****Conflict***

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATION THEORY AND BEHAVIOR, 17 (4), 498-530 WINTER 2014

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE: THE ROLE OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Jerrell D. Coggburn, R. Paul Battaglio, Jr., and Mark D. Bradbury*

ABSTRACT. Organizational conflict is often thought of as a malady to be avoided or quickly resolved. Such views neglect the potential value of conflict—that is, the constructive management of conflict—to organizational outcomes. Managerial practices resulting in too little conflict may shape and reflect an organization hypersensitive to discord, dissent, and innovation. But management practices promoting excessive conflict may overload an organization with information, rendering it incapable of reaching timely decisions, generating animosity, or creating other unproductive outcomes. This paper examines constructive conflict management, which gives employees voice and encourages authentic participation in decision-making. We hypothesize that such an approach is positively related to employee job satisfaction and organizational performance. However, given the potential for “too much of a good thing” when it encouraging conflict, we also test for a curvilinear relationships between conflict management and organizational outcomes.

“To work in an organization is to be in conflict. To take advantage of joint work requires conflict management” (Tjosvold, 2008, p. 19).

INTRODUCTION

The bureaucratic form of organization is pervasive in the public sector, so much so that “bureaucracy” and “public organization” are ----------------------------------- * Jerrell D. Coggburn, Ph.D., is Professor and Chair, Department of Public Administration, North Carolina State University. His research interests are in public human resource management and civil service reform. R. Paul Battaglio, Jr., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Dallas. His research interests include public human resource management, and public and nonprofit management. Mark D. Bradbury, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Director of the Master of Public Administration program at Appalachian State University. His research focuses on public personnel and human resource management.

Copyright © 2014 by Pracademics Press

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 499

often used synonymously. The ideal-type bureaucracy (Weber, 1958) is characterized by functional specialization, impersonal application of rational rules, and coordination and control through top-down hierarchical structure (Fry, 1989). These characteristics represent intentional effort to provide certainty and reduce conflict (Downs, 1967, as cited in Stazyk & Goerdel, 2011, p. 647), conditions that help explain the Weber’s contention that bureaucratic organizations are technically superior to other forms of organization and lead to organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

Contemporarily, the complexity and interdependent nature of work makes conflict inevitable and ubiquitous within organizations, be they public, private, or nonprofit (Jehn, 1995). Given this, an important managerial function is recognizing and understanding various forms of conflict and managing it in ways that both promotes positive and mitigates negative organizational outcomes. In bureaucracy, doing so means eschewing top-down authority aimed at reducing or squelching conflict in favor of more participatory approaches where subordinates are free to air differences, challenge assumptions, and work to produce better decisions.

Management, organizational behavior, and behavioral psychology scholars are focusing increasing attention on elucidating conflict’s positive attributes; that is, its constructive (functional) aspects as well as its destructive (dysfunctional) ones (e.g., Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2008; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). Despite the importance of this managerial function to organizational performance, conflict management has received limited coverage in the public administration literature (Lan, 1997; Rainey, 2014; Yates, 1985). Indeed, relative to the broader management and organizational behavior literature, there is a paucity of conflict management research in public administration.

Consequently, this study seeks to understand how the way workplace conflict is managed relates to employee job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational performance. The locus of our inquiry is the United States federal government. We proceed from several assumptions. First, we assume that conflict is indeed present—to varying degrees and intensity—in all federal agencies. Given its omnipresence, we likewise assume that federal employees understand different strategies and techniques for managing conflict within their organizational contexts. Third, we assume that the

500 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

presence of conflict and knowledge of its management should bear some relation to federal employees’ job satisfaction and perceptions of their respective agency’s performance. These assumptions lead to the primary research question: Is conflict management positively related to job satisfaction and organizational performance?

Thus, we analyze the relationship between employees’ perceptions of their agency’s management of conflict and job satisfaction and overall organizational performance. Data for our analysis comes from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) 2005 Merit Principles Survey (MPS), a survey that includes a number of conflict-related questions that are appropriate for our purposes. We begin with a brief review of the conflict literature, including efforts to categorize various types of conflict and understand conflict’s relationship with organizational outcomes. From this review, we develop our formal research hypotheses. Next, we describe the variables derived from the MPS survey that we use to measure conflict management, job satisfaction, and performance. Our results support the hypothesized positive linear relationship between constructive conflict management and our dependent variables. We also find both expected and unexpected curvilinear relationships, with constructive conflict management being associated with diminishing returns in job satisfaction and performance as expected and, unexpectedly, increasing returns in performance for employees who have not experienced serious workplace conflict. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research, identifying its limitations, and suggesting possibilities for further inquiry.

CONFLICT AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT LITERATURE

Conflict is a fact of organizational life—it is “inevitable” (Carpenter & Kennedy, 2001, p. 3) and, potentially, desirable. Indeed, Rainey (2014) suggests that intense conflicts are expected and even desired. Organizations and individuals will experience conflict on myriad subjects and issues, and efforts aimed at preventing or quieting conflict are rarely successful. Rahim (1992) observes that a significant amount of resources are wasted when organizations try to eliminate or suppress conflict. Thus, perhaps it is not whether there is conflict in the workplace that matters so much as managing the conflict in such a way as to avoid its destructive potential. In other

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 501

words, conflict per se may be much less problematic than the manner in which people and organizations work through it (Herrman, 2005, p. 331).

Definition and Types of Conflict

Although definitions of the term and concept of “conflict” abound (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005), increasingly conflict researchers agree that conflict is best defined as an interactive process “manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities” (Rahim, 1992, p. 16; see also De Dreu & Beersma, 2005). Conflict has been described as a “core tension” that naturally occurs wherever there are interdependencies and constraints (e.g., structures, systems, norms, obligations) on behavior (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). That conflict occurs in a variety of settings is reflected in the wide range of uses and applications of the concept in research from various academic disciplines, including management, communications, sociology, organizational behavior, philosophy, biological sciences, psychology, and political science (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Rahim, 2011). Within public administration, conflict- related studies focus on such issues as objective responsibilities (Cooper, 2006), work-family balance (Facer & Wadsworth, 2008), interpretations of law, policy, and goals (Brown, 1999; Peffer, 2009), professional roles (Liou, 1994; Vinzant, 1998), political ideologies and preferences (Daniel, 2001; Lewis, Shannon, & Ferree, 1983), ethnic and racial identities (Alexander, 1997; Esman, 1991), cultural and value-based norms (Schachter, 1993), public policy preferences, conflicts of interest (Emanuel, 1999), and methods of conflict resolution (Mareschal, 1998; Nabatchi & Bingham, 2010).

