

Sheldon, K. M., & Bettencourt, A. B. (2002). Psychological need-satisfaction andsubjective well-being within social groups. British Journal of Social Pschology, 41,25-38.

Shirom, A., & Mayer, A. (1993). Stress and strain among union lay officials and rank-and-file members. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 401-413.


References 107

Simons T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflicts and relationship conflict in topmanagement teams: The pivotal role of trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,102-111.

Siu, L., Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Donald, I. (2001). Age differences in copingand locus of control: A study of managerial stress in Hong Kong. Psychology andAging, 16, 707-710.

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 71, 549-570.

Smith, C. S., & and Sulsky, L. (1995). An investigation of job-related coping strategiesacross multiple stressors and samples. In L. R. Murphy, J. J. Hurrell Jr., S. L.Sauter, & G. P. Keita (Eds.), Job stress interventions (pp. 109-123). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Smith, T. W. (1992). Hostility and health: Current status of a psychosomatichypothesis. Health Psychology, 11, 139-150.

Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect andperceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology,72, 438-443.

Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (1995). The nature and effects of method variance inorganizational research. In C. L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), Internationalreview of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 249-414). Chichester,England: Wiley.

Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: Ameta-analysis. Personnel Pschology, 52, 653-677.

Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & O’Connell, B. J. (2000). A longitudinal study of relationsbetween job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior negativeaffectivity and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 211-218.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of jobstressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizationalconstraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptomsinventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367.

Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect & managerial performance: A test of thesadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrativ ScienceQuarterly, 38, 304-331.

Steptoe, A., & Appels, A. (1989). (Eds.). Stress, personal control and health. Chichester,England: Wiley.

Stroebe, W, & Stroebe M. S. (1995). Social psychology and health. Buckingham,England: Open University Press.

Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999), Gender differences in negotiation outcome: Ameta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 52, 653-677.

Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit and its limits:Agreeableness, neuroticism, and emotional reactivity to interpersonal conflict.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 88-98.

Suls, J., & Wan, C. K. (1993). The relationship between trait hostility and cardiovascularreactivity: A quantitative review and analysis. Psychophysiology, 30, 615-626.


108 References

Taylor, A. H., Daniel, J. V., Leith, L., & Burke, R. J. (1990). Perceived stress,psychological burnout and paths to turnover intentions among sport officials.Applied Sport Psychology, 84-97.

Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance toassessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In J. D. Maser & A. H. Tuma,(Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp.681-706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thibaut, J. K., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford, England:Wiley.

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. D.Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology, (2nd ed. Vol 3, pp. 651-717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting PsychologistsPress.

Tidd, S. T., & Friedman R. A. (2002). Conflict style and coping with role conflict: Anextension of the uncertainty model of work stress. The International Journal ofConflict Management, 13, 236-257.

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

Turner, R. J., Wheaton, B., & Lloyd, D. A. (1995). The epidemiology of social stress.American Sociological Review, 60, 194-205.

Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior. London: PsychologyPress.

Van de Vliert E., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (1994). Optimizing performance by stimulatingconflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 211-222.

Van de Vliert E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as componentsof conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 674-687.

Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with asubordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 80, 271-281.

Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control (-support) model andpsychological well-being: A review of 20 jears of empirical research. Work andStress, 13, 87-114.

Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns ofinterdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations withjob and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51-69.

Van Dierendonck, D. (2004). Leadership behavior and subordinatie well-being.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 165-175.

Van Dierendonck, D., Garssen, B., & Visser, A. (2005). Burnout prevention throughpersonal growth. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 62-77.

Van Dierendonck, D., Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (2001). Burnout and inequityamong human service professionals: A longitudinal study. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 6, 43-52.

Van Dierendonck, D., Schaufeli, W. B., & Sixma, H. J. (1994). Burnout among generalpractitioners: A perspective from equity theory. Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology, 13, 86-100.


References 109

Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonaleffects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processingapproach. Journal of Personality and S oocial Psychology, 87, 510-528.

