122

International Journal of Conflict Management
Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance

and conflict
Nailah Ayub, Suzan M. AlQurashi, Wafa A. Al-Yafi, Karen Jehn,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nailah Ayub, Suzan M. AlQurashi, Wafa A. Al-Yafi, Karen Jehn, (2017) "Personality traits and conflict
management styles in predicting job performance and conflict", International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 28 Issue: 5, pp.671-694, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-12-2016-0105
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 23:15 13 November 2017 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-12-2016-0105
Downloaded on: 13 November 2017, At: 23:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 125 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 617 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Leadership styles: relationship with conflict management styles", International
Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 25 Iss 3 pp. 214-225 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJCMA-12-2012-0091">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-12-2012-0091</a>
(1998),"RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY FACTORS AND CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT STYLES", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 9 Iss 4 pp. 336-355 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022814">https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022814</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm
Predicting job
Personality traits and conict performance
management styles in predicting and conict
job performance and conict

Nailah Ayub, Suzan M. AlQurashi and Wafa A. Al-Yafi 671
King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and
Received 1 February 2017
Karen Jehn Revised 19 April 2017
Accepted 31 May 2017
Business Administration, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose Personality differences may be a major reason of conict, as well as the perception of conict and
preference for handling that conict. This study aims to explore the role of personality traits in determining
conict and performance. The authors also studied the moderated mediated relationship between personality
and performance through conict and conict management styles.
Design/methodology/approach A eld survey was conducted with a sample of 153 employees to test
the hypotheses.
Findings As hypothesized, agreeable persons perceive less conict and extraverts are more likely to use
integrating, obliging, compromising and avoiding styles. Emotionally stable people opt for integrating style
whereas neurotics opt for dominating style. Conscientiousness, openness and emotional stability have a direct
effect on performance, but the interactions between conict and conict management styles determine the
relationship between personality traits and performance.
Research limitations/implications The cross-sectional nature of data and somewhat reliable
coefcients for personality measures reduce condence in the results. Future research should use different or
multiple measures of personality. Personality traits may be explored in view of the degree of each personality
trait or interactions between personality traits.
Practical implications People are sensitive about engaging in conict and handling conict differently
because of their personality characteristics. The personality traits should, therefore, be understood and
considered for conict experience, conict management and performance.
Originality/value The paper adds to management research by investigating the relationship between
personality traits, conicts, conict management styles and performance.
Keywords Performance, Personality, Perception, Work, Conict, Conict management style
Paper type Research paper
Employees enter and affect their workplace with unique personality characteristics.
Personality characteristics may actually be more of a reason one has been employed,
compared to credentials. Personality research has endeavored to explain and predict
behavior of persons according to their personalities. Organizations are depending more on
workgroups and teams for accomplishing their objectives, as they evolve and strive to be
more sophisticated and multifaceted. These workgroups comprise members that bring in
International Journal of Conict

This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientic Research (DSR) at King Abdulaziz University, Management
Vol. 28 No. 5, 2017
Jeddah, under grant no. G 114-245-34. The authors, therefore, acknowledge and thank DSR for pp. 671-694
technical and nancial support. The authors are grateful to Raq and Ayub for their assistance in Emerald Publishing Limited
1044-4068
data collection. DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-12-2016-0105
IJCMA their unique individual differences. Organizational research seeks to understand these
28,5 individual differences to understand group dynamics and processes. Personality
characteristics, innate dispositions or learnt qualities are an integral and distinct part of
every individual, which encompass and instigate a number of group processes. Personality
characteristics can inuence perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, motivation and behavior
preferences and several aspects of workgroup processes and performance. Personality has
672 been dened in a number of ways, and a whole eld of personality psychology has been
dedicated to the study of personality. Big Five personality trait theory introduced a robust
method to study personality quantitatively. Organizational research has also realized the
importance of individual differences and the effects of personality characteristics.
Along with individual differences, another inevitable group process is conict. It takes
two to tangle; that is, when two persons interact, they are likely to experience disagreements
and incompatibilities. Which two persons will get along and which two will not? Personality
traits can describe who is more likely to perceive conict and how that conict will be
managed. Organizational studies, however, are yet to reach a comprehensive understanding
of the relationship between personality and conict. Although personality helps critically in
determining interpersonal interactions (Barrick and Mount, 2005), personality traits have
often failed to nd a signicant place in empirical studies (Hogan, 2005). Lack of sufcient
pragmatic information specically in management research led us to conduct this study and
investigate how personality determines conict at work. This study focuses on Big Five
personality traits in relation to conict and conict management styles (CMSs) toward an
understanding of conict management and performance.