Conflict research also differentiates multiple types of conflict according to its source and organizational level. Rahim (2011), for example, lists 12 sources or antecedent conditions of conflict (e.g., substantive, affective, substantive-affective, process, goal), which can occur across multiple inter- and intra-organizational levels, resulting in an almost dizzying array of potential conflict types. In public administration literature, Herrman (2005) lists five types of conflict (data-based, structural, relational, interest, and value) and Lan (1997) lists four. In general, however, most conflict research focuses on two types, task-related and relationship-related conflict (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010; Jehn, 1997). De Dreu (2008, p. 6) summarizes task- related conflicts as “conflicts that are about the way the team is doing

502 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

the job, about the pros and cons of certain task-approaches” and the like, whereas relationship-related conflicts are “conflicts that are about people, their values, humor, and so on.”

Organizational Effects of Conflict

Moving beyond definitions and classifications, conflict research also assesses the implications of conflict—both positive and negative—on individual and group (team) performance. As characterized by De Dreu and Beersma (2005), this work falls into two broad streams: a conflict typology framework and an information- processing perspective. As the label implies, the conflict typology framework assesses the effects of different types of conflict (namely, task and relationship) on organizational outcomes. Findings consistently show relationship-related conflict to be negatively related to performance and organizational outcomes, while task-related conflict’s effects are inconsistent—they are positive in some instances and negative in others (see De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Some evidence exists, too, that task-related conflict is curvilinearly related to performance, where little to no task-related conflict impedes performance, moderate levels increase performance, and high levels decrease performance (De Dreu, 2006; Faerman, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Rahim, 1992; Rahim & Bonoma, 1974).

The information-processing perspective also proposes a curvilinear relationship (depicted below) between conflict and performance, one that takes the form of an inverted U (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005; Rahim, 2011). This perspective focuses less on the type of conflict (task v. relationship) and more on the consequences of conflict, regardless of type, for decision-making, creativity, and performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). At lower levels, conflict may stimulate creativity, flexible thinking, and improve performance; however, that relationship reverses with the occurrence of intense conflict as individuals experience stress, interpersonal tension, lost focus, and the inability to collaboratively generate ideas and solutions (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).

For its part, the public administration literature evidences an appreciation of both the positive and negative implications of conflict for organizational productivity and performance (although it is often unclear whether these assertions are mere conjecture or are derived from empirical analysis). Commenting on the negative implications,

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 503

Rainey (2014, p. 398) observes that, “excessive conflict can induce stress, frustration, dissatisfaction, high turnover, absenteeism, and poor performance among employees.” Further, conflict can be self- perpetuating if left unattended and unaddressed. And, yet, Schwenk (1990) concludes that although conflict is unpleasant for nonprofit and public sector managers, they report that it leads to higher quality decisions. The critical question for managers, then, is how to reap the benefits of conflict while minimizing the negative aspects.

FIGURE 1 Inverted-U Theory of Conflict and Performance

Source: Adapted from Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Rahim, 1992).

Managing Conflict

Tjosvold (2008) criticizes the literature for excessive attention paid to defining and categorizing types of conflict and its consequences, and attempts to turn attention more squarely on

504 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

managing conflict. The exchange between De Dreu (2008) and Tjosvold (2008) informs the conceptual challenge that conflict poses for organizations. Reflecting on previous research on conflict in interpersonal and small-group contexts, De Dreu (2008, p. 9) concludes that the negative consequences of conflict outweigh the positive, such that the positive effects of conflict will only be realized under “an exceedingly limited set of circumstances”. Tjosvold (2008, p. 19), on the other hand, is more sanguine about the realities of conflict: “Why have a team if team members have similar backgrounds and think alike? The very rationale for an organization is to combine the energy, ideas, and knowledge of diverse people.” Such diversity brings inevitable conflict, but effective leaders can promote open-minded discussion of contracting views (Tjosvold, 2008). Thus, De Dreu and Tjosvold ultimately agree that the key to realizing any positive effects from conflict stem from deliberate strategies to manage it (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). As Tjosvold (2008, p. 25) concludes, “the kind or source of conflict is not the culprit; it is how people manage it that determines its course and outcomes.”

The foregoing exchange suggests that how managers and organizations manage conflict determines whether, on balance, the outcomes produced will be positive or negative. The negative consequences of conflict that is ignored are well known. Carpenter and Kennedy (2001, p. 16) describe “the spiral of unmanaged conflict” wherein the severity of a disagreement is exacerbated, and the identification of a resolution becomes more elusive, the longer that a conflict is left unattended. Such an admonition, however, is well known to practicing managers. In their classic study of organizational structure and behavior, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) find that managers regard confrontation as the desired method for conflict resolution, but rarely employ it due to a latent aversion to sharp confrontation and a lack of conflict management skills and knowledge. In other words, managers recognize that conflict is inevitable, and that managing conflict is an essential responsibility. This is not to say that confronting and managing conflict is a pleasant or desirable task; indeed, the opposite seems to be the case.

The realities of managing conflict, then, resemble an informal decision ‘game’ with two obvious choices. A manager can choose to leave the conflict unattended and hope that the adverse consequences are modest. The obvious risk is that the unattended

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 505

conflict spirals out of manageable control, and results in a conflagration that demands managerial intervention with a less robust set of decreasingly attractive options that will trigger similarly increasingly unpredictable consequences. Alternatively, managers can choose to embrace—or, perhaps, even stimulate (Rahim, 2011)— conflict and attempt to mitigate its negative and realize its positive outcomes. The risk here is that the manager’s involvement has the perverse effect on the parties in conflict, and the situation has personal and/or professional consequences for the manager. There is no ‘right’ choice for a manager, but it seems that managers tend toward the former option. In the words of Tjosvold (2008, p. 19), “Conflict has great potential but we are far from fully realizing it.”

CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

The presence of conflict within organizations is well established (e.g., Argyris, 1971; Corwin, 1969; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Pondy, 1967; Thomas, 1976; Walton & Dutton, 1969; Walton, Dutton, & Cafferty, 1969). Certainly, conflict is abundant in public organizations, which are often rife with competition over policy decisions (Rainey, 2014; Schwenk, 1990; Yates, 1985). Yet, the focus of conflict research has primarily been on interpersonal and small group levels of analysis (Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008, p. 139). Missing is an assessment of organizational features that either constrain or enable how conflict is managed and to what extent this affects important outcomes like job satisfaction and performance (Brett & Rognes 1986; Callister et al. 2003; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; De Dreu et al., 2004; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Kolb & Putnam, 1992). The extent to which conflict hinders or improves job satisfaction, productivity, and performance are subjects frequently cited in the general management literature (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Rainey, 2014; Schwenk, 1990). Drawing from this literature is an important organizing point for public managers considering constructive alternatives for managing conflict in the workplace.

