AU_L7900_M6_A2_LastName_FirstInitial.doc

KCplul76

INTERPERSONAL2.1.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >AU_L7900_M6_A2_LastName_FirstInitial.doc

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

Coping with Interpersonal Conflict at Work in Small Business: The Moderating Role of Supervisor and Co-Worker Support

Afrontamiento del Conflicto Interpersonal en el Trabajo en Pequeñas Empresas: El Papel Moderador del Apoyo del

Supervisor y del Compañero Inés Martínez-Corts Marina Boz Francisco J. Medina

Universidad de Sevilla Universidad de Sevilla Universidad de Sevilla

Miriam Benítez Lourdes Munduate Universidad de Huelva Universidad de Sevilla

Abstract. The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between two types of interpersonal con- flict at work (relationship and task conflict) and job satisfaction in the context of small business, focusing on the buffering role that different sources of social support (supervisors and co-workers) may play in this relationship. Adopting such a contingent perspective our main findings show that, first, supervisor support buffers the link between relationship conflict and job satisfaction while co-worker support moderates the link between task conflict and job satisfaction, and second, that the model estimating the influence of supervisor support and relationship conflict is relatively more important for predicting employees’ job sat- isfaction than the model that relates co-worker support and task conflict. Our study makes a few contribu- tions to research on small businesses and interpersonal conflict at work, two streams that traditionally have been developed separately, and finally highlight important practical implications for the field of Human Resource Management. Keywords: relationship conflict, task conflict, supervisor support, co-worker support, small business.

Resumen. La finalidad de este estudio fue analizar las relaciones existentes entre los tipos de conflicto y la satisfacción el trabajo en PYMES, analizando el papel moderador que diferentes fuentes de apoyo (com- pañeros y superior) pueden jugar en esta relación. Adoptando una perspectiva contingente en la gestión del conflicto organizacional, los principales hallazgos muestran que el apoyo del superior amortigua la rela- ción entre el conflicto relacional y la satisfacción en el trabajo, mientras que el apoyo de los compañeros amortigua la relación entre el conflicto de tareas y la satisfacción en el trabajo. Además, el modelo que analiza la influencia del apoyo del supervisor y del conflicto relacional es más importante para predecir la satisfacción que el modelo que analiza la influencia del conflicto de tareas y del apoyo de los compañe- ros. Este estudio realiza una contribución al estudio del conflicto en organizaciones pequeñas, dos campos de trabajo que han sido estudiados de forma separada; del mismo modo, los hallazgos permiten la realiza- ción de implicaciones prácticas para el campo de la Gestión de los Recursos Humanos. Palabras clave: conflicto relacional, conflicto de tareas, apoyo del supervisor, apoyo de los compañeros, PYMES.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), i.e. organizations with less than 250 employees, play a central role in the well-being of local and regional communities in Europe, for it represents 99.8% of all enterprises and contributes for 87.8% of the total labor productivity in the EU-27 zone (Eurostat, 2008). In fact, small-sized enterprises (SSEs) account for 98.7% of such organizations, i.e. enterprises with less than 50 employees. The Spanish industry is no different being characterized by the same fragmentary nature, for

about 98.5% of its industries are SSEs (Ministerio de Turismo, Industria y Comercio, 2010). Specifically in Andalusia, 98.8% of all SMEs are in fact small-sized enterprises (SSEs) with less than 50 employees (Ministerio de Turismo, Industria y Comercio, 2010).

Nevertheless, although national and international industry are mainly composed by small businesses, most Human Resource Management research has been conducted in large organizations or public institutions with great numbers of employees (Hayney & Dundon, 2006). In this sense, national and international research on interpersonal conflict at work and its consequences has been no exception, as mostly previous evidence has been based on studies developed in large organiza- tions (Jehn, 1995) so that the validity of such results for other types of organizations has yet to be demon-

Research reported in this article was partially found by Grant PSI2008-00502. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Inés Martínez Corts. Department of Social Psychology, University of Seville C/ José Camilo Cela, s/n, 41018 Sevilla, Spain, Phone +34 955420075, Fax +34 954557711, Email: [email protected]

strated. As a starting point, previous studies have shown that the consequences of interpersonal conflict may vary depending on the type of organization ana- lyzed (Guerra, Martínez-Corts, Munduate, & Medina, 2005). For example, it has been found that task conflict has negative effects on employees’ job satisfaction and affective well-being in private organizations, but not in public organizations. So far, no known study has specifically examined interpersonal conflicts and its consequences in the context of small businesses, despite the fact that in such organizations conflicts may play a more salient role and the associated coping mechanisms may also be different (Dodd, 2011; Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009). In attempt to fill this gap, in this study we aim to analyze the relationship between interpersonal conflict at work and job satis- faction in small businesses, focusing on the potential buffering role of perceived supervisor support (PSS) and perceived co-worker support (PCS) in this partic- ular context.

Interpersonal conflict in SSEs

Conflict is an inherent process to human relations, especially in work settings. People have different experiences, values, opinions and ways to carry out tasks, which are likely to lead to disagreements. Surprisingly, interpersonal conflicts at work have not been studied yet in the context of small business, which is a particularly relevant context for studying this phenomenon for several reasons. First, small busi- nesses are characterized as non-bureaucratic organiza- tions usually managed personally by their owners (Dodd, 2011). Consequently in small businesses, fam- ily-related and nonfamily employees coexist very closely (Barnett & Kellermanns, 2006), increasing the potential for divergences concerning attitudes and val- ues to arise and risking the organizational survival (Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 2003). As several studies have shown, perceived diversity with regard to atti- tudes and values is strongly related to interpersonal conflict at work (Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2003; Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). Second, because in small businesses processes are less formalized and working conditions are not so structured, employees are frequently required to carry out a great variety of tasks that can lead to higher role ambiguity (Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011; Dodge, Fullerton, & Robbins, 1994), which in turn has been found to be strongly related to interper- sonal conflict at work (Tidd, McIntyre, & Friedman, 2004). All in all, interpersonal conflicts are very likely to arise in the context of small business due to proxim- ity in relationships between family owners and non- family members, less structured processes and poten- tial for high role ambiguity.