Research studies have studied the relationship between personality and conict (Bolger
and Zuckerman, 1995; Suls et al., 1998), but conict was not one of the main variables of
concern. It is interesting that any research available on personality with reference to conict
starts with a denition of conict, but it then moves to a study of conict resolution or
management styles without studying the personality to conict connection, or the tendency
to perceive conict (Bono et al., 2002). Although conict management cannot be understood
completely without considering whether and what type of conict people perceive, we found
only a handful of studies that considered the relationship between personality and conict.
Bono et al. (2002) also noted that research has attempted to explain the different group- or
interpersonal-level results for conict types without considering the individuals involved.
Traits may also explain why some people tend to perceive any conict and whether they
perceive more or less conict compared to other people. That is, we can explain conict
asymmetry in view of personality traits. Conict is dened as incompatible perceptions
among at least two parties (Wall and Callister, 1995). Jehn (1997) distinguished three types of
conicts. Task conict is arguments about work-based issues, relationship conict is
interpersonal clashes and process conict is disagreement over logistics (time and resources
distribution). Conict asymmetry means perceiving conict differently, that is, an issue may
be perceived as more or less conicting by members of a workgroup. Conict asymmetry
has been proposed as more important than conict (Jehn and Chatman, 2000; Jehn et al.,
2010). Conict asymmetry itself may be disturbing for the group members. However, we
need to understand why people perceive conict differently and who has the tendency to
perceive an issue more conicting than another. For this understanding, we will investigate
the relationship between personality traits and conict perception.
Choice of a CMS may also be predicted by personality traits (Antonioni, 1998; Moberg,
2001; Rahim, 1983; Van de Vliert and Euwema, 1994). The ve CMSs proposed by Rahim
(1983) include integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising. Conict
management has been studied at the group or organizational level, mainly in the
supervisor subordinate relationship for the top-down management. We focused on the Predicting job
conict management orientations or styles of individuals as how individuals intent to performance
handle conict determines their interpersonal or intragroup interaction and even and conict
performance (Tjosvold et al., 2014). Accordingly, we study the relationship between
personality traits and performance of individual workers where we propose that personality
traits determine the conict experience, as well as the choice of a CMS. The CMSs are also
expected to moderate the relationship between conict and performance. This will help us 673
understand which CMSs will be more effective while dealing with a certain conict and
efforts to increase performance. Subsequently, we propose a moderated mediated
relationship between personality and performance as shown in Figure 1. In our study model,
conict is a mediator between personality and performance, while CMS moderates the
relationship between conict and performance.
Personality traits and perception of conict

The Big Five personality trait theory is one of the theories that has been successful at
predicting behavior consistently in the workplace (Paunonen and Ashton, 2001). According
to the Big Five personality theory, there are ve personality traits (Cattell and Mead, 2008;
Costa and McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1989; Goldberg, 1982). The ve factors include
extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness and neuroticism that are
described through a number of constituent traits (Atkinson et al., 2000). For example,
conscientiousness is described as self-discipline and achievement-orientation, extraversion
as stimulation-seeking, openness as intellectual and creative, agreeableness as friendliness
and neuroticism as anxiety and depression. Personality traits also explain perception, that
is, we can predict who is more likely to perceive and perceive in what ways (Casciaro, 1998).
For example, optimists may generally see things positively (Srivastava, McGonigal,
Richards, Butler, and Gross, 2006), and a conscientious person may be the rst one to notice
a breach or disorder. In this study, we expected that certain traits will be more related to
conict perception, that is, personality traits predict if people will perceive conict or not.
Conflict Management
Styles
Integrating
Obliging
Avoiding
Compromising
Dominating
Personality Traits
Conflict Figure 1.
Agreeableness Perceived Moderated and
Extraversion Performance mediated relationship
Emotional Stability Task between personality
Conscientiousness Relationship traits and
Openness Process performance through
conict and conict
management styles
IJCMA Personality traits can change the situation (Stewart and Barrick, 2004), which may be
28,5 perceived and reected upon differently due to the personality traits of the individuals
involved. Contrary to the traditional belief that all conict is always detrimental, research
has shown that conict can be constructive (De Dreu and Gelfand, 2008, Deutsch et al., 2011;
Jehn, 1997; Tjosvold and Yu, 2007). Conict has been dened in terms of opposing interests,
disagreements or differences, and the basis can be anything from interpersonal issues to
674 work-based resources, decisions or delegations (Pondy, 1967).
