Buffering relationship conflict consequences in teams working in real organizations

Abstract

Purpose Relationship conflict has important negative organizational and personal consequences. However, papers analyzing how to buffer the negative effects of relationship conflict at work-unit level are lacking. This study aims to extend the literature by examining which specific conflict management styles used by work teams (avoiding, integrating and compromising) reduce or increase the link between relationship conflict and collective emotional exhaustion. Design/methodology/approach Regression analysis was conducted using 91 teams (398 employees) from 42 hotels and 42 restaurants. Findings Results revealed that, as it was expected, relationship conflict was positively related to emotional exhaustion at a team level; this relationship depended on how team members handle relationship conflicts. That is, avoiding and integrating conflict management styles buffered the link between relationship conflict and collective emotional exhaustion, whereas compromising increased this positive link. Research limitations/implications Organizations would include conflict management skills as a requirement for preventing negative consequences of conflict in teams, such as anxiety/depression and bullying. Originality/value By considering the unique perspective of team member’s shared perceptions of conflict management styles, important implications for the span of influence of collective perception of conflict on well-being have been indicated.

Does Intragroup Conflict Intensity Matter? The Moderating Effects of Conflict Management on Emotional Exhaustion and Work Engagement

“…Emotional exhaustion is a state of feeling overextended and depleted of one's emotional resources (Maslach and Jackson, 1981). Research indicates a positive correlation between conflict at work and emotional exhaustion (Spector and Bruk-Lee, 2008;Benitez et al, 2018). From a work stress perspective, RC is a threatening work stressor (Spector and Bruk-Lee, 2008), as it generates tension with the psychological costs of increasing strain and stress (Dijkstra et al, 2011;Bruk-Lee et al, 2013).…”

“…Research implies that RC is dysfunctional (Benitez et al, 2018;Esbati and Korunka, 2020) and TC is beneficial for desirable workgroup outcomes (Jehn, 1995;Tjosvold et al, 2003). RC is associated with affective responses (Jehn, 1995).…”

“…Second, we address conflict intensity: the amount and frequency of conflict that could influence workgroup outcomes (Andrews and Tjosvold, 1983). Third, we address cooperative vs. competitive conflict management styles as a moderating variable under which the influence of RC and TC might change (Dijkstra et al, 2005;Benitez et al, 2018). These two conflict management strategies are both active conflict-engaging strategies (Dijkstra et al, 2009).…”

Inside “Pandora’s Box” of Solidarity: Conflicts Between Paid Staff and Volunteers in the Non-profit Sector

“…This commitment and common values can act as a barrier that prevents the appearance of this last type of conflict. Indeed, as the results of the study of Benitez et al (2018) point out, using avoidance as conflict management strategy buffers the link between relationship conflict and negative emotional consequences in teams. Likewise, paid staff and volunteers may prevent relationship conflict appearance or escalation overlooking their personal differences to guarantee their projects' success based on a common goal, that is, helping others in need.…”

The Role of Shared Leadership in Managing Conflicts in Multigenerational Teams: A Research Framework

“…Moreover, avoidant conflict management may impair the working relationship of members and further aggravate differences among them due to an unresolved conflict, which subsequently makes it difficult for the team members to proceed towards effectively accomplishing the task (DeChurch & Marks, 2001; O’Neill et al, 2013). Even though avoidance may prove to be an effective strategy in the short run (Benitez et al, 2018; Greer & Dannals, 2017), the “norm of silence” may be detrimental in the long run, when members have simmering discontentment by concealing underlying disagreements in an effort to maintain harmony (Gelfand et al, 2012). Such unresolved conflict and tensions may create feelings of animosity and distrust among team members, thereby increasing psychological strain (Dijkstra et al, 2009) and lowering member satisfaction.…”