Previous research suggests the existence of two

main types of interpersonal conflict at work: Relationship conflict and task conflict (Jehn, 1994; 1995). Relationship conflict consists of perceived interpersonal incompatibilities among group members such as disagreements about values, attitudes, political aspects or family norms (Jehn, 1997). On the other hand, task conflict consists of job-related disagree- ments about how to carry out specific tasks such as dif- ferences in viewpoints, ideas and opinions, for exam- ple, discrepancies about procedures or the distribution of resources (De Dreu, van Dierendonck, & Dijkstra, 2004). While prior evidence suggests that relationship conflict is always dysfunctional for employees, the consequences of task conflict have proven to be con- tradictory (Benítez, Guerra, Medina, Martínez-Corts, & Munduate, 2008; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). For example, Alper, Tjosvold, and Law (1998) showed that task conflict was related to greater team confidence and performance while others demonstrated that task conflict (and also relationship conflict) was mainly negatively associated with both group performance and satisfaction outcomes (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In line with De Dreu and Weingart’s review (2003), recent studies have also found both types of interpersonal conflict to be linked to decreased job sat- isfaction and low psychological wellbeing (Boz, Martínez, & Munduate, 2009; Guerra et al., 2005). Some authors argue that the main explanation for such different results lies on the situational factors embed- ded in the contexts where the two conflict types arise and develop (Putnam, 1994; Rollison, 2002). Such contingent perspective has been put forward by recent authors for seeking to explain how employees can ben- efit from the positive effects that task conflict may offer, and how they can reduce the negative conse- quences associated with relationship conflict (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Tjosvold, 2008). In this study, we adopt this contingent perspective to analyze the nega- tive link between relationship and task conflict and job satisfaction, focusing on the potential buffering role of perceived supervisor support (PSS) and perceived co- worker support (PCS) as relevant situational factors in the context of small business.

Perceived supervisor and co-worker support in small business

Social support stemming from supervisors and co- workers are key resources for reducing negative effects associated with personal discrepancies as well as foster- ing satisfaction at work (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Supervisors and co-workers can advise and help employees to better carry out their jobs (Karasek, Triandis, & Chaudhry, 1982), improve their interpersonal relationships and ultimately contribute to improve their well-being at work (Sims, Silgyi, & Keller, 1976). Likewise, Cohen and Wills (1985)

118 COPING WITH INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT IN SMALL BUSINESS

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

showed that supportive relations at work can benefit employees in three ways; first, by keeping employees task-oriented and focused on the resolution of problems as opposed to being preoccupied with negative feelings and anxiety; second, by encouraging employees to take action aimed at effectively reducing conflict; and third, by assuring employees of backing for their actions.

In small businesses, the importance of supervisor and co-worker support can become even more salient due to the proximity in relationships and centralized control of the organizational dynamics. According to Mintzberg (1980), small businesses are characterized by simple structures, minimally elaborated in terms of differentiation among its units and highly centralized. In such contexts, leaders are usually one individual that retains control over decision-making and coordi- nates others’ work, all at all using informal communi- cation. Furthermore, due to restricted possibilities for upward mobility and financial benefits, employees in such contexts are more motivated for intrinsic and social rewards like supervisor and coworker support (Hodson & Sullivan, 1985; Wallace & Kay, 2009). In fact, recent research has posited that small businesses promote more supportive working relationships than large organizations (Wallace & Kay, 2009).

Several studies have demonstrated the buffering role that social support may exert to reduce the nega- tive consequences of interpersonal conflict at work on a diverse range of outcomes such as stress, strain, job satisfaction and job performance (Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Fisher, 1985; Haines, Hurlbert, & Zimmer, 1991; Park, Wilson, & Lee, 2004). Importantly, both supervisors and co-workers may provide social sup- port at work and these two sources of support are like- ly to influence employees’ attitudes differently. For instance, PSS has been found to be more strongly relat- ed to job satisfaction, affective commitment and turnover intentions than PCS (Ng & Sorensen, 2008). On the other hand, communication with peers has been found to be more important than communication with supervisors to buffer the trauma-strain relationship (Stephens & Long, 2000).

Nevertheless, despite this previous evidence, only a few studies have examined both sources of social sup- port simultaneously (Ng & Sorensen, 2008) and as Illies, Johnson, Judge and Keeny (2010) point out, so far no known study have explored the influence of social support on the relationship between interperson- al conflict and affective outcomes distinguishing between conflict types (task and relationship conflict) and source of social support (supervisor and co-work- er). Therefore, taking into account the importance of interpersonal relationships and social support for both the functioning and the well-being of employees in the context of small business, as well as previous research on interpersonal conflict at work, in this study our pur- pose is twofold. First, we aim to confirm that social support can attenuate the negative effects of interper-

sonal conflict to employees’ job satisfaction in the con- text of small business. Second, from a contingent per- spective, we aim to demonstrate that the perceived source of social support (i.e. supervisors or co-work- ers) will play a differential buffering role on the link between interpersonal conflict and job satisfaction contingent upon the type of conflict experienced (i.e. relationship or task conflict).

The moderating role of PSS

Previous evidence suggests that the content of employees’ interactions with their supervisors differ substantially from their interaction with co-workers due to differences in hierarchy, power bases, trust, physical proximity, amongst others (Ducharme & Martin, 2000). In this sense, a recent study highlighted the need for distinguishing between the sources of social support (i.e. supervisors and co-workers) in order to adequately analyze its influence on employ- ees’ well-being (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008).