Dening personality empirically was made easier with the Big Five factors, dimensions
or traits model. Some researchers use different labels, but these are commonly studied
as extraversion (versus introversion), agreeableness (versus antagonism), conscientiousness
(versus indirectedness), emotional stability (versus neuroticism) and openness (versus
closedness) (Carlson, 1971; Goldberg, 1990; McCrae and Costa, 1999; Norman, 1963). An
extravert is typically sociable, optimistic, active and self-condent. Conscientiousness refers

to degree of reliability, and an extravert is responsible and organized. Agreeableness is
characterized by prosocial behavior such as kindness, sympathy and cooperativeness. Any
individual low in agreeableness would be typically cold, suspicious, insensitive, rude and
ruthless. Openness or intellect is the degree of mental exibility and originality. Emotional
instability or neuroticism represents the level of adjustment and control of stress and
anxiety (John and Srivastava, 1999; Moberg, 2001).
Stable dispositions like personality characteristics, such as neuroticism, can determine
the perception of conict and its types (task and/or relationship conicts, Bono et al., 2002;
Karney et al., 1994). Agreeableness is most relevant to interpersonal conict, as it is
concerned with interpersonal relationships, and high agreeableness will be negatively
related to relationship conict in favor of sociable relationships (Bono et al., 2002; Graziano
et al., 1997; Jensen-Campbell and Graziano, 2001). Agreeable people are kind and cooperative
and are able to handle negative or aggravating situations such as those of disagreement and
regulating conict (Ahadi and Rothbart, 1994). However, those low in agreeableness may be
cynical and hostile (Trapnell and Wiggins, 1990) and will experience more relationship
conict (Suls et al., 1998). Openness (to experience) suggests that open-minded people are
willing to express, challenge and exchange information and ideas. Thus, open-mindedness
can promote constructive conict (Bradley et al., 2013, De Jong et al., 2013; Tjosvold et al.,
2014). Open-mindedness not only encourages task conict and process conict but it also
reduces relationship conict as open-minded people are not only tolerant but are willing to
intellectually discuss issues to sustain relationships (Bono et al., 2002; Tjosvold et al., 2014;
Gibson and Callister, 2010). Openness means intelligence, novelty and curiosity and that
should also facilitate intelligent debate, which is clearly task-focused and is not confused by
interpersonal concerns. Openness also suggests intelligence enough to discuss issues
without much of process issues.
Because conscientious people are meticulous and practically systematized, task-oriented
conict situations may be more disturbing and thus perceive more than those with low
conscientiousness or those who care less. This shows that conscientious people will be more
upset about work-related issues, that is, there will be a positive association between
conscientiousness and task conict. Bono et al. (2002) observed that conscientiousness was
related to task conict, although not over time. Perhaps, the task conict becomes more
interpersonal over time as the achievement-oriented conscientious, who believes in internal
locus of control, holds people responsible at the personal level. Another reason may be that
high conscientiousness can become a negative characteristic where a person becomes too
obsessed with control and formalities, as conscientiousness has been noticed to have a
curvilinear effect (Le et al., 2011).
Extraversion, similar to agreeableness, is also concerned with social relationships. Predicting job
However, an extravert is not as likeable, cooperative and kind as the agreeable. Extraverts performance
are known to be assertive and forceful with a desire for recognition and status, which also
and conict
means they tend to become exasperated quickly (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Trapnell and
Wiggins, 1990) and they like to dominate in a relationship. Extraverts have a tendency to
approach arguments as opposed to avoiding it (Schneer and Chanin, 1987), which means
extraverts are likely to perceive and confront conict. Also, very low and very high degree 675
of extraversion are known to mar effective functioning (Barry and Stewart, 1997). We expect
that the extravert is more likely associated with relationship conict compared with task or
process conict. However, agreeable people will be more sensitive to conict in line with
their compassion, kindness and likeability.
Neuroticism (vs emotional stability) is concerned with stress and nerves. It is not only
related to Relationship conict but it also determines the intensity of conict (Suls et al.,
1998). Also, neurotics are more likely to become angry (Costa and McCrae, 1992) and,
thereby, are expected to perceive more conict. Neurotics are not only more prone to become
upset easily, they may also exaggerate their emotions. As neurotics are expected to be
irrational, they may react very negatively or withdraw and shut down their emotions.