Van Lange, P. A., De Bruin, E. M. N., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Developmentof prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminaryevidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733-746.

Wall, J. A., Jr., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal ofManagement, 21, 515-558.

Walton, R. E. (1969). Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontations and third partyconsultation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Warr, P. (1987) Work, Unemployment, and mental health. Oxford, England: Clarendon.Warr, P. (1990). Well-Being and the Workplace. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener & N.

Schwarz (Eds.), Well-Being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 392-412).New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress:Exploring the negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234-254.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and is positive emotional core. In R.Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp.767-793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journalof Applied Psychology, 81, 680-693.

Weissman, M. M., Bland, R. C., Canino, G. J., Faravelli, C., Greenwald, D., Hwu, H.G., et al. (1996). Cross-national epidemiology of majhor depression and bipolardisorder. Journal of the American Medical Association, 27, 293-299.

White, A. T., & Spector, P. E. (1987). An investigation of age-related factors in the age-job satisfaction relationship. Psychology and Aging, 2, 261-265.

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the BigFive. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personalitypsychology (pp. 737-765). San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C.A., III (1998). Demography and diversity inorganizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 20, 77-140.

Wright, T. A., & Bonnet, D. G. (1997). The role of pleasantness and activation-basedwell-being in performance prediction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,2, 212-219.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfactionas predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,84-94.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well-being in jobperformance: A fresh look at an age-old quest. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 338-351.

Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizationalstress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodologicalissues. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 145-169.


110 References

Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying:A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 10, 497-522.

Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factorsand job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 215-237.


Nederlandse samenvatting

Dit proefschrift gaat over de relatie tussen conflicten op het werk en individueelwelbevinden. Hoewel er op dit gebied al veel bekend is worden conflicten op hetwerk tot nu toe voornamelijk onderzocht in termen van hun consequenties voorde productiviteit en prestaties van teams en/of de effectiviteit van de organisatie.Veel minder aandacht was er voor de consequenties van conflicten op het werkvoor het welbevinden van de werknemer. Opvallend, gezien de hoge kosten diegepaard gaan met de consequenties van een verminderd welbevinden van dewerknemers zoals bijvoorbeeld slechtere prestaties, een verhoogd verzuim en eengroter verloop (Cooper & Marshall, 1976). Conflicten op het werk worden steedsvaker genoemd als belangrijke oorzaak van gezondheidsklachten, ziekteverzuimen intrede in de WAO (DeDreu, Van Dierendonck & de Best-Waldhober, 2002).Bovendien is het op grond van de wijze waarop organisaties zich op dit momentontwikkelen zeer waarschijnlijk dat conflicten op het werk in de toekomst steedsvaker zullen voorkomen (De Dreu, et al., 2002). Doel van dit proefschrift is danook om meer inzicht te krijgen in de relatie tussen conflicten op het werk en hetwelbevinden van werknemers. Hierbij wordt in het bijzonder aandacht besteedaan de invloed van persoonlijkheidskenmerken en conflicthanteringsstrategieënop deze relatie.

Het onderzoeksthema wordt in het eerste hoofdstuk ingeleid door de intro-ductie van de begrippen conflict, conflicthantering en welbevinden. Een conflictwordt beschouwd als een proces dat begint wanneer een individu of een groepeen tegenstelling waarneemt tussen eigen belangen, doelen en/of wensen en dievan een ander individu of groep (De Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999; Thomas,1992).