PSS is defined in terms of the extent to which employees perceive their supervisor to be supportive of improving the quality of interpersonal relationships among group members (Levy, 1983). Evidence sug- gests that when levels of PSS are high, a supportive mentality is created leading to decreased interpersonal discrepancies and increased positive relationships among group members (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003). Likewise, Thomas, Bliese and Jex (2005) found that midlevel management support atten- uated the relationship between interpersonal conflict and continuance commitment. Moreover, it has been shown that supervisor intervention is one of the most frequently used coping strategies in intra-organization- al bulling, which consists of an escalated type of rela- tionship conflict (Ben-Zur & Yagil, 2005).

The positive influence of PSS might be particularly relevant in the context of small business because of the structure of such organizations, where employees are socially motivated, interpersonal relationships are key and control is highly centralized, carried out by means of informal mechanisms (Spence, 1999). In such con- texts, supervisors frequently have direct contact with each employee, which allow for the establishment of closer personal relationships between them. In fact, in some cases supervisors might even adopt the role of co-workers (Marlow & Patton, 2001). Moreover, the lack of highly structured processes for example in recruiting and selection, frequently allow supervisors to value more those potential candidates who are acquaintances to join the organization, such as friends and family members. As Spence (1999) points out, in such cases a feeling of loyalty and trust prevails for communication between supervisor and employees is usually more open and honest. Thus, in these contexts characterized by closer relationships between supervi-

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

INÉS MARTÍNEZ-CORTS, MARINA BOZ, FRANCISCO J. MEDINA, MIRIAM BENÍTEZ, AND LOURDES MUNDUATE 119

sors and employees, when an episode of relationship conflict among group members arises, it is considered legitimate for supervisors to intervene and attenuate the negative feelings involved. For instance, in situa- tions of relationship conflict, supervisors can manage to reduce personal discrepancies among employees and feelings of anxiety by implementing norms that limit the expression of inappropriate emotions (Ury, 1991). For all the reasons mentioned above, we pro- pose:

H1: PSS will buffer the negative link between rela- tionship conflict and job satisfaction, such that the higher the levels of PSS, the less negative this relation- ship will be.

The moderating role of PCS

PCS consists of the extent to which an employee perceives the provision of desirable resources by his or her co-workers, including task-directed helping (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975), co-worker mentoring (Ensher, Thomas, & Murphy, 2001), and friendliness or positive affect (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). As previously mentioned, in the context of small business due to less formalized struc- tures and resources available, often employees end up carrying out a variety of unexpected tasks for adapting to the demands of organizations. In such situations, the support of co-workers who have already developed similar tasks is of paramount importance for reducing role ambiguity. Furthermore, in such small business context, employees are usually more socially motivat- ed and tend to look for friendly relationships with col- leagues.

The support provided by co-workers differs from that provided by supervisors in many aspects. First, hierarchy places a different meaning to the relationship between supervisors and employees, because hierarchy is attributed to authority ranking as opposed to equali- ty matching (Fiske, 1992). Therefore, although in the context of small business the relationship between supervisors and employees are usually close, hierarchy still exists. On the contrary, because co-workers exchanges are based on reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) and turn-taking (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), employees tend to seek advice and help to carry out a task prima- rily from co-workers for their perceived similarity (Gibson, 2003; Morrison, 1993; Seers, 1989). Furthermore, the types of power attributed to supervi- sors and co-workers are also different and consequent- ly shape the perceptions of support provided by both. Supervisors have more formal power (i.e. strength) in hierarchical organizations such as small businesses, and are frequently charged with both legal and moral responsibility (French & Raven, 1959). On the other hand, experienced co-workers are more frequently per-

ceived as sources of reference and expert power (i.e. knowledge) (Tucker, Chmiel, Turner, Hershcovis, & Stride, 2008).

All in all, employees are more likely to interact with their co-workers (Ferris & Mitchell, 1987) for peer-to- peer communication is most of the times more salient than communication with supervisors (Westaby & Lowe, 2005). Thus, issues such as how to carry out certain tasks are more likely to be raised and discussed among co-workers because of their close proximity to the same problems. In collaborative and supportive contexts, some authors have pointed out that argu- ments about working procedures (i.e. task conflict) are less likely to lead to negative consequences (Simons & Peterson, 2000). As Jehn and Shah (1997) indicate, the existence of friendship between group members seems to be related to improved communication channels, which in turn influences the creative resolution of con- flicts and increases group members’ commitment. Following these arguments, we propose:

H2: PCS will buffer the negative link between task conflict and job satisfaction, such that the higher the levels of PCS, the less negative this relationship will be.

Method

Participants and procedure

A public organization provided us with access to the sample composed by employees from small business- es in the province of Seville (Andalucia, Spain). After receiving proper training, assistants from this organi- zation applied the questionnaires to volunteer partici- pants in small businesses from all the different eco- nomic sectors found in the province of Seville: Mining and quarrying; manufacturing; repair and installation of machinery and equipments; electricity, gas and water supply; retail trade and repair of vehicles; hotels and restaurants; transport, storage and communication; financial intermediation; real state, renting and busi- ness activities; education; health and social work; other community, social and personal service activi- ties; and private households with employed persons. The anonymity of employees and their corresponding work organization was guaranteed.

The study involved 288 participants (167 female, 121 male), on average age of 35.41 years old (SD = 6.88), 83.9% of whom worked in organizations with less than 10 employees and 16.31% worked in organizations with between 11 and 50 employees. About half of the partic- ipants (64.1%) received higher education (university or vocational education) while 55.9% had only completed lower education (primary and secondary school). Regarding the job position distribution, 61.2% were blue-collars, 30.8% middle-management and only 8.0% of participants were in upper-level management posi-

120 COPING WITH INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT IN SMALL BUSINESS

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

tions or other. Finally, the average organizational tenure was 10.56 years (range 0 - 48, SD = 7.83).

Measures

All reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha val- ues) for the measures used are reported in Table 1.

Relationship conflict. It was used a Spanish version of the Cox’s (1998) 5-item “Organizational Conflict Scale” to assess relationship conflict, adapted by Medina et al. (2005). One sample item is: “The atmos- phere here is often charged with hostility”. Each item was cast on a 4-point response format (1 = strongly dis- agree, 4 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the level of relationship conflict experienced.