Nevertheless, we presume that neurotics will be more sensitive to perceive conict compared
to emotionally stability. We also believe that neuroticism is more relevant to relationship
and process conicts than task conict. Both neurotic and disagreeable (as opposed to
agreeable) people will have less communication and experience more conict (Barrick et al.,
1998). Accordingly, we develop a guiding hypothesis for our study as follows:
H1. Agreeable and neurotic individuals are more likely to perceive conict followed by
extraverts, conscientious and open individuals.
H1a. Agreeableness will be negatively related to each of task, relationship and process
conicts.
H1b. Extraversion will be positively related to each of task, relationship and process
conicts.
H1c. Emotional stability will be negatively related to relationship and process conicts
more than task conict.
H1d. Conscientiousness will be positively related to task and process conicts more
than relationship conict.
H1e. Openness will be positively related to task conict more than relationship and
process conicts.
Personality traits and conict management styles

Personality is a signicant predictor of preferences. In general, people may be divided into
two categories: those who ght and those who ight. Other reactions may also include
freeze, fright, faint (Bracha, 2004) and negotiate (Traum et al., 2005). People are known to see
conict as a challenge or threat (De Wit et al., 2009). There will be some who will accept the
challenge and ght, while others will be threatened by conict and may take the ight
approach. In terms of Big Five, we know that those who are emotionally stable (as opposed
to neurotics) are more capable of handling and coping with stress, and extraverts may also
be interested in an intermediary reaction between ght and ight to be a winner but also not
IJCMA losing their social relationships (Rusting and Larsen, 1997). Correspondingly, we explored
28,5 the Big Five to investigate the conict resolution choices in the form of CMSs.
Anyone who experiences conict will seek to remove the discomfort associated with
conict and thus engage in conict management (Van de Vliert, 1997). The behavior
patterns or the strategies that people use to deal with an incompatible situation are called
conict management, attempting resolution or handling styles (Kleinman et al., 2003;
676 Moberg, 2001; Sweeney and Carruthers, 1996). A CMS may be situationally adaptive, but
there are preferred CMSs that are generally stable and consistent over situations (Cupach
and Canary, 1997; Leung and Iwawaki, 1988; Ruble and Schneer, 1994). The way people
manage conict will determine whether the conict is effectively resolved (De Dreu et al.,
2001; Tjosvold, 1998). Individuals differ in how they preferably handle conict (Rahim, 1983;
Van de Vliert and Euwema, 1994), showing that the choices of CMSs can be signicantly
predicted with the help of personality characteristics (Macintosh and Stevens, 2008; Moberg,
2001). The two conict management dimensions of self-versus-other concern can be
explained by personality dimensions that represent pro-social behavior (dominance and
control) versus anti-social behavior such as friendliness and afliation (Fiske et al., 2007).
Nevertheless, there is very little research that studies the relationship between personality
and CMSs (Komarraju et al., 2012; Shih and Susanto, 2010).
The dual-concern model is a most popular theoretical model used to describe and develop
individual differences in terms of CMSs (Brislin, 1981; Pruitt and Rubin, 1986), and it has
been validated across several cultures (Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993). With the help of this
model, CMSs are identied based on the two dimensions of concern for self and concern for
others (Blake and Mouton, 1964; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1992; Van de Vliert and Kabanoff,
1990). The two dimensions draw a number of CMSs leading to winwin or winlose or even
loselose situations. These are commonly studied as accommodating, collaborating,
avoiding, dominating and integrating as the ve CMSs given by Rahim (1983; Daly et al.,
2010). Accommodating (also yielding or obliging) is a high concern for others with low
concern for self, whereas competing (dominating, contending or confronting) is a high
concern for self with low concern for others; avoidance (or withdrawal) is a low concern for
both self and others, whereas collaboration or integration is a high concern for both self and
others. Although avoidance may be a good choice to stay out of trouble, conict may remain
unresolved and continue to negatively affect the situation (De Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001,
Friedman et al., 2006; Lovelace et al., 2001; Liu et al., 2009; Ohbuchi and Atsumi, 2010).