To assess the relationship of conflict management to organizational outcomes, we focus on a proximate outcome, employee job satisfaction, and a more distal one, perceived organizational performance (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn 2012). Employee job satisfaction has been described as being among the most

506 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

important variables in organizational studies due, in part, to its linkage with other important outcomes like organizational commitment, absenteeism, turnover, and work effort (Chen, Zhao, Liu, & Wu, 2012), even though empirical evidence supporting such relationships is mixed (Kim, 2002; Wright & Davis, 2003). Meta- analyses reporting the relationships between conflict and employee satisfaction suggest that conflict (especially relational, but also task) is negatively related to employee job satisfaction (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). Owing to the presence of conflict in all organizations, we expect that how an organization manages conflict should have bearing on employee job satisfaction. Similarly, for our more distal outcome, employee perceptions of organizational performance, we expect that how an organization manages conflict will be directly related to how it performs (Chen, Zhao, Liu, & Wu, 2012; De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; Trudel & Reio, 2011). Specifically, constructively managing conflict should be associated with better perceptions of organizational performance.

Given our interest in examining the relationships between conflict management and employee job satisfaction and perceived performance, our key variable of interest is constructive conflict management. Our expectations about the benefits of constructive conflict management are informed by Tjosvold’s (2008) description of a “conflict-positive organization,” that is, an organization where employees feel free to voice their concerns, challenge ideas, and work collaboratively to develop creative solutions. Successfully harnessing such dynamism and diversity of views requires a constructive approach to managing conflict. Moreover, conflict- positive organizations aid in avoiding premature closure of debate over policy alternatives, potentially leading to better decisions (Isaken & Ekvall, 2010). Such an intra-organizational context is defined by conflict, albeit intentional and strategic; it is not conflict avoidance or prevention, but the embracing of constructive dialogue and disagreement. When organizations practice constructive conflict management, employees should be able to express their opinions in a climate of openness, even if that means disagreeing with management. This should lead to greater job satisfaction and ensure a fuller airing of alternatives, better decisions, and better performance. For federal agencies, properly managing conflict is important and has the potential to improve employee satisfaction and

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 507

retention rates—factors crucial to overall performance (MPSB, 2008). Based on these characterizations and the above-cited research on the potential benefits of constructive conflict to organizational outcomes, we first hypothesize positive linear relationships:

Hypothesis 1: the extent of constructive conflict management in an agency will have a direct, positive relationship with employee job satisfaction

Hypothesis 2: the extent of constructive conflict management in an

agency will have a direct, positive relationship with employee perceptions of organizational performance

While we expect environments conducive to constructive conflict to be associated with better perceived performance, findings from the conflict literature also give reason to believe that the nature of this relationship may be curvilinear (see Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). Hypotheses 1 and 2 reflect our premise that employee perceptions of a work environment where conflict is constructively managed are associated with increased levels of job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational performance. However, as the extent of constructive conflict management in an organization intensifies, there are increased costs associated with the time and energy it takes to make decisions. The costs attributed to exchanges, negotiations, and transactions have the potential to divert time and resources that might have been dedicated to implementing decisions or performing work (De Dreu, 2006, 2008; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010; Jehn, 1995; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). This may engender negative implications for perceived performance. Similarly, too much discussion or diversity of alternatives, especially over routine or unimportant matters, may also tend toward information overload (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010; Jehn, 1995), and likewise impede performance. Thus, we anticipate that lower levels of constructive conflict management are associated with lower levels of job satisfaction and perceived organizational performance, with both pairs of relationships increasing positively to a point, beyond which higher levels of constructive conflict management are negatively associated with employee job satisfaction and employee perceptions of organizational performance:

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between constructive conflict management and job satisfaction is curvilinear; the extent of

508 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

constructive conflict management will have a direct, positive relationship with employee job satisfaction to a point, beyond which the relationship becomes negative

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between constructive conflict

management and employee perceptions of organizational performance is curvilinear; the extent of constructive conflict management will have a direct, positive relationship with perceived organizational performance to a point, beyond which the relationship becomes negative

We also consider the possibility that the relationships between conflict and organizational outcomes vary according to the intensity of conflict in the organization. Rahim (2002, p. 207) notes that conflict has to exceed an “intensity threshold” before the parties involved recognize it as such. It is likely that those in organizations who have experienced serious conflict (i.e., crossed an intensity threshold) will have different assessments about organizational outcomes than those who have not (Jehn, 1995). This may be an especially important consideration for conflict research on public (and nonprofit) organizations, given the oftentimes intense nature of conflict associated with them and the taxed coping abilities of many public managers (Rainey, 2014). The 2005 MPS defines a serious conflict as “one that you felt if not addressed would result in negative workforce consequences such as low morale, low organizational productivity or performance, perceived unfairness, absenteeism, attrition, or even fear” (MPSB, 2005, p. 7). Though our data do not allow us to assess the type of conflict (task or relational), we expect that employees who have experienced serious conflict will report lower levels of both employee job satisfaction and organization performance:

Hypothesis 5: The occurrence of serious conflict in an employee’s work unit will have a direct, negative relationship with employee job satisfaction

Hypothesis 6: The occurrence of serious conflict in an employee’s

work unit will have a direct, negative relationship with employee perceptions of organizational performance

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 509

DATA AND METHODS

To assess constructive conflict management’s relation to employee job satisfaction and perceived organizational performance, we use data from U.S. Merit System Protection Board’s (MSPB) 2005 Merit Principles Survey (MPS). The MSPB conducts this survey periodically to assess federal employees’ perceptions about the standing of the merit principle, instances of prohibited personnel practices, and job satisfaction. The data were collected from the sampling frame of randomly selected public employees representing various agencies and departments in the federal workforce. The 2005 MSPB survey queried 74,000 federal employees with a response rate of 50 percent. Various iterations of the MPS also contain survey items pertaining to salient substantive foci (e.g., reinventing government, training, workplace conflict). The 2005 survey is appropriate for the current analysis because it includes a number of items specifically related to conflict management, an emphasis that has not been replicated in more recent iterations of the survey. We use this data to generate an indicator of constructive conflict management and to create additive indices (described below) measuring employee job satisfaction and employee perceptions of organizational performance (see Appendix).

In our first models, we specify linear relationships for constructive conflict management, controlling for the occurrence of serious conflict (and other variables of secondary interest). This allows for baseline tests of hypotheses 1, 2, 5 and 6. Next, we test hypotheses 3 and 4 by generating curvilinear estimates. This is accomplished by including a quadratic term (i.e., the square of our constructive conflict management variable) to our baseline models, again controlling for the occurrence of serious conflict. Finally, we take our analyses a step further by dividing our dataset into two groups, one with respondents who reported the occurrence of serious conflict in their organization, the other with respondents who did not. This provides a discrete look at how constructive conflict management relates to job satisfaction and perceived performance in substantively different contexts and also offers a more robust test of hypotheses 5 and 6. We estimate all of our models with OLS, using robust (White-Huber) standard errors to account for slight heteroscedasticity detected in preliminary analyses.