Task conflict. It was used a Spanish version of the Jehn’s (1995) 4-item scale for measuring task conflict, adapted by Medina, Munduate, Dorado, Martínez, and Guerra (2005). One sample item is: ‘‘People you work with often have different opinions about the work being done’’. Each item was cast on a 4-point response format (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the level of task conflict experienced.

Perceived supervisor support (PSS). It was used the validated Spanish version of the supervisor social sup- port scale component of the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek, 1985). One sample item is: “My supervisor is helpful in getting the job done”. Each item was cast on a 4-point response format (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the level of perceived supervisor support.

Perceived co-worker support (PCS). It was used the validated Spanish version of the co-worker social sup- port scale component of the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek, 1985). One sample item is: “People I work with take a personal interest in me”. Each item was cast on a 4-point response format (1 = strongly dis- agree, 4 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the level of perceived co-worker support.

Job satisfaction. It was used a 5-item Spanish ver- sion from the “Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire” (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1965) adapted to Spanish by Peiró et al. (1993). This scale measures employee’s level of satisfaction with some extrinsic aspects of their jobs (e.g. salary and supervision), as

well as their general levels of job satisfaction. One sample item is: “Overall, how satisfied are you with your job?”. Each item was cast on a 5-point response format (1 = not satisfied, 5 = very satisfied).

Results

Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients and Pearson correlations of the study vari- ables. As presented in Table 1, alpha values for each scale exceeded the cut-off point of .70 suggested by Nunally (1978), so the reliability coefficients of our measures were good to excellent. In Table 1, several significant correlations can be observed. In general, effect sizes were moderate (Cohen, 1988). Notably, the relationship between relationship and task conflict was moderately positive (r = .36, p < .01), which suggests discriminant validity between the two types of conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). As expected, relationship conflict was negatively related to job satisfaction (r = -.40, p < .05). Surprisingly, task conflict and job satisfaction share a small non-significant negative relationship (r = -.09, n.s.); this result is further discussed. On the other hand, both PSS and PCS are positively related to job satisfac- tion (PSS, r = .56, p < .01; PCS, r = .38, p < .01), and notably the correlation between PSS and job satisfaction was the strongest found in our study (Cohen, 1988).

Before testing our hypotheses, we examined whether several demographics affected our study vari- ables. For this aim, we conducted three ANOVAs on relationship conflict, task conflict, supervisor support and co-worker support, including gender, educational level and job position as factors (post-hoc analyses were conducted using Bonferroni t tests). We found differences for task conflict and job satisfaction only. Specifically, we found that men perceived more task conflict than women (F (1, 283) = 4. 06, p < .05; Male M = 2.47, SD = .73 vs. Female M = 2.29, SD = .77), and that employees in blue-collar and middle-manage- ment job positions reported less job satisfaction than employees in upper-level management positions (F (1, 277) = 3. 52, p < .05; Blue-collar M = 3.18, SD = .69; Middle-management M = 3.18, SD = .68; vs. Upper- level management M = 3.70, SD = .71). Thus, for test- ing our hypotheses we controlled for these two demo- graphics (see Tables 2 and 3).

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

INÉS MARTÍNEZ-CORTS, MARINA BOZ, FRANCISCO J. MEDINA, MIRIAM BENÍTEZ, AND LOURDES MUNDUATE 121

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients and Pearson Correlations for the Study Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Relationship conflict 1.70 0.76 (.89) 2. Task conflict 2.36 0.76 .36** (.83) 3. PSS 2.81 0.89 -.42** -.16** (.90) 4. PCS 3.38 0.64 -.33** -.09 .47** (.86) 5. Job satisfaction 3.22 0.70 -.40** -.09 .56** .38** (.70)

Note: PCS = Perceived co-worker support; PSS = Refers to perceived supervisor support. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) are listed in the diagonal. **p < .01 (two-tailed); *p < .05 (two-tailed).

In order to test our hypotheses, we conducted two separate hierarchical regression analysis for our aim was to estimate the unique contribution of each type of conflict (relationships vs. task) and the associated per- ceived source of support (PSS vs. PCS) in relation to employees’ job satisfaction. In order to reduce multi- collinearity effects, all variables used to compute the regression equations were mean centered, for both esti- mating the main effects as well as the interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991).

Our hypothesis 1 suggested that PSS would moder- ate the negative link between relationship conflict and job satisfaction. The results of a hierarchical regres- sion analysis are displayed in Table 2. As can be observed, in step 1 gender and job position were entered as controls. In step 2, mean centered scores for relationship conflict and PSS were entered for estimat- ing main effects on job satisfaction, which yielded 36% of explained variance. Confirming our expecta- tions, the higher the levels of relationship conflict experienced, the less the levels of job satisfaction reported (β = -.20, p < .001), while in contrary, the higher the levels of PSS, the higher the levels of job satisfaction (β = .47, p < .001). In step 3, the interac- tion term between relationship conflict and PSS was entered, which yielded a total of 38% of explained variance for job satisfaction (β = .14, p < .01). In order to test for the significance of the slope for this interac- tion term, we computed a simple slope test following

the procedure of Cohen and Cohen (1983). Accordingly, the interaction term was significant for both high levels as well as low levels of the modera- tor, i.e. at three SD above the mean level (PSS = 5.48, p < .05) and three SD below (PSS = 0.14, p < .05). Finally, as can be seen in Figure 1, job satisfaction increases when relationship conflict is combined with high levels of PSS and decreases when relationship conflict is combined with low levels of PSS.