Hoe werknemers omgaan met conflicten, conflicten hanteren, hangt in hogemate af van het belang dat zij hechten aan de opbrengsten van het conflict voorde eigen partij dan wel die voor de andere partij. Binnen het hier gebruikte DualConcern model (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992; Pruitt &Rubin, 1986, Thomas, 1992) worden vier conlficthanteringsstategieën onder-scheiden die elk een hoge of lage mate van “gericht zijn op de opbrengsten voor deeigen partij” combineren met een hoge of lage mate van “gericht zijn op deopbrengsten voor de andere partij”. Zo duidt de conflicthanteringstrategie force-ren op een hoge mate van “gericht zijn op de opbrengsten voor de eigen partij” eneen lage mate van “gericht zijn op de opbrengsten voor de andere partij”. Een for-cerende partij zal zijn wil trachten op te leggen aan de andere partij, door bijvoor-beeld het uiten van dreigementen. In hoge mate “gericht zijn op de opbrengstenvoor de eigen partij” gecombineerd met het eveneens “in hoge mate gericht zijnop de opbrengsten voor de andere partij” resulteert in een probleem oplossendeconflicthanteringstrategie, gericht op het bereiken van een oplossing die debelangen van beide partijen zoveel mogelijk behartigt. Er zal bijvoorbeeld infor-


112 Nederlandse samenvatting

matie worden uitgewisseld over wederzijdse prioriteiten. De strategie vermijdenweerspiegelt zowel een lage mate van “gericht zijn op de opbrengsten voor deeigen partij” als een lage mate van “gericht zijn op de opbrengsten voor de anderepartij” en daarmee een passieve houding. De eventuele positieve opbrengstenvoortkomend uit het conflict zullen bijvoorbeeld worden gebagatelliseerd en/of erzal worden getracht de conflictsituatie te verdringen. Personen die een toege-vende conflicthanteringstrategie kiezen, tot slot, zullen een hoge mate van“gericht zijn op de opbrengsten voor de andere partij” combineren met een lagemate van “gericht zijn op de opbrengsten voor de eigen partij” en daardoor de wilvan de andere partij accepteren. Het betekent bijvoorbeeld het doen van vele con-cessies en onvoorwaardelijke beloftes.

Het derde sleutel begrip, welbevinden, wordt hier niet zozeer beschouwd alseen specifiek te onderscheiden construct maar veel eerder als een uitgebreiddomein van wetenschappelijke interesse. Het omvat fenomenen als positiefaffect, negatief affect, algemene tevredenheid en domein specifieke tevredenheid(Diener, Lucas & Oisi 2002; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith 1999; Kahn & Juster,2002). Besproken wordt hoe welbevinden zowel een consequentie als een antece-dent van conflict kan zijn. Aan de hand van de begrippen stressor, strain enhyperactiviteit, wordt hierbij de link gelegd met de stressliteratuur. Vervolgensworden drie categorieën besproken van indicatoren van welbevinden, te wetenpsychologische klachten, fysieke klachten en burnout.

Naast de introductie van de sleutelbegrippen en de link met de stresslitera-tuur, wordt er in het eerste hoofdstuk aandacht besteed aan de rol van conflictenbinnen de bredere context van de organisatie. Hierbij komt met name het ont-staan van een conflictcultuur aan de orde. Er wordt geconcludeerd dat welbevin-den leidt tot conflicten op het werk, maar ook dat conflicten het welbevinden(verder) verminderen zich uitend in psychologische klachten, fysieke klachten engevoelens van burnout. Drie punten worden in dit kader besproken. Ten eersteworden, in de studies die tot nu toe verricht zijn naar de relatie tussen conflict enwelbevinden op het werk ‘het zich voordoen’ van conflict en ‘het hanteren’ van datconflict door elkaar gehaald. Door deze vermenging blijft onduidelijk in hoeverrenu het bestaan van een conflict, de manier van omgaan met het conflict of eencombinatie van de twee verantwoordelijk is voor een verminderd welbevinden. Indit proefschrift zal daarom conflict frequentie (“Hoe vaak zijn er conflicten op hetwerk?”) gescheiden worden van conflict gedrag (“Hoe handelt u indien zich ereen conflict voordoet op het werk?”).

Ten tweede is te verwachten dat conflicten op het werk het werkklimaat nega-tief beïnvloeden, waardoor werknemers gemakkelijker ten prooi vallen aan meeren andere vormen van organisatiestress. De verhoogde activatietoestand die daar-van het gevolg is kan de mentale en fysieke regulatieprocessen verstoren (Gail-lard, 1996) resulterend in een verdere afname van het welbevinden.