Integration, effort toward a mutually beneting solution, appears to be the preferred CMS in
general, as it promises a winwin outcome, particularly in a long-term relationship (Lee,
2003; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993; Rognes and Schei, 2010). Following the integrating style
may be the obliging and avoiding styles which are then followed by the compromising and
dominating styles (Cai and Fink, 2002). When the conict is perceivably of little value or
costly, the compromising style will seek equitable satisfaction of both parties (Rubin et al.,
1994). Dominating is the most directly threatening style which may forcefully defeat the
other party in conict (Cai and Fink, 2002). Dominating may not be a commonly used style
in workplace relationships, in favor of the pleasant, extant interaction at work. We propose
that whether a person chooses a CMS favoring a concern for self or a concern for others is
also driven by personality traits.
Compared to conict perception or attribution, personality is more often studied in
association with conict-handling strategies or CMSs. Antonioni (1998) found that
extraversion, conscientiousness, openness and agreeableness were important predictors of
the integrating style. Extraverts are likely to approach (opposed to avoiding) conict
(Schneer and Chanin, 1987) and so do open personalities (Blickle, 1997), whereas agreeable
persons tend to approach conict with a compromising style (Graziano et al., 1996; Wood Predicting job
and Bell, 2008). Agreeableness and neuroticism are positively associated with avoiding; performance
extraversion with dominance; and extraversion, conscientiousness and openness with the
integrating style (Park and Antonioni, 2007). Self-monitoring, a similar personality type to
and conict
conscientiousness, uses integrating or compromising CMSs (Kaushal and Kwantes, 2006).
High agreeable people would strive to maintain cooperation and will avoid conict
(Graziano et al., 1997), whereas those low on agreeableness might take on a confronting style
(Graziano et al., 1996). Agreeable people can remain calm even in aggressive or aggravating 677
situations (Wilkowski and Robinson, 2008). A personality type similar to agreeableness is
altruism, and altruistic people are also found to be more integrating (Komarraju et al., 2012).
Extraverts are ambitious for recognition and status and are thus inclined to dominate
(Costa and McCrae, 1992; Trapnell and Wiggins, 1990). Extraverts have positive energy and
may believe in their capability to handle conict, and they might use any CMS including
competing or dominating as deemed effective situationally. Those low on extraversion

might avoid conict (Moberg, 2001). Neurotics may also avoid arguments (Blickle, 1997) and
try not to feel angry (Buss, 1991). Coping with stress and anger is an effortful task in itself,
and those already high on anxiety will be even more threatened by conict and will thus
avoid conict (Moberg, 2001). Emotional intelligence is an antecedent of CMSs for
integrating and compromising styles (Jordan and Troth, 2002; Shih and Susanto, 2010;
Zhang et al., 2015). Emotionally intelligent people are expected not only to be in control of
their own and others emotions within a relationship (Mayer et al., 2008) but also
considerably altruistic and empathic (Fehr and Singer, 2005). Emotionally intelligent people
thus strive for mutually satisfying situation and use integrating and compromising CMSs
(Shih and Susanto, 2010). Because neuroticism is also dened as control of at least the
emotions of the self, we can expect low neuroticism to be related to integrating and
compromising. Openness will be associated with confronting conict but in a compromising
manner (Moberg, 2001). Open people are curious to nd solutions but are also exible and
adaptable to consider the concerns of others involved. We have noted above that openness
may incite conict but that will be done with an objective to resolve the issues toward better
problem solution or improved relationships (depending on the type of conict). Thus, open
people will confront conict but with an intention to nd a solution that benets both sides.
H2. Extraverts, conscientious and open people will have an approach-oriented CMS,
that is, integrating and compromising, while agreeable and emotionally stable will
be obliging and avoiding or even compromising.
Personality traits and performance through conict and conict management

Personality traits, for example, conscientiousness increases performance (Judge et al., 2002).
Open-minded discussions contribute to task conict with positive consequences (Jiang et al.,
2012). Apparently, personality traits are related to performance but often through mediators or
moderators (Le et al., 2011). Conict is one of the most common mediating variables that can
affect performance. Research literature is, however, lacking regarding a link between conict
and performance (Rahim, 2000; Shih and Susanto, 2010). De Jong et al. (2013) observed that
conict partially mediates the relationship between personality and performance. We speculate
that CMSs introduced as a moderator of the conict to performance link will explain the
mediating role of conict in the personality to performance relationship.