As for hypothesis 2, we suggested that PCS would moderate the negative link between task conflict and job satisfaction. The results of the corresponding hier- archical regression analysis are displayed in Table 3. As can be observed, in step 1 gender and job position were entered as controls. In step 2, mean centered scores for task conflict and PCS were entered for esti- mating main effects on job satisfaction, which yielded 17% of explained variance. Contrary to our expecta- tions, task conflict was not directly related to job satis- faction (β = -.08, n.s.). In turn, the higher the levels of PCS, the higher the levels of job satisfaction reported (β = .38, p < .001), which accounted for 35% of explained variance for job satisfaction in step 2. In step 3, the interaction term between task conflict and PCS was entered, which yielded a total of 19% of explained variance for job satisfaction (β = .12, p < .05). In order to test for the significance of the slope for this interac- tion term, we computed a simple slope test following the procedure of Cohen and Cohen (1983). Accor-

122 COPING WITH INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT IN SMALL BUSINESS

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

Table 2. Effect of Relationship Conflict on Job Satisfaction Moderated by Perceived Supervisor Support

Variable B SE B β R2 ∆R2 ∆F

Step 1 .02 .02 2.71 Gender -.04 .07 -.03 Job position .10 .05 .10*

Step 2 .36 .34 73.12***

RC -.14 .05 -.15**

PSS .36 .04 .45***

Step 3 .38 .02 6.86**

RC x PSS .12 .05 .14**

Note: Final coefficients provided for Step 3. RC = Relationship conflict; PSS = Perceived supervisor support. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Table 3. Effect of Task Conflict on Job Satisfaction Moderated by Perceived Co-worker Support

Variable B SE B β R2 ∆R2 ∆F

Step 1 .02 .02 2.74 Gender -.06 .08 -.04 Job position .17 .06 .16**

Step 2 .17 .15 25.42***

TC -.06 .05 -.07 PCS .42 .06 .39***

Step 3 .19 .02 4.94*

TC x PCS .17 .08 .12*

Note: Final coefficients provided for Step 3. PCS = Perceived co-worker support; TC = Task conflict; ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

dingly, the interaction term was significant for medium to high levels of the moderator, i.e. at mean level (PCS = 3.38, p < .05) and one SD above the mean level (PCS = 4.02, p < .05). Finally, as can be seen in Figure 2, job satisfaction increases when task conflict is combined with high levels of PCS.

Following the procedure and parameters established by Cohen (1992), we calculated the effect sizes for the proportion of variance explained by the two estimated models hypothesized for explaining employees’ job satisfaction. Accordingly, we confirmed that the effect size for the model estimating job satisfaction from relationship conflict, PSS and the interaction between both (R2 = .38; f2 = .61) is significantly larger than that of the model encompassing task conflict and PCS and the respective interactive term (R2 = .19; f2 = .23), which is regarded a medium effect size.

Discussion

In this study, our aim was to analyze the relationship between two types of interpersonal conflict at work (relationship and task conflict) and job satisfaction in the context of small business, focusing on the buffer- ing role that different sources of social support (super- visors and co-workers) may play in this relationship depending on the type of conflict experienced. Adopting such a contingent perspective our main find- ings show that, first, PSS buffers the link between rela- tionship conflict and job satisfaction while PCS mod- erates the link between task conflict and job satisfac- tion, and second, that the model estimating the influ- ence of PSS and relationship conflict is relatively more important for predicting employees’ job satisfaction than the model that relates PCS and task conflict with

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

INÉS MARTÍNEZ-CORTS, MARINA BOZ, FRANCISCO J. MEDINA, MIRIAM BENÍTEZ, AND LOURDES MUNDUATE 123

Figure 1. Interaction Effect of Relationship Conflict and PSS on Job Satisfaction

Figure 2. Interaction Effect of Task Conflict and PCS on Job Satisfaction

the same outcome. All in all, our study makes a few contributions to research on small businesses and interpersonal conflict at work, two streams that tradi- tionally have been developed separately, and finally highlight important practical implications for the field of Human Resource Management.

As expected, our results confirm the detrimental effect of relationship conflict on job satisfaction, in line with a number of studies that showed that relation- ship conflict decreases employees’ well-being, includ- ing job satisfaction and burnout (Benítez et al., 2008; Boz et al., 2009; De Dreu et al., 2004). Relationship conflicts are synonyms of interpersonal animosity or annoyance among group members (Jehn, 1995; 1997), and are related to negative feelings of frustration and anxiety (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). In this sense, relation- ship conflicts happen to create feelings of non-belong- ingness and exclusion among group members, which in turn lead to decreased job satisfaction (Boz et al., 2009; Medina et al., 2005). As previously mentioned, in the context of small business, it is crucial for mem- bers to share similar values (Lansberg, 1998) for such personal discrepancies may cause members to feel excluded and therefore less satisfied with their jobs.

One remarkable finding relates to the moderating role of supervisor support on the negative link between relationship conflict and job satisfaction. In the context of small business, we found that when levels of PSS are high, relationship conflict does not hinder employ- ees’ job satisfaction. This finding is in line with those studies that found supervisors to be the most important source of social support when discrepancies at work escalate and relate to personal differences, due to their hierarchical position that in turn allow them to neutral- ize employees’ complaints as well as help them in get- ting appropriate support (Boz et al., 2009; Shaw, Robertson, Pransky, & McLellan, 2003). This finding might be contingent upon the specific context of small business and therefore requires further investigation. In this sense, such finding opens a very interesting line for future research on the differentiation between sources of social support within small businesses. As previously mentioned, supervisors play a very salient role in small businesses because most of the times, owners are also the ones responsible for coordinating the work very closely and for disseminating the values and ideas all employees are expected to share.

Notably in our study, task conflict is not directly (positive or negative) related to job satisfaction. However, when employees perceive high levels of co- worker support, this type of conflict becomes posi- tively related to job satisfaction. These results are in line with previous studies (Jehn, 1997; Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, & Trochim, 2011) and give support for the contingent perspective in recent conflict man- agement research (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Illies et al., 2010). According to such perspective, task conflict does not necessarily increase or decrease employees’

satisfaction (Behfar et al., 2008), but depending on contextual factors, a commonly expected negative effect of task conflict on affective variables such as job satisfaction or well-being could actually reverse and become positive (Benítez, Medina, & Munduate, 2011; Guerra et al., 2005; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Medina, Munduate, Martínez, Dorado, & Mañas, 2004; Tjosvold, 2008). Cooperation among group members for managing all types of conflict in a posi- tive manner was suggested by Chen, Liu and Tjosvold (2005), as key to build constructive controversy. Likewise, integration and problem solving have been considered two positive outcomes stemming from the learning process employees go through when manag- ing conflicts at work (van de Vliert, Euwema, & Huismaus, 1995).