510 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

Dependent Variables: Employee Job Satisfaction and Perceptions of Organizational Performance

For our first dependent variable, employee job satisfaction, we created a straightforward additive index from two MPS items: “I would recommend my agency as a place to work” and “In general, I am satisfied with my job.” Responses to both items were recorded using Likert-type scales, which were reverse coded for our analyses so that 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree/agree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The estimated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale (.81) suggests a high degree of internal reliability for the index (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

For our second dependent variable, employee perceptions of organizational performance, we created an additive index intended to capture employees’ overall perceptions of organizational performance. The index consists of summed responses to three performance-related items from the 2005 MPS: “My agency produces high quality products and services,” “My agency is successful in accomplishing its mission,” and “My work unit produces high quality products and services.” As with employee job satisfaction, responses to each item were recorded using Likert-type scales and were reverse coded for our analyses. The estimated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the index (.79) suggests a high degree of internal reliability.

Key Variable: Constructive Conflict Management

The 2005 Merit Principles Survey contains items that reflect the type of conflict management and the conflict-positive organization Tjosvold (2008) describes.1 Combined into an index, these items could evidence constructive conflict management, with employees having voice and a sense of empowerment to challenge ideas, taking creative risk, and contributing to policy and program decisions. However, in several instances, these items have been used to represent other distinct theoretical constructs, including empowerment (Park & Rainey, 2007), voice (Rubin & Kellough 2011), and efficacy (Brewer & Selden, 2000). As suggested by an anonymous reviewer, we opt here to avoid the potential for conceptual confusion by using a single MPS survey item to measure constructive conflict management: “My agency responds constructively to workplace conflicts.”2 We interpret respondents’ agreement with this item to be indicative of the presence of

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 511

constructive conflict management behaviors within their organizations.

Occurrence of Conflict

Most conflict research assumes that conflict exists in organizations but, as De Dreu (2008) notes, conclusions about the effects of constructive conflict on organizational outcomes are limited by research designs that do not separate out situations where conflict is experienced and where it is not. We are able to at least partially address this shortcoming by controlling for the reported presence or absence of serious conflict. The MPS includes a dichotomous choice item (yes = 1, no = 0) assessing whether respondents have recently experienced serious conflict: “In the past 2 years, have you experienced a serious conflict in your work unit?” First, we include a dummy variable to control for the presence of absence of serious conflict (models 1 and 2) and, second, we divide our dataset into two groups (i.e., those who have experienced serious conflict and those who have not) and rerun the model (models 3 and 4).

Control Variables

Our analysis also controls for a number of respondent characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, tenure, education, and union membership. Although included, these controls are of secondary interest in our analysis and, as such, will receive much less attention. Demographic considerations are common in the assessment of the nature, extent, and impact of conflict within organizations (Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008, pp. 154–155; Jehn, 1995). With respect to gender, research suggests that men are more likely to display aggressive behavior within the workplace (Baron, Neuman, & Geddes, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 1998), while women are more likely to pursue less aggressive, collaborative measures to coping with conflict (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). We include a dummy variable (1 = females, 0 = males) to control for these potential gender differences. Ethnicity, tenure, and education speak to the impact subcultures within organizations have on the system as a whole (Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008; Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2008). Subcultures tend to be present in larger organizations where diverse professions (Boisnier & Chatman, 2003; Trice & Beyer, 1993) and physical and/or geographical isolation (Sackmann, 1992) is likely. Specific characteristics and identification with socioeconomic

512 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

factors (e.g., primary work group, professionalism, union membership, age, ethnicity, and education) tend to be unifying elements for subcultures within large organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ouchi, 1980, Schein, 2010). Union membership, in particular, has received considerable attention in the understanding of conflict management (Friedman, Hunter, & Chen, 2008; Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008; Lewin, 2001). Our models include dummy variables for union membership (1 = yes, 0 = no) and race (1 = whites, 0 = nonwhites), a categorical variable for educational attainment (1 = high school/GED, 2 = Associate’s degree, 3 = Bachelor’s degree, 4 = Master’s degree, and 5 = Doctorate or equivalent), and a continuous variable (years with current agency) for agency tenure. We note, too, that our models control for agency effects (not reported).3

RESULTS

Tables 1 and 2 presents the regression results for our linear and curvilinear models. In both tables, the first column lists the variables included in the models. The second column reports results for the baseline linear models (labeled “model 1” in both tables) assessing the relationship between constructive conflict management and employee job satisfaction (Table 1) and perceived organizational performance (Table 2), respectively, while controlling for serious

TABLE 1 Constructive Conflict Management and

Employee Job Satisfaction

Independent Variables

All Respondents

Linear (Model 1)

All Respondents

Curvilinear (Model 2)

No Serious Conflict

Curvilinear (Model 3)

Serious Conflict

Curvilinear (Model 4)

Constructive Conflict Management

.997*** (.008)

1.48*** (.040)

1.00*** (.053)

1.80*** (.069)

Constructive Conflict Management2

- -.081*** (.006)

-.015* (.008)

-.124*** (.012)

Union Membership -.239*** (.027)

-.228*** (.028)

-.194*** (.032)

-.269*** (.050)

Educational Attainment

.009 (.007)

.007 (.007)

.007 (.008)

.002 (.013)

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 513

TABLE 1 (Continued) Constructive Conflict Management and

Employee Job Satisfaction

Independent Variables

All Respondents

Linear (Model 1)

All Respondents

Curvilinear (Model 2)

No Serious Conflict

Curvilinear (Model 3)

Serious Conflict

Curvilinear (Model 4)

Agency Tenure .004*** (.001)

.004*** (.001)

.002* (.001)

.007*** (.002)

Gender .130*** (.018)

.132*** (.018)

.101** (.021)

.180*** (.034)

Race .034*** (.019)

.034*** (.007)

.036** (.008)

.030* (.012)

Occurrence of Serious Conflict

-.384*** (.019)

-.362*** (.019)

- -

Adj. R2 .38 .39 .31 .38 Intercept 4.25 3.61 4.42 2.80 F-ratio 635.24 623.05 290.55 218.61 N 29,961 29,961 19,325 10,733

Note: Dependent variable: two-item index of job satisfaction (“I would recommend my agency as a place to work” and “In general, I am satisfied with my job”). Figures are regression coefficients estimated by ordinary least squares (with robust standard errors in parentheses). Agency effects (not shown) are controlled for. An F-test for the added variable (quadratic term) yields an F-statistic that exceeds the critical value. * p  .10, **p  .05, *** p  .01.

conflict and using the full MPS data set. The third column reports results for the nonlinear model (model 2); it includes the quadratic (squared) term of our constructive conflict management variable.4 The fourth and fifth columns report results for nonlinear models where the data set has been split into two groups, with one set including respondents who did not report experiencing serious conflict (model 3) in their organization and the other with those who did (model 4).