Nederlandse samenvatting 113

Ten derde wordt opgemerkt dat de sterkte van het tot nu toe gevonden ver-band tussen conflict op het werk en indicatoren van welbevinden steeds zwak totmatig is. Het is dus goed mogelijk dat er moderatoren in het spel zijn. Elk vandeze punten is onderwerp van een of meer in dit proefschrift gerapporteerdeveldstudies.

In Hoofdstuk 2 wordt verslag gedaan van de eerste empirische studie. In dezestudie werd de mediërende invloed van conflict reacties onderzocht op de relatietussen conflict en welbevinden. Gebaseerd op de bestaande conflict en stress lite-ratuur werd de hypothese geformuleerd dat conflicten op het werk via conflict-reacties leiden tot (ervaring van) meer werkstress resulterend in een verminderdwelbevinden van de werknemer. Het gehypothetiseerde model werd getoetst ineen onderzoekspopulatie bestaande uit verpleegkundigen en leden van ondersteu-nende disciplines werkzaam in een instelling voor gezondheidszorg (Studie 1,N = 191). Het model werd geanalyseerd met behulp van LISREL waarbij de resul-taten duidden op een negatieve samenhang tussen conflictfrequentie en gevoe-lens van hulpeloosheid alsmede met de neiging weg te vluchten uit de situatie.De conflict reacties fungeerden als mediator in de relatie tussen conflictfrequen-tie en werkstress. Een toename aan ervaren werkstress bleek op zijn beurt weergerelateerd aan verminderd welbevinden. De bevindingen suggereren dat conflic-ten op het werk passieve reacties oproepen die via de toegenomen werkstressnegatieve gevolgen hebben voor het welbevinden van de werknemer.

In Hoofdstuk 3 werd beschreven hoe persoonlijkheidsfactoren de relatie tus-sen conflict en welbevinden beïnvloeden. Over het algemeen zijn wetenschap-pers het erover eens dat de meeste persoonlijkheidsverschillen tussen mensengevat kunnen worden in een vijftal dimensies. Van drie van deze dimensies wordthet belang voor de relatie tussen arbeidsconflicten en gezondheid beargumen-teerd. Mensen die hoog scoren op de factor vriendelijkheid vinden het belangrijkaardig gevonden te worden en anderen te plezieren, terwijl personen die laag sco-ren op deze factor veel minder belang hechten aan het door anderen aardiggevonden worden. Extraverte personen houden van sociale contacten en nemengraag het voortouw, terwijl laag extraverte mensen het prettig vinden om dingenalleen te ondernemen en in een groep eerder kiezen voor een bijrol. Emotioneelstabiele personen worden gekenmerkt door een stabiele gemoedstoestand en zijnmoeilijk van hun stuk te brengen. Mensen die laag scoren op deze factor ervarenveel meer pieken en dalen in hun gemoedstoestand. In twee veld studies, éénbinnen een gezondheidszorg instelling (Studie, 2.1, N = 173) en één binnen eenconstructie bedrijf (Studie 2.2, N = 308) werd de modererende rol van de factoren“Vriendelijkheid”, “Extraversie” en “Emotionele stabiliteit” onderzocht. Er werdbeargumenteerd hoe de persoonlijkheidstrek vriendelijkheid werknemersbehoedt voor de negatieve welzijnsconsequenties van conflicten op het werk. Opbasis daarvan werd voorspeld dat de negatieve relatie tussen conflicten op hetwerk en welbevinden sterker is voor medewerkers die laag en niet hoog scoren op



de factor vriendelijkheid. Hiërarchische regressie analyse maakte duidelijk datconflict hier negatief samenhangt met welbevinden echter alleen als werknemerslaag in plaats van hoog scoorden op de factor vriendelijkheid.