Task conict can increase performance, while relationship conict may decrease
performance (Jehn et al., 2008) but as a function of conict management (Jones and White,
1985). Task conict improved performance when the integrating, and not when competing
IJCMA or avoiding, approach to conict was adopted (Jordan and Troth, 2002; Li and Hambrick,
28,5 2005; Schotter and Beamish, 2011). Integrating CMS may have a direct effect on
performance, but job performance improves when emotionally intelligent people handle
conict by integrating or compromising (Shih and Susanto, 2010). Employees preferably use
compromising and integrating styles (Lee, 2003), as these are rationally positive CMSs that
are expected to benet all concerned. These two styles may result in quick and benecial
678 solutions (Gross and Guerrero, 2000; Rahim, 2002), at least in terms of nding a solution.
While some research studied the direct effects, others found the mediating role of CMSs. We
propose that CMSs will actually moderate the relationship between conict and performance in
view of some ndings available. Task conict will interact with avoidance and compromising
to reduce performance, while task conict together with competition and collaboration (or
integration) will enhance performance (Xie et al., 1998). Xie et al. (1998) studied functional
conict, but they observed the moderating effect of CMSs in four cultures. Performance in the
Japan and Hong Kong sample was negatively affected by the avoiding, collaborating and
compromising styles interacting with task conict, while in the Japan sample, performance was
also positively affected by the accommodating and competing styles. The US and British
samples showed a positive effect of competition with the US sample, giving an additional
positive effect for compromising as well. The CMSs were considered as the antecedents of
conict in another study (Song et al., 2006), but the results can be interpreted for the interaction
effects considering their conceptualization of conict in terms of outcomes of conict.
According to the study, forcing and avoiding styles were followed by destructive conict
outcomes; this reduced performance, while the integrating and accommodating styles were
followed by constructive conict and this enhanced performance. Similarly, another study
showed that collaboration or problem-solving (integrating) during conict improves
performance (Varela et al., 2005). DeChurch et al. (2013) discussed conict and CMSs as what
and how of the conict or the conict states and processes. Under these labels, they found that
collaboration enhanced performance, while avoidance and competing were not as helpful.
These authors focused on the importance of processes over states, whereas we aim to study the
interaction between the two: conict and CMSs.
There are a few studies that directly studied the interaction effect of conict and CMSs.
Relationship between task conict and performance is modied by active conict
management such as integration (DeChurch and Marks, 2001). Conict management can
improve the relationship between task and relationship conict and outcomes (Tekleab
et al., 2009). Correspondingly, we hypothesize that CMSs moderate the relationship between
conict and performance. The relationship between personality and performance is better
explained by studying conict as the mediating factor and also include CMSs that will
inuence the relationship between conict and performance. Because there are only few
mixed ndings available and not many results for all types of conict, we develop the
following general hypotheses as a guide:
H3. Conict will mediate the relationship between personality and performance, while
the CMSs will moderate the relationship between conict and performance. This
will give a mediated moderated relationship between personality and performance.
Method
Sample and procedure
This study was approved by the Deanship of Scientic Research, King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In total, 180 employees were approached from sales and
marketing ofces of one of the largest multinational companies in two main locations in
Punjab, Pakistan. We rst sought permission from the management and then distributed Predicting job
the printed surveys to the employees. We retained 153 surveys after removing the surveys performance
that were largely incomplete. The sample included all men, as there are only a handful of
women working and those are in the head ofces only. The mean age of the participants was
and conict
31.64 years (SD = 7.53), ranging from 20 to 56 years. There were 31 who completed high
school, 54 with a college degree and 67 master degree holders. Professionally, they were
employed in accounts, administration, sales and marketing and network administration.
The sample has been in their present jobs for 7.12 (SD = 6.25) years on average with a range 679
of 2 months to 25 years.
Measures
We translated all the study scales into Urdu with the backtranslation method (Brislin, 1970).
The scales were rst translated from English to Urdu by one expert bilingual individual.
The scales were then translated back into English by another bilingual. The two versions
were then given to two other bilinguals to compare and nalize the Urdu version of scales.
Personality traits. We translated the Mini-Marker Personality Inventory (Saucier, 1994)
to measure the Big Five personality traits. There are eight items to measure each of the ve
personality traits, and the scale includes positive (e.g. efcient and sympathetic) and
negative (e.g. inefcient and unsympathetic) items. The negative items were reversed, and
the sum of items reected the presence of each trait where a person could score high on more
than one trait. We used a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from extremely inaccurate
to extremely accurate. Principal component analysis gave 51.56 per cent variance explained
by the forced ve factors denoting ve personality traits. We used forced factor loading, as
we noticed that negative items loaded on factors separate from those of the positive items
otherwise. The Cronbach reliability coefcients were between 0.63 and 0.74 for the ve
personality traits.