Linear Effects of Constructive Conflict Management

Turning first to the linear models, the results suggest a strong, statistically significant relationship between constructive conflict

514 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

management and both employee job satisfaction (Table 1) and perceptions of organizational performance (Table 2). Looking first at the results for employee job satisfaction, the coefficient for constructive conflict management (b = .997) shows a direct, positive relationship with employee job satisfaction: a one unit change in our

TABLE 2 Constructive Conflict Management and

Organizational Performance

Independent Variables

All Respondents

Linear (Model 1)

All Respondents

Curvilinear (Model 2)

No Serious Conflict

Curvilinear (Model 3)

Serious Conflict

Curvilinear (Model 4)

Constructive Conflict Management

1.01*** (.010)

.787*** (.047)

.268*** (.062)

1.28*** (.083)

Constructive Conflict Management2

- .038*** (.008)

.113*** (.009)

-.044*** (.015)

Union Membership -.380*** (.033)

-.386*** (.033)

-.334*** (.038)

-.464*** (.060)

Educational Attainment

.098*** (.009)

.099*** (.009)

.120*** (.010)

.056*** (.017)

Agency Tenure .011*** (.001)

.011*** (.001)

.011*** (.001)

.012*** (.002)

Gender .216*** (.022)

.215*** (.022)

.188*** (.025)

.260*** (.041)

Race .059*** (.008)

.059*** (.008)

.061*** (.009)

.054*** (.015)

Occurrence of Serious Conflict

-.254*** (.023)

-.264*** (.023)

- -

R2 .31 .32 .29 .28 Intercept 7.83 8.12 8.87 7.37 F-ratio 470.35 456.31 268.74 137.28 N 30,028 30,028 19,363 10,761

Note: Dependent variable: three-item index of performance (“My agency produces high quality products and services,” “My agency is successful in accomplishing its mission,” and “My work unit produces high quality products and services”). Figures are regression coefficients estimated by ordinary least squares (with robust standard errors in parentheses). Agency effects (not shown) are controlled for. An F-test for the added variable (quadratic term) yields an F-statistic that exceeds the critical value. * p  .10, **p  .05, *** p  .01.

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 515

constructive conflict management variables is associated with a one point increase in job satisfaction, supporting hypothesis 1.

Similarly, the results for the perceived organizational performance model (Table 2) show that the coefficient for the constructive conflict management (b = 1.01) has a direct, positive relationship with perceptions of organizational performance. Specifically, a one unit change in constructive conflict management is associated with an increase of one point on our dependent variable measuring perceived organizational performance. In substantive terms, this finding supports hypothesis 2: organizations exhibiting constructive conflict management are associated with better organizational performance as perceived by employees.

Beyond the results for our key variable of interest, the estimated coefficients for the dummy variable controlling for the occurrence of serious conflict are also of note. In the employee job satisfaction model (Table 1), the negative and significant coefficient (b = -.384) indicates that employee job satisfaction is significantly lower, statistically, when employees report experiencing serious workplace conflict. In the perceived organizational performance model (Table 2), the occurrence of serious conflict variable (b = -.254) shows the same direct, negative relationship. Conflict is generally assumed to exist to some degree (and form) in all organizations (Gelfland, Leslie, & Keller, 2008). Research suggests that, at moderate levels, such conflict can produce positive outcomes when managed appropriately (Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2008; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). But, consistent with previous research, our result shows that serious conflict is associated with lower job satisfaction and perceptions of performance (De Dreu 2006, 2008; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979), albeit at a very modest level substantively. These results provide support for hypotheses 5 and 6.

Nonlinear Effects of Constructive Conflict Management

The initial results suggest positive linear relationships between constructive conflict management and both employee job satisfaction and their perceptions of organizational performance. But, as described above, research suggests that constructive conflict management can yield both positive and negative organizational outcomes (Chen, Zhao, Liu, & Wu, 2012; De Dreu 2006, 2008; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). Reflecting the notion that “too much of a

516 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

good thing” (De, Dreu, 2006; Peterson, 1999) may result in a reversal of constructive conflict management’s positive organizational outcomes, we also estimated results for nonlinear relationships.

The final three columns in tables 1 and 2 report results for the nonlinear models of constructive conflict management’s relationships with employee job satisfaction (Table 1) and organizational performance (Table 2). The third column in both tables presents results for models including all respondents (model 2); the last two columns in both tables present the results for separate models estimated for respondents who reported not experiencing serious conflict (model 3, fourth column) and those who reported experiencing serious conflict (model 4, last column).

Results for the models with the full set of MPS respondents suggest a curvilinear relationship between constructive conflict management and the dependent variables, though not exactly as hypothesized. In the employee job satisfaction model, the coefficient for the constructive conflict management variable (b = 1.48) is positive and significant, while the coefficient for the quadratic term (b = -0.81) is negative and significant. This finding supports hypothesis 3, that is, that constructive conflict management produces diminishing returns (i.e., the “inverted U”) for employee job satisfaction.

In contrast, the results for the perceived organizational performance model (Table 2) offer an unexpected finding. Specifically, we anticipated that the effects of constructive conflict management would be positive and significant for our linear term, but negative and significant for our quadratic term. In other words, we anticipated a curvilinear relationship indicative of diminishing returns. The results for the linear term (b = .787) were as expected but were the exact opposite—that is, positive and significant—of our expectations for the quadratic term (b = 0.38). We will discuss the implications of this below, but note here that the finding represents a potential (and unusual) case of increasing returns on performance, where perceived performance increases at a higher rate in organizations characterized by the highest levels of constructive conflict management. The coefficient for the linear term suggests a gradual slope that, as suggested by the quadratic term, steepens.5

Finally, estimated results for the separate sets respondents—that is, those not experiencing serious conflict (model 3) and those

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 517

experiencing it (model 4) serious conflict—offer some additional insight. In the employee job satisfaction models, findings for both sets of respondents corroborate those from the initial curvilinear model (model 2) that includes all respondents. In models 3 and 4, the coefficient estimate for constructive conflict management is positive and significant while the quadratic term is negative and significant, thus supporting the diminishing returns hypothesis (hypothesis 3). We note that the strength of the relationship is greater in the model estimated for those who reported experiencing serious conflict than for those not experiencing it.