Studie 2.2, waarin met uitzondering van de schaal voor vriendelijkheiddezelfde instrumenten werden gebruikt als in studie 2.1, is gebaseerd op de rede-nering dat extraverte werknemers, met hun positieve benadering van socialeinteracties conflicten interpreteren op een manier die de negatieve welzijnsconse-quenties van conflict verzacht dan wel teniet doet. Er werd dan ook voorspeld datde negatieve relatie tussen conflict op het werk en het welbevinden van de werk-nemer sterker zou zijn voor personen die hoog en niet laag scoren op de factorextraversie. Resultaten toonden een negatieve relatie aan tussen conflict en wel-zijn voor zowel individuen die hoog, als voor personen die laag scoorden op extra-versie. Het verband was echter sterker voor diegenen die laag en niet hoogscoorden op deze factor. Ook emotionele stabiliteit werd gezien als een mogelijkemoderator van de conflict-welzijn relatie. Omdat deze factor negatief samenhingmet zowel conflict frequentie als met de affect intensiteit geassocieerd met datconflict werd voorspeld dat werknemers die laag scoren op emotionele stabiliteitsterker beïnvloed worden door conflict dan werknemers die hoog scoren op emo-tionele stabiliteit. Resultaten wezen – andermaal – uit dat conflict negatiefsamenhangt met welzijn, maar alleen voor werknemers die laag en niet hoog sco-ren op emotionele stabiliteit. In Hoofdstuk 3 werd dientengevolge duidelijk datde modererende rol van persoonlijkheidsfactoren mogelijk een belangrijke ver-klaring is voor de zwakke dan wel inconsistente relaties die vaak worden gevon-den tussen conflictfrequentie en welzijn.

Omdat uit eerder onderzoek is gebleken dat de consequenties van conflictenop het werk in belangrijke mate afhangen van de wijze waarop er met het conflictwordt omgegaan (De Dreu et al., 1999; Pondy, 1992; Pruitt, 1998; Thomas, 1992;Tjosvold, 1998), stonden in Hoofdstuk 4 de conflicthanteringsstrategieën cen-traal. In dit hoofdstuk werd de aandacht gericht op de rol van conflicthante-ringssstrategieën als mogelijk moderatoren van de relatie tussen conflicten ophet werk en welbevinden. Het onderscheid tussen actieve (forceren en probleemoplossen) en passieve conflicthanteringsstrategieën (vermijden en toegeven)werd op basis van conflict theorie en onderzoek naar actieve en passieve copingmechanismen in verband gebracht met het control/escape onderscheid zoals datwerd voorgesteld door Latack (1986; Latack & Havlovic, 1992). Er werd voorspelddat pro-actief conflict gedrag, zoals probleem oplossen en forceren de negatieveinvloed van conflict op het welbevinden van werknemers reduceert. Met betrek-king tot passief conflict gedrag, zoals vermijden en toegeven, werd daarentegenverwacht dat het de relatie tussen conflict en welzijn zou versterken. (Carver &Scheier, 1994; Shapiro & Schwarz. 1996). Om de hypothesen te toetsen werdenvragenlijstgegevens gebruikt van studenten met een deeltijd baan, (Studie 3.1,N = 104, gezondheidszorgwerkers (Studie 3.2, N = 191) en gemeente ambtenaren


Nederlandse samenvatting 115

en werknemers van een tele-com bedrijf (Studie 3.3, N = 161). De resultaten vanStudie 3.1 ondersteunden twee van de vier hypothesen aangaande de modere-rende rol van conflict management strategieën. Overeenkomstig de voorspellingbleek de relatie tussen conflict en welbevinden sterker te zijn voor mensen dielaag scoorden op vermijden en voor mensen die laag scoorden op toegeven. Pro-bleem oplossen fungeerde ook als moderator met dit verschil dat de aard van hetverband verschilde van de aard van het voorspelde verband. De relatie tussen con-flict en welbevinden was niet zwakker voor personen die hoog scoorden op pro-bleem oplossen maar die relatie was sterker voor mensen die laag scoorden opdeze conflicthanteringsstrategie. Er werd geen steun gevonden voor de modere-rende rol van een forcerende conflicthanteringstrategie.