Specifically in our study, we found that high levels of co-worker support contribute to increase employ- ees’ job satisfaction in task conflict situations. This result is consistent with the findings of other research that found task conflict to be beneficial for employ- ees when it takes place in positive contexts, charac- terized by high levels of trust between parties (Tjosvold, 2008). In the context of small business, employees are more socially motivated and collabo- ration among co-workers happens frequently, both for seeking help to achieve goals as well as solving discrepancies when task conflict arises. PCS is based on collaboration and trust (Lau & Linden, 2008), which help employees to face task conflict for the provision of task-directed helping (Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrinson, & Pinneau, 1975) and co- worker mentoring (Ensher et al., 2001). Importantly, PCS and interpersonal trust facilitate social exchange relationships (Blau, 1964), so that when co-workers trust one another, they are more willing to help and offer support because they know that their colleagues are likely to reciprocate such support in the future (Gouldner, 1960). In such occasions, to successfully manage task conflicts may increase employees’ job satisfaction due to the positive feelings derived from having worked together in a team to overcome diffi- culties.

Remarkably, our results show that the link between relationship conflict and PSS is more powerful in explaining employees’ job satisfaction than task con- flict and PCS together. Once more, this finding can be attributed to the particular dynamics of small business- es, characterized by simple structures, prevailing social motivation and highly centralized mechanisms of control (Mintzberg, 1980). As previously men- tioned, in small businesses, good and fluid interperson- al relationships are key to maintain high levels of well- being among employees not only for the high impor- tance attributed to positive relationships in such con- texts, but also for the degree of trust and cooperation required when employees have to constantly perform different tasks. Noteworthy, this finding is consonant

124 COPING WITH INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT IN SMALL BUSINESS

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

with previous research that has consistently demon- strated that relationship conflict exerts a stronger influ- ence on employees’ well-being than does task conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Furthermore, in such contexts, supervisors play a more salient role in influ- encing employees’ attitudes and behaviors than co- workers, for their closeness in relationships but yet representation of authority and power. In this sense, the support provided by supervisors are likely to be per- ceived as more valuable and unique than that provided by co-workers, whom in such contexts are frequently quite similar both in hierarchy and distribution of tasks. Therefore, we believe that the unique link between relationship conflict and PSS with employ- ees’ job satisfaction in the context of small business makes the interaction between both aspects a more important antecedent of job satisfaction than task con- flict and PCS.

Finally, another interesting finding consists of the rel- atively low levels of task and relationship conflict reported in our study. One possible explanation for this result is that small businesses are most of the times fam- ily-owned organizations where members tend to devel- op similar interests and perspectives in such a way that consensus in relation to a variety of issues is frequently achieved. In this regard, it has been found that homo- geneity among employees can contribute to reduce gen- eral levels of perceived conflict at work (Davis & Haverston, 2001). Insofar, as our results show, the neg- ative consequences of relationship conflict can still be quite salient even when experienced in relatively low levels, especially due to the importance attributed to social relationships in the context of small business.

All in all, although a number of previous studies have analyzed the effects of conflict on employees, most of them have been conducted in large organiza- tions or using students’ samples. To our knowledge, this is the first study to address the specific context of small business. For a number of reasons, small busi- nesses are very different from large organizations in nature and dynamics, which consequently influence (as this study demonstrates) the type and prevalence of interpersonal conflicts that are experienced in such organizations.

Limitations and future research

Despite its contributions, the present study has methodological limitations that need to be discussed. First, this study uses a cross-sectional design and there- fore cannot provide information about causality concern- ing the relationship between conflict types and job satis- faction. As recently pointed out, longitudinal designs are still lacking for much of the research on conflict types and well-being in general (Greer, Jehn, & Mannix, 2008). Importantly, conflict research has shown that con- flict is a process that unfolds over time (Wall & Callister,

1995) and suggests that it has more negative than posi- tive consequences for employees’ well-being in the short run than over time (Peterson & Behfar, 2003). Moreover, there is evidence that not only conflict affects well-being but also low levels of well-being may promote more con- flict at the workplace (De Dreu et al., 2004). In this sense, we believe that the use of longitudinal designs could contribute to a more accurate understanding of how conflict types influence well-being over time (or vice versa) and which specific role different sources of social support may play in these relationships.

Second, although many researchers emphasize rela- tionship and task conflict, another relevant type of con- flict that could have been included in our study is the process conflict (Greer et al., 2008), defined as “dis- agreements about assignments of duties and resources” (Jehn, 1997, p. 540). Nevertheless, recent research sug- gests that the existing measure for this type of conflict still requires further development as it failed to demon- strate discriminant validity from that used to capture task conflict (Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, & Trochim, 2011).

Third, as all study variables were collected from the same source, there is a potential risk for common- method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsa- koff, 2003). However, we know that common-method bias is a less compelling causal explanation when mod- erating effects are found (Evans, 1985). Moreover, we have used person-centered scores for interactive effect analyses, therefore eliminating the influence of indi- vidual differences in response tendencies that typically inflate relationships between self-rated scores (Illies et al., 2010).

Finally, in this study we have used a general social support measure, that does not distinguish between social support types. We believe for future studies it would be also worth exploring how different types of support at work (emotional, informational and materi- al) provided from different sources (supervisors and co-workers) moderate the relationship between con- flict types and employees’ job satisfaction.