Turning to the separate results for the perceived organizational performance models, we again see an unexpected finding. For the set of respondents who reported no serious conflict in their organization (Table 2, fourth column), the positive and significant coefficient estimates for constructive conflict management (b = .268) and the quadratic term (b = .113) corroborate the unexpected increasing returns findings from the curvilinear model (model 2) including all respondents. In contrast, the results for respondents who reported experiencing serious conflict within their organization have a markedly different view of organizational performance. In support of hypothesis 4, for this set of respondents, constructive conflict management (b = 1.80) is directly and positively associated with perceived organizational performance to a point but then, as suggested by the negative and significant coefficient for the quadratic term (b = - .124), evidences diminishing returns. This intriguing relationship was obscured in model 2, which included all respondents and controlled for the occurrence of serious conflict with a dummy variable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

How managers and organizations conceive of and manage conflict has important implications for organizational outcomes. On the one hand, when conflict is viewed as inherently negative, organizations may be inclined to either avoid or quickly resolve it. Such approaches may be less disquieting in the short run, but at the potential expense of foregone opportunities to explore new and creative ideas, better understand others’ positions, and reach better decisions (Rahim, 2002; Tjosvold, 2008). In short, conflict management is a managerial function that warrants both increased

518 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

scholarly and practitioner attention in public administration. Our paper offers insights to the relationship between constructive conflict management practices and both employee job satisfaction and employee perceptions of organizational performance in the federal government. Our results produced a mix of expected and unexpected findings, both of which have managerial implications.

Controlling for Conflict

When controlling for the occurrence of serious conflict with a dummy variable, our estimated models show statistically significant differences: respondents who have experienced such conflict have significantly lower assessments of employee job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational performance. Although the magnitude of the observed differences in these two models is small in substantive terms, the findings nonetheless support previous research and the idea that those experiencing serious conflict have lower employee job satisfaction and hold less favorable views of organizational performance. Although the findings were expected, they reveal only part of a more interesting picture that only comes into focus when running models separately for those who have and have not experienced serious conflict.

Splitting our dataset into two groups based upon the occurrence of serious conflict yields interesting results and underscores the importance of considering the actual occurrence and intensity of conflict (De Dreu, 2008; Jehn, 1995). We concede that our dichotomous measure of conflict is lacking in some respects (e.g., it does not scale the intensity of conflict from low to high, nor does it indicate the nature—task, relation, or process—of the conflict) but, at the same time, we do not want to downplay the significance of the measure or our findings. Conflict is present in all organizations but may not be recognized as such until it crosses an intensity threshold (Rahim, 2002). That a group of respondents in our MPS dataset report the occurrence of serious conflict in their organizations suggests the crossing of such a threshold and the presence of more intense workplace conflict. With that, we are able to draw a meaningful distinction between constructive conflict management’s relationship to a distal outcome (employee perceptions of organizational performance) in settings that have and do not have serious conflict: where serious conflict has occurred, constructive conflict management is associated with diminishing returns on

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 519

employees’ their perceptions of organizational performance. In settings with less conflict intensity (i.e., where there is no reported occurrence of serious conflict), the relationship is the opposite: more constructive conflict management is associated with increasing returns on perceived organizational performance. Analytically, our findings suggest the wisdom of separating out substantively different organizational contexts when assessing conflict management.

The Janus Face of Constructive Conflict Management

In addition to the analytical implications, our findings also have practical implications for conflict management. Findings from our models present two divergent views of constructive conflict management and its relationship to organizational performance. Our third and fourth hypotheses predict that constructive conflict management holds a classic inverted-U relationship with employee job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational performance. However, when controlling for the occurrence of conflict (models 1 and 2) and estimating separate results for respondents in low or conflict-free environments (model 3), our findings for organizational performance point in the opposite direction, indicating increasing—as opposed to diminishing—returns for constructive conflict management. This positive face for constructive conflict management turns negative, however, when estimating results for respondents experiencing serious conflict (model 4).

Such a divergence strikes us as an interesting and important finding, one that speaks to both the promise and pitfalls of engaging employees in constructive dialog and collaborative decision-making (i.e., in constructively managing conflict). In organizations free of serious or intense conflict, the theorized benefits of constructive conflict management on performance appear to be realized: employees feel that they have voice, are rewarded for creativity, and deal constructively with conflict. This, in turn, is associated with not only the positive performance outcomes theorized for such conditions (Tjosvold, 2008), but also increasing perceptions of performance returns. With the occurrence of serious conflict, however, the potential pitfalls of constructive conflict management practices (e.g., information overload, delayed decisions, forgone work) come into play (De Dreu 2006, 2008; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010; Jehn, 1995; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998), resulting in diminishing returns. As such, our analysis lends credence to the inverted-U perspective on the

520 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

effects that conflict management has on perceived organizational performance in environments that have experienced serious conflict (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005; Rahim, 2011).

Reconciling these divergent outcomes for conflict management rests squarely on the shoulders of public managers. Some limited evidence suggests that public sector organizations are more likely than private sector ones to adhere to integrative problem-solving approaches to conflict management, which require information exchange, looking for alternatives and reaching a solution acceptable to all (Brewer & Lam, 2009). In the presence of serious conflict, however, the question facing managers is whether to potentially hold back the group or organization in attempt to achieve consensus and adhere to dominant constructive conflict norms or to change decision rules (e.g., majority rule as opposed to consensus) and/or conflict management styles (e.g., more dominating and directive and less collaborative and integrating) in order to end unproductive conflict and move forward (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Peterson, 1999; Rahim, 2011). Similarly, managers in such situations must also make decisions about which stakeholders to involve, so that the right people are considering, constructively, the right issues (Rahim, 2002). As this suggests, knowing how to manage conflict under different circumstances and contexts is no easy task. From the constructive conflict management perspective, knowing when to extend and encourage dialog to improve performance, or to limit and end it so as to avoid frustration and delay, represents an important managerial function (Peterson, 1999). Traditional bureaucracy’s emphasis on controlling conflict may be even more counterproductive given the recent history of career public servants working against their political superiors through “guerilla” tactics (O’Leary, 2010). Constructive conflict management may prove crucial to fostering dialogue and debate within public organizations stymied by guerilla government (p. 16). On a practical level, this suggests the importance of public administration and affairs programs developing public managers’ conflict management competencies (e.g., see Herrman [2010] for a list of conflict management knowledge, skills, and abilities), though the historical record of such instruction is not encouraging (Lan, 1997).

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 521

Limitations and Future Research

Although our analysis offers some interesting insights, it also raises a number of important questions for future investigation and possesses important limitations. A primary limitation of our analysis is its reliance on cross-sectional perceptual data. This limits our ability to make causal claims and precludes any effort to see how conflict management practices affect performance over time and under different conditions. Due to the design of the 2005 MPS, we are also not able to directly assess the types of conflict (task or relationship) and our measure of conflict, though meaningful, is limited. Likewise, we are unable to assess the relationship of other styles of conflict management (e.g., dominating/competing, avoiding; see, e.g., Rahim, 1992) as the MPS does not contain items that reflect those styles. Future research would benefit from more direct measures of conflict levels and types, including the application of measures developed by Jehn (1995) and Rahim (1983a, 1983b). Adapting measures such as these and applying them to public and nonprofit organizations could yield fruitful information. In-depth interviews and qualitative designs also hold promise for improving understanding conflict and its effects—both functional and dysfunctional—in public organizations. Finally, there are many different ways to measure employee job satisfaction and organizational performance and assessing conflict management’s relationship with a broader array of organizational outcomes—including “softer” outcomes like well-being, health, and satisfaction (De Dreu & Beersma, 2005)—remains and important goal for public administration research.