Om te toetsen of de bevindingen generaliseerbaar zouden zijn naar bestaandearbeidsorganisaties werd studie 3.2 uitgevoerd in een instelling voor gezond-heidszorg, De gebruikte instrumenten waren identiek aan die van studie 3.2. Indeze studie werden enkele belangrijkste resultaten uit studie 3.1 gerepliceerd.Passieve conflicthanteringstrategieën als vermijden en toegeven bleken de relatietussen conflict en psychologisch spanning te versterken. Ook werd het nulresul-taat voor een forcerende conflicthanteringsstrategie gerepliceerd en kon de mode-rerende invloed van de strategie probleem oplossen niet worden aangetoond.

In studie 3.3 werd gebruik gemaakt van een 4-item instrument om de conflictfrequentie te meten. Items verwezen naar de aard van het conflict (taak-versussociaal-emotioneel: zie De Dreu & Weingart, 2003) en naar de hiërarchische rela-tie (met bovengeschikte of met gelijkgeschikte). Daarnaast werd er, om inzicht teverwerven in de langere termijn effecten van conflicten, gebruik gemaakt van een‘burnout’ maat (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2000). Deze handelswijze maaktehet mogelijk verder te generaliseren en het vertrouwen in de houdbaarheid vande resultaten te vergroten. Ook in deze studie werden de eerdere resultaten metbetrekking tot de modererende invloed van de conflicthanterings-strategieën ver-mijden en toegeven op de relatie tussen conflict en welbevinden gerepliceerd. Demodererende invloed van een forcerende en een probleemoplossende conflict-hanteringsstrategie op deze relatie kon niet worden aangetoond. Deze bevindin-gen suggereren dat als het gaat om de relatie tussen conflict en welbevinden ervoor forceren en probleem oplossen andere mechanismen in het spel zijn danvoor vermijden en toegeven.

Samengevat demonstreerden de zes studies dat (1) conflict op het werk zichgedraagt als een stressor en negatief samenhangt met het welbevinden van dewerknemer (studies 1, 2.1, 3.1 en 3.3); (2) conflict gerelateerd is aan het gevoel decontrole te verliezen resulterend in meer werk gerelateerde stress en, uiteindelijkin een verminderd welbevinden (studie 1). (3) lage scores op de persoonlijkheids-factoren “Vriendelijkheid”, “Extraversie” en “Emotionele stabiliteit” de negatieverelatie tussen conflict en welbevinden versterken (studie 2.1 en 2.2) en (4) pas-sieve conflicthanteringsstrategieën de negatieve relatie tussen conflict en welbe-



vinden versterken terwijl actieve conflicthanteringsstrategieën de relatieversterken noch verzwakken (Studie 3.1, 3.2, 3.3).


Dankwoord

Een aantal jaren geleden besloot ik, dat ik het vak van wetenschappelijk onderzoe-ker wilde leren. Enthousiast en ongeduldig, maar zonder enig besef van wat erallemaal bij komt kijken begon ik in september 1999 aan mijn project. Ik weetnog dat ik dolgelukkig was en samen met een vriendin, tevens ervaringsdeskun-dige een fles champagne dronk op de start. Zij leek mijn euforie echter nietgeheel te delen. Op enig moment merkte ze dan ook fijntjes op dat een promotie-traject vele nuttige ervaringen oplevert, en zelfs een aantal ‘top momenten’, maardesondanks vergelijkbaar is met een verblijf in de hel. Ik herinner me ook noghoe ik onbedaarlijk heb gelachen om haar analyse, maar die zeker niet serieusnam. Dat was onterecht. Maar toch, het is af en hoewel ik prima in staat ben deomvang van de prestatie te relativeren, ben ik er trots op dat een moeilijke, maarwaardevolle en leerzame periode met dit resultaat is afgesloten. Het liefst zou ikiedereen die op de een of andere manier heeft bijgedragen aan dit resultaat hierpersoonlijk willen bedanken. Helaas is dat geen optie. Te weinig papier. Daaromhieronder enkele woorden van dank aan de meest belangrijken.