References

Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing net- works. The Academy of Management Executive, 17, 64- 77. DOI: 10.5465/AME.2003.11851845

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdepen- dence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 33-52. DOI:10.1006/obhd.1998.2748

Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Barnett, T. & Kellermanns, F. W. (2006). Are we family? Nonfamily employees’ perception of justice in the family

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

INÉS MARTÍNEZ-CORTS, MARINA BOZ, FRANCISCO J. MEDINA, MIRIAM BENÍTEZ, AND LOURDES MUNDUATE 125

firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 837- 854. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540 6520.2006.00155.x

Benítez, M., Guerra, J. M, Medina, F. J., Martínez, I., & Munduate, L. (2008). Consequences of conflict between supervisors and subordinates on employees’ well-being. Psychologica, 47, 29-42.

Benítez, M., Medina, F. J., & Munduate, L. (2011). El estu- dio del conflicto en los equipos de trabajo. Una visión de las contribuciones científicas realizadas en España. Papeles del Psicólogo, 32, 69-81. Available from: http://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/vernumero.asp?id=19 20

Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170-188. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170

Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. (2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42, 127-176. DOI: 10.1177/1046496410389194

Ben-Zur, H. & Yagil, D. (2005). The relationship between empowerment, aggressive behaviours of customers, cop- ing, and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 81-99. DOI:10.1080/ 13594320444000281

Bernhard, F. & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2011). Psychological own- ership in small family-owned businesses: Leadership style and nonfamily employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 36, 345- 384. DOI: 10.1177/1059601111402684

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

Boz, M., Martínez-Corts, I., & Munduate, L. (2009). Breaking negative consequences of relationship conflicts at work: The moderating role of work family enrichment and supervisor support. Journal of Work and Organiza- tional Psychology, 25, 113-122. Retrived from: http://www.copmadrid.org/webcopm/resource.do?recur- so=3000/&numero=20090729125919531000

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R., Jr. (1975). Job demands and work- er health: Main effects and occupational differences. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Chen, G. Q., Liu, C. H., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Conflict management for effective top management teams and innovation in china. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 277-300. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00497.x

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta- nalysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082- 1103. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (2003). Succession and non-succession concerns of family firms and agency relationship with nonfamily managers. Family Business

Review, 16, 89-107. DOI: 10. 1111/j.1741-6248.2003. 00089.x

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regres- sion/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, S. & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310- 357. Ddoi: 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

Cox, K. B. (1998). Antecedents and effects of intergroup conflict in the nursing unit. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. U.S.A.

Davis, P. S. & Harveston, P. D. (2001). The phenomenon of substantive conflict in the family firm: A cross-genera- tional study. Journal of Small Business Management, 39, 14-30. DOI: 10.1111/0447-2778.00003

De Dreu, C. K. W., van Dierendonck, D., & Dijkstra, M. T. (2004). Looking back, looking ahead: Conflict at work and individual health and well-being. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 1-18. DOI: 10.1108/eb022905

De Dreu, C. K. W. & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team mem- ber satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010. 88.4.741

Dodd, S. D. (2011). Mapping work-related stress and health in the context of the family firm. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 12, 29-38. DOI: 10.5367/ijei.2011.0023

Dodge, H., Fullerton, S., & Robbins, J. (1994). Stage of the organizational life cycle and competition as mediators of problem perception for small businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 121-134. DOI: 10.1002/smj. 4250150204

Ducharme, L. J. & Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, coworker support, and job satisfaction: A test of the buffering hypothesis. Work and Occupations, 27, 223- 243. DOI:10.1177/0730888400027002005

Ensher, E. A., Thomas, C., & Murphy, S. E. (2001). Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and peer mentor- ing on protégés’ support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career success: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 419-438. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/i25092727

Eurostat. (2008). Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) - main findings [data file]. Retrieved from http://epp.euro- stat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/european_business/do cuments/Size%20class%20analysis_1.pdf

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regres- sion analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305-323. DOI: 10.1016/0749- 5978(85)90002-0

126 COPING WITH INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT IN SMALL BUSINESS

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

Ferris, G. R. & Mitchell, T. R. (1987). The components of social influence and their importance for human resources research. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, (Vol. 5, pp. 103-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management, 11, 39-53. DOI:10.1177/014920638501100304

Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723. DOI: 10.1037/0033- 295X.99.4.689

Gibson, D. E. (2003). Developing the professional self-con- cept: Role model construals in early, middle, and late career stages. Organization Science, 14, 591-610. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.14.5.591.16767

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A prelimi- nary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161- 178. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2092623

Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008) Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation of the rela- tionship between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39, 278-302. DOI: 10.1177/1046496408317793

Guerra, J. M., Martínez-Corts, I., Munduate, L., & Medina, F.J. (2005). A contigency perspective in the study of the consequences of conflict types: The role of organization- al culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 157-176. DOI:10.1080/13594320444 000245

Hackman, J. R. & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 8). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Haines, V. A., Hurlbert, J. S., & Zimmer, C. (1991). Occupational stress, social support, and the buffer hypothesis. Work and Occupations, 18, 212-235. DOI:10.1177/0730888491018002005

Haney, B. & Dundon, T. (2006). Capturing complexity: Developing an integrated approach to analysing HRM in SMEs. Human Resource Management Journal, 16, 48- 73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2006.00004.x

Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2003). Con- sequences of feeling dissimilar from others in a work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 301-325. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022837207241

Hodson, R. & Sullivan, T. A. (1985). Totem or tyrant? Monopoly, regional, and local sector effects on work commitment. Social Forces, 63, 716-731. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2578488

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356. DOI: 10.1037/0021- 9010.92.5.1332

Ilies, R., Johnson, M. D., Judge, T. A., & Keeney, J. (2010). A within-individual study of interpersonal conflict as a work stressor: Dispositional and situational moderators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 44-64. DOI: 10.1002/job.677

Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: an investiga- tion of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223-238. DOI: 10.1108/eb022744

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the bene- fits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393638

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393737

Jehn, K. A. & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict- outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187-242. DOI:10.1016/S0191-3085(03) 25005-X

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287-305. DOI: 10.1108/eb022799

Jehn, K. A. & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group perfomance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2, 238-251. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/sta- ble/3069453

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2667054

Jehn, K. A. & Shah, P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775-790. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.775

Karasek, R. A. (1985). Job Content Instrument: Question- naire and User’s Guide. Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts.