Conflict management is an important yet underexplored area for public administration research. Although conflict is inherent to all organizations regardless of sector, the public sector—with its milieu of partisan and ideological differences layered on top of programmatic and managerial preferences and set within predominately bureaucratic/hierarchical structures—offers a particularly attractive setting for analyzing both conflict and its management.

NOTES

1. Specific examples include: “I am able to openly express concerns at work,” “My opinions count at work, and “Creativity and innovation are rewarded.”

522 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

2. In our initial analyses, we used an additive index for constructive conflict management that produced nearly identical results to the single-item measure. Given that, and in responding to an anonymous reviewer’s concern about the face validity of certain items in the index, we opted to report results estimated using the single-item measure.

3. Specifically, we used the “xi” function in Stata to generate dummy variables for each of the 24 federal agencies represented included in the Merit Principles Survey.

4. Given that quadratic terms are often highly correlated (Berry & Feldman, 1985), we examined the VIFs for constructive conflict management and the quadratic term. The VIFs were large (> 10) so we estimated the models again using a mean-centered version of the constructive conflict management variable (and its square) in all of the nonlinear regression models. The statistical and substance results were the same for the mean-centered models and those using the non-transformed variables, so we report results for the latter for interpretive ease.

5. This finding indicates an ascending monotonic curve, something that may be better represented as a semilog (or, perhaps, log-log) curve exhibiting exponential growth. However, since the conflict literature theorizes an inverted-U function, we only estimate and report results for the second-order polynomial regression.

REFERENCES

Alexander, J. (1997). “Avoiding the Issue: Racism and Administrative Responsibility in Public Administration.” American Review of Public Administration, 27(4): 343–362.

Anderson, C., and Bushman, B. (2002). “Human Aggression.” Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1): 27-51.

Argyris, C. (1971). Management and Organizational Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). “Social Identity Theory and the Organization.” The Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20- 39.

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 523

Baron, R., Neuman, J., & Geddes, D. (1999). “Social and Personal Determinants of Workplace Aggression: Evidence for the Impact of Perceived Injustice and the Type A Behavior Pattern.” Aggressive Behavior, 25(4): 281-296.

Berry. W.D., & Feldman, S. (1985). “Multiple Regression in Practice.” (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-050). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Blake, R., and Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Boisnier, A.. & Chatman, J. A. (2003). “The Role of Subcultures in Agile Organizations.” In R. S. Peterson and E. A. Mannix (Eds.), Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic Organization (pp. 78-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Brett, J. M., & Rognes, J. K. (1986). “Intergroup Relations in Organizations.” In P. Goodman (Ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups (pp. 202-236). San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, B., and Lam, G. (2009). “Conflict Handling Preferences: A Public-Private Comparison.” Public Personnel Management, 38(3): 1-14.

Brewer, G.A., and Selden, S.C. (2000). “Why Elephants Gallop: Assessing And Predicting Organizational Performance in Federal Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4): 685-712.

Brown, L.D. (1999). “Management by Objection? Public Policies to Protect Choice in Health Plans.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 56(1): 145–165.

Callister, R. R., Gray, B., Schweitzer, M., Gibson, D., & Tan, .J. S. (2003). “Organizational Contexts and Outcomes of Anger Expression in the Workplace.” Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Academy of Management. August 1-6, 2003, Seattle, WA.

Carpenter, S.L., & Kennedy, W.J.D. (2001). Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide for Government, Business, and Citizens’ Groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chen, X-H., Zhao, K., Liu, X., & Wu, D.D. (2012). “Improving Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Innovation Performance Using

524 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

Conflict Management.” International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(2):151-172.

Cooper, T. L. (2006). The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Corwin, R. G. (1969). “Patterns of Organizational Conflict.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(4): 507-52l.

Daniel, C. (2001). “Separating Law and Professional Practice from Politics: The Uniform Guidelines Then and Now.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 21(3): 175–184.

De Dreu, C.K.W. (2008). “The Virtue and Vice of Workplace Conflict: Food for (Pessimistic) Thought.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1): 5-18.

De Dreu, C.K.W. (2006). “When Too Little or Too Much Hurts: Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between Task Conflict and Innovation In Teams.” Journal of Management, 32(1):83-107.

De Dreu, C.K.W, & Beersma, B. (2005). “Conflict in Organizations: Beyond Effectiveness and Performance.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(2): 105-117.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). “Conflict in the Workplace: Sources, Functions, and Dynamics Across Multiple Levels of Analysis.” In C. K. W. De Dreu, and M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management In Organizations (pp. 3-54). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). “Task versus Relationship Conflict, Team Member Satisfaction, and Team Effectiveness: A meta-analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 741-749.

De Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L., & Jehn, K.A. (2012). “The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2):360-390.

Emanuel, E.J. (1999). “Choice and Representation in Health Care.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 56(1): 113–140.

Esman, M.J. (1991). “Public Administration, Ethic Conflict, and Economic Development.” Public Administration Review, 57(6): 527–535.

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 525

Facer, R. L., & Wadsworth, L. (2008). “Alternative Work Schedules and Work-Family Balance: A Research Note.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(2): 166–177.

Faerman, S.R. (1996). “Managing Conflict Creatively.” In J.L. Perry (Ed)., Handbook of Public Administration (2nd ed., pp. 632-646). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Friedman, R., Hunter, L., & Chen, Y. (2008). “Union-Management Conflict: Historical Trends and New Directions.” In C. De Dreu and M. Gelfand (Eds.), The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management In Organizations (pp. 353-384). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fry, B.R. (1989). Mastering Public Administration. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Gelfand, M.J., Leslie, L.M., & Keller, K.M. (2008). “On the Etiology of Conflict Cultures.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 137- 166.

Hempel, P.S., Zhang, Z.X., & Tjosvold, D. (2009). “Conflict Management Between and Within Teams for Trusting Relationships and Performance in China.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1): 41-65.

Herrman, M.S. (2005). “Understanding and Using Conflict in the Workplace.” In S.E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government (2nd ed., pp. 326-350). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Herrman, M.S. (2010). “Conflict in the Workplace: Strategic Choices, Great Outcomes.” In S.E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of Human Resource Management In Government (3rd ed., pp. 349-378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Isaksen, S.G., & Ekvall, G. (2010). “Managing for Innovation: The Two Faces of Tension in Creative Climates.” Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2): 73-88.