Dank je wel Carsten, voor de mogelijkheid die je mij geboden hebt met dit projectte starten. Jij hebt je niet laten weerhouden door aanwezige contra indicaties eneen constructie bedacht die een ‘win win’ situatie zou kunnen opleveren. Je weetniet hoe belangrijk je aanbod destijds was en ik zal je er altijd dankbaar voor blij-ven. Daarnaast heb ik kunnen putten uit je enorme kennis van zaken en heb ikervaren hoe motiverend je kan zijn. Je was in vele opzichten een voorbeeld. Ikhad graag vaker met je gesproken over mijn studies, ons werk.

Dank je wel Arne voor het feit dat je er altijd “gewoon was”. De vanzelfsprekend-heid waarmee ik een beroep op je kon doen heeft mij altijd warm getroffen en isvan essentieel belang geweest. Je pragmatisme heeft me wel eens gestoord (zoalsje wellicht opgemerkt hebt.....) maar is me – nog meer – van dienst geweest. Ikheb van je geleerd. Je efficiëntie en duidelijkheid hielpen me vele stappen vooruit!

Dank je wel Dirk, voor je hulp op het gebied van de methodologie, voor je kriti-sche blik en je wijze woorden. Maar ook voor onze gesprekken over de (positieve)psychologie, waarin je blijk gaf van een bijzondere kijk op zaken. Graag praat iknog eens met je over je veronderstelling dat mensen die zich in dit vakgebied tendienste van anderen stellen het gevaar lopen hun eigen doelen niet te realiseren.

Dank jullie wel leden van de commissie, voor jullie inspanningen. Speciale dank,Neil. De Engelse taal is prachtig, maar moeilijk!


118 Dankwoord

Dank je wel Astrid, steun en toeverlaat. Een proefschriftschrijver kan niet zondereen beetje geluk, maar wat een mazzel had ik dat juist jij mijn kamergenote was.Je bent de beste! Wat zal ik onze ‘wedstrijdjes’ kankeren en schelden missen, ommaar te zwijgen over onze gesprekken in het kader van onze wetenschappelijkeen algemene ontwikkeling.....

Dank jullie wel Gerben, Bernard, Bianca, Wolfgang, Astrid en Arne voor julliepep-talk, de Duvels en het feit dat het onderscheid tussen collega’s en vriendjesbij jullie zo moeilijk te maken is.

Dank jullie wel collega’s van de zevende, van vier jaar geleden en van nu, dat jul-lie – elk op eigen wijze hebben bijgedragen aan de totstandkoming van mijnproefschrift.

Dank je wel Reen, met jou is het nog altijd: “For better and for worse....”

Dank je wel Cathy, voor je opmerkingen en goeie ideeën, je kritiek (verbaal ennon-verbaal) je vele creatieve attenties, je vriendschap.

Dank jullie wel Rob(bie) en Paul voor de vele hilarische momenten tijdens onzestudie, het was een prachtige tijd. Ik ben blij dat jullie nog steeds in mijn buurtzijn.

Dank je wel Arjan voor je getoonde interesse in de inhoud en de voorgang vanmijn promotietraject.

Dank je wel Saskia, Francien en Susanne, geweldige zussen, voor de vele gesprek-ken over en confrontaties met de – andere – belangrijke zaken in het leven.

Dank je wel lieve ouders, voor jullie nieuwsgierigheid en oren, die maakten dat ikmijn ideeën, enthousiasme en blijdschap, mijn zorgen, verontwaardiging enwoede; mijn verhalen over mijn belevenissen als promovenda kwijt kon, dat ikhoewel inmiddels ‘van middelbare leeftijd’ bij jullie ook altijd nog kind kanzijn......

En dan: Mijn lief..............wat moet ik zeggen……………? Nog meer geldt voor mijna deze vier jaren: “Als jij nou bij me blijft, loop ik niet weg”.


uva-dare (digital academic repository) workplace conflict ... · dijkstra, maria t. m. workplace...

Documents