Karasek, R. A., Triantis, K., & Chaudhry, S. (1982). Co-wor- ker and supervisor support as moderators of associations between task characteristics and mental strain. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 3, 147-160. DOI: 10.1002/job. 4030030205

Karckhardt, D. & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71, 104-111. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/product/infor- mal-networks-the-company-behind-the-chart/an/93406- PDF-ENG

Kelley, H. H. & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

Lansberg, I. (1998). Succeding Generations. Realizing the

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

INÉS MARTÍNEZ-CORTS, MARINA BOZ, FRANCISCO J. MEDINA, MIRIAM BENÍTEZ, AND LOURDES MUNDUATE 127

Dream of Families in Business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lau, D. C., Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders’ blessings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1130-1138. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1130

Marlow, S. & Patton, D. (2001). Minding the gap between employers and employees: the challenge for owner-man- agers of smaller manufacturing firms. Employee Relations, 24, 523-539. DOI: 10.1108/01425450210443294

Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martínez, I., & Guerra, J. M. (2005). Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 219-230. DOI: 10.1108/02683940510589019

Medina, F. J., Dorado, M. A., Munduate, L., Martínez, I., & Mañas, M. A. (2004). Efectos positivos de la activación del conflicto de tareas sobre el clima de los equipos de trabajo. Revista de Psicología Social, 19, 3-15. DOI: 10.1174/021347404322726526

Ministerio de Turismo, Industria y Comercio. (2008). Observatorio Industrial.

Ministerio de Turismo, Industria y Comercio. (2010). Estadísticas PYME. Availabe from http://estadisticas. ipyme.org/Empresas/Informes/EstadisticasAnio.aspx

Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’S: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26, 322-341. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.26.3.322

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557-589. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256592

Morgeson, F. P. & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a com- prehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321- 1339. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

Ng, T. W. H. & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group and Organization Management, 33, 243-268. DOI: 10.1177/ 1059601107313307

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Park, K.,Wilson, M. G., &. Lee, M. S. (2004). Effects of social support at work on depression and organizational productivity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28, 444-455. Retrived from http://png.publisher.ingentacon- nect.com/content/png/ajhb/2004/00000028/00000005/art 00007

Peiró, J. M., Prieto, F., Bravo, M. J., Ripoll, P., Rodríguez, I., Hontangas, P., & Salanova, M. (1993). Los jóvenes ante el primer empleo: El significado del trabajo y su medida. Valencia: NAU Llibres.

Peterson, R. S. & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relation- ship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 102-112. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00090-6

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff,

N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recom- mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Putnam, L. L. (1994). Beyond third party role: Disputes and managerial intervention. Employees Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7, 23-36. DOI: 10.1007/BF02621058

Rollinson, D. (2002). Organisational Behavior. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

Shaw, W. S., Robertson, M. M., Pransky, G., & McLellan, R. K. (2003). Employee perspectives on the role of supervi- sor to prevent workplace disability after injuries. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 13, 129-142. DOI:10.1023/A:1024997000505

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118-135. DOI:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5

Simons, T. L. & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The piv- otal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111. DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010. 85.1.102

Sims, H. P. Jr., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195-212. DOI: 10.2307/ 255772

Spence, L. J. (1999). Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8, 163-174. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8608.00144

Stephens, C. & Long, N. (2000). Comunication with police supervisors and peers as a buffer of work-related traumat- ic stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 407- 424. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200006)21:4<407:: AID-JOB17>3.0.CO;2-N

Tidd, S. T., McIntyre, H. H., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). The importance of role ambiguity and trust in conflict percep- tion: Unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict linkage. The International Journal of Conflict Manage- ment, 15, 364-380. DOI: 10.1108/eb022918

Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 19-28. DOI: 10.1002/job.473

Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. (2005). Interpersonal conflict and organizational commitment: Examining two levels of supervisory support as multilevel moderators. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2375-2398. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02107.x

Tucker, S., Chmiel, N., Turner, N., Hershcovis, S., & Stride, C. B. (2008). Perceived organizational support for safety and employee safety voice: The mediating role of coworker support for safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 319-330. DOI: 10.1037/1076- 8998.13.4.319

Ury, W. L. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. New York, NY: Bantam.

Van Rooy, D. L., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Additional questions still unan-

128 COPING WITH INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT IN SMALL BUSINESS

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

swered. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 149-153. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01216.x

Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superi- or: Effectiveness of conglomerated behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 271-281. DOI: 10.1037/0021- 9010.80.2.271

Villanueva, D. & Djurkovic, N. (2009). Occupational stress and intention to leave among employees in small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Stress Management, 16, 124-137. DOI: 10.1037/a0015710

Wall, J. A., Jr. & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21, 515-558. DOI: 10.1177/014920639502100306

Wallace, J. E. & Kay, F. M. (2009). Are small firms more beautiful or is bigger better? A study of compensating dif- ferentials and law firm internal labor markets. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 474-496. DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01149.x

Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1965). Construct validation studies of the Minnesota importance questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 18, 1-76.

Westaby, J. D. & Lowe, J. K. (2005). Risk-taking orientation and injury among youth workers: Examining the social influence of supervisors, coworkers, and parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1027-1035. DOI: 10.1037/ 0021-9010.90.5.1027

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Vol. 27, n.° 2, 2011 - Págs. 117-129

INÉS MARTÍNEZ-CORTS, MARINA BOZ, FRANCISCO J. MEDINA, MIRIAM BENÍTEZ, AND LOURDES MUNDUATE 129

Manuscript Received: 20/01/2011 Revision Received: 18/04/2011

Accepted: 26/04/2011

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