Jehn, K.A. (1997). “A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3): 530-557.

526 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

Jehn, K.A. (1995). “A Multidimensional Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict.” Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 40(2): 256-282.

Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). “Intragroup Conflict in Organizations: A Contingency Perspective on the Conflict-Outcome Relationship.” In B. Staw and R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (vol. 25, pp. 187-242). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Inc.

Katz, D., & Kahn, D. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: McGraw Hill.

Kim, S. (2002). “Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons From Management Leadership.” Public Administration Review, 62(2): 231-241.

Kolb, D. M., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). “Introduction: The Dialectics of Disputing.” In D. M. Kolb and J. M. Bartunek (Eds.), Hidden Conflict in Organizations: Uncovering Behind the Scenes Disputes (pp. 1-31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lan, Z. (1997). “A Conflict Resolution Approach to Public Administration.” Public Administration Review, 57(1): 27-35.

Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lewin, D. (2001). “IR and HR Perspectives on Workplace Conflict: What Can Each Learn from the Other?” Human Resource Management Review, 11(4): 453-485.

Lewis, C.W., Shannon, W.W., & Ferree, G.D. (1983). “The Cutback Issue: Administrators’ Perceptions, Citizen Attitudes, and Administrative Behavior.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 4(1): 12–26.

Liou, K-T. (1994). “The Effect of Professional Orientation on Job Stress.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 14(1): 52– 63.

Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A., Jr. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 527

Mareschal, P.M. (1998). “Insights from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4): 55–67.

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (2005). “Merit Principles Survey.” [Online]. Available at www.mspb.gov/publicaffairs/ surveys.htm.

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (2008). “Effectively Managing Conflicts: The “X” Factor in Job Satisfaction and Retention?” Issues of Merit, 13(1): 4.

Nabatchi, T., & Bingham, L.B. (2010). “From Postal to Peaceful: Dispute Systems Design in the USPS Redress Program.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30(2): 211–234.

Neumen, 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.

Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.

O'Leary, R. (2010). “Guerrilla Employees: Should Managers Nurture, Tolerate, or Terminate Them?” Public Administration Review, 70(1): 8-19.

Ouchi, W. G. (1980). “Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1): 129-141.

Park, S.M., & Rainey, H.G. (2007). “Antecedents, Mediators, and Consequences of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3): 197-226.

Peffer, S.L. (2009). “Title VII and Disparate-Treatment Discrimination versus Disparate-Impact Discrimination: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Ricci v. DeStefano.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(4): 402–410.

Peterson, R.S. (1999). “Can You Have Too Much of a Good Thing? The Limits of Voice for Improving Satisfaction with Leaders.” Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(3): 313-324.

528 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

Pondy, L. R. (1967). “Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2): 296-321.

Rahim, M. A. (2011). Managing Conflict in Organizations (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Rahim, M. A. (2002). “Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict.” International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3): 206-235.

Rahim, M.A. (1992). Managing Conflict in Organizations (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Rahim, M.A., (1983a). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-I. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Rahim, M.A., (1983b). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II, Forms A, B, and C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Rahim, M.A., & Bonoma, T.V. (1979). “Managing Organizational Conflict: A Model for Diagnosis and Intervention.” Psychological Reports, 44(3): 1323-1344.

Rainey, H.G. (2014). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rubin, E.V., & Kellough, E.J. (2011). “Does Civil Service Reform Affect Behavior? Linking Alternative Personnel Systems, Perceptions of Procedural Justice, and Complaints.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1): 121-141.

Sackmann, S. A. (1992). “Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of Organizational Knowledge.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1): 140-161.

Schachter, H.L. (1993). “A Case for Moving from Tolerance to Valuing Diversity: The Issue of Religiously Distinctive Dress and Appearance.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13(2): 29–44.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schwenk, C.R. (1990). “Conflict in Organizational Decision Making: An Exploratory Study of Its Effects in For-Profit and Not-For-Profit Organizations.” Management Science, 36(4): 436–448.

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 529

Stazyk, E.C., & Goerdel, H.T. (2011). “The Benefits of Bureaucracy: Public Manager’s Perceptions of Political Support, Goal Ambiguity, and Organizational Effectiveness.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4):645-672.

Thomas, K. W. (1976). “Conflict and Conflict Management.” In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Tjosvold, D. (2008). “The Conflict-Positive Organization: It Depends Upon Us.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1): 19–28.

Thompson, J. R. (2008). “Personnel Demonstration Projects and Human Resource Management Innovation.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(3): 240-262.

Trudel, J., & Reio, T.G., Jr. (2011). “Managing Workplace Incivility: The Role of Conflict Management Styles—Antecedent or Antidote?” Human Resources Development Quarterly, 22(4): 395-423.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The Cultures of Work Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Vinzant, J.C. (1998). “Where Values Collide: Motivation and Role Conflict in Child and Adult Protective Services.” American Review of Public Administration, 28(4): 347–367.

Walton, R. E., & Dutton, J. M. (1969). “The Management of Interdepartmental Conflict: A Model and Review.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(4): 73-85.

Walton, R. E., Dutton, J. M., & Cafferty, T. P. (1969). “Organizational Context and Interdepartmental Conflict.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(4): 522-544.

Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (Translated by H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills). NY: Oxford University.

Wright, B.E., & Davis, B.S. (2003). “Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work environment.” American Review of Public Administration, 33(1):70-90.

Yates, D., Jr. (1985). The Politics of Management: Exploring the Inner Workings of Public and Private Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

530 COGGBURN, BATTAGLIO, JR., & BRADBURY

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). “Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Inter-organizational And Interpersonal Trust On Performance.” Organization Science, 9(2): 141-159.

APPENDIX

Measures from the 2005 Merit Principles Survey

Employee Job Satisfaction (5-point scale)  I would recommend my agency as a place to work  In general, I am satisfied with my job Cronbach’s Alpha = .81 Employee Perceptions of Organizational Performance (5-point scale)  My agency produces high quality products and services  My agency is successful in accomplishing its mission  My work unit produces high quality products and services Cronbach’s Alpha = .79 Constructive Conflict Management (5-point scale)  My agency responds constructively to workplace conflicts Serious Conflict (1 = yes, 0 = no)  In the past two years, have you experienced a serious conflict in

your work unit? Educational Attainment (5-point scale)  What is your current education level? Union Membership (1 = yes, 0 = no)  Are you a dues-paying member of a union? Agency Tenure (number of years)  How many years have you been with your current federal agency? Gender (1 = females, 0 = males)  Are you: male or female Race (recoded: 1 = whites, 0 = nonwhites)  What race or ethnic category do you consider yourself to be?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.