Conict. We adapted Jehns (1997) scales for measuring individuals perceived task,
relationship and process conicts in their workgroups. The items were formatted as
questions with seven-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a lot). The 12
items included 4 items for each type of conict (e.g. How much conict of ideas is there in
this workgroup? How much ghting is about personal issues in this workgroup? How much
disagreement is there about delegating responsibilities in your workgroup?). The items
distinctly loaded onto three separate factors in principal component analysis with
cumulative variance of 50.10, 63.00 and 74.00 per cent for relationship, task and process
conicts, respectively. The Cronbach alpha coefcient was 0.88 for task and process
conicts and 0.87 for relationship conict.
Conict management styles. We used 28 items ROCI-II, Form A (Rahim, 1983, 2001)[1], to
measure the ve given management styles, integrating (I exchange accurate information
with my supervisor to solve a problem together), obliging (I give in to the wishes of my
supervisor), avoiding (I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges), compromising (I try to nd a
middle course to resolve an impasse) and dominating (I use my inuence to get my ideas
accepted). A compromising item I use give and take so that a compromise can be made
gave weak communality and was thus dropped from the scale. The items did not neatly fall
into ve factors when entered unless forced extraction was used. The scales together
explained 53.09 per cent of variance for the ve CMSs. The alpha reliability coefcients of
these scales were: integrating, seven items (0.83); obliging, six items (0.65); avoiding, six
items (0.72); compromising, three items (0.63); and dominating, ve items (0.71).
Performance. We included performance as an outcome variable. Conict is often studied
as a mediator in relation to performance with reference to other factors such as diversity and
IJCMA performance relationship (Pelled, 1996; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). We included two
28,5 items for perceived individual performance (a = 0.89), for example, I think I work
effectively within my workgroup. The items were anchored with a seven-point Likert
scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
We also included some objective measures based on supervisors responses to
corroborate self-reports of the sample. These included one item each for the three conict
680 types and three items about performance. The three performance items gave an alpha
coefcient of 0.83. Results for both self-report and supervisor ratings were similar, so we
report results based on the perceptions of participants, as other variables are all based on
individual reporting.
Results
The descriptive values of means, standard deviations and correlation coefcients for our
study variables are shown in Table I. All personality traits are negatively related to
relationship conict. Agreeableness was negatively related to all three types of conict.
That is, agreeable people tended to perceive lesser of any conict, while less relationship
conict was perceived by extraverts, conscientious, open and emotionally stable.
Extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness related to all four of integrating,
obliging, avoiding and compromising styles. Openness was positively related to integrating
and avoiding styles. Only emotional stability was related to dominating style and the
negative coefcient reected that only neurotics were likely to dominate. All CMSs were
positively related to subjectively perceived performance.
Hypotheses testing
To test our hypotheses, we used hierarchical linear regression. We centered the values for
computing our interaction terms and then entered the main effects in Step 1 and the
moderation effect in Step 2 of the regression analysis. Because personality traits are
simultaneously present, we entered all traits at the same time. We rst ran a regression for
the effects of personality traits on conict. Agreeableness was the only trait that signicantly
affected all three types of conict, and the negative coefcient indicated that high
agreeableness helped reduce conict perception (Table II). This supported H1a that
agreeableness will be negatively related to conict types. Extraversion, as hypothesized in
H1b, was positively associated with relationship conict. Emotional stability negatively
associated with relationship conict (H1c), but the coefcient was only marginally
signicant. We looked for the effects of other personality traits after controlling for
agreeableness but results remained the same. Second, we tested regression for the effects of
personality traits on CMSs and also performance. Extraversion appeared as the most
signicant trait with reference to CMSs, giving a positive association with integrating,
obliging, avoiding and compromising styles. Emotional stability positively associated with
integrating and negatively associated with dominating and performance (Table III). These
results supported H2 stating that each of the traits is specically related to CMSs. Again, we
tested for the effects of personality traits after controlling for extraversion, but the results
remained the same.
Next, we looked for the moderated mediating effect of personality on performance
relationship through conict and CMSs, as hypothesized in H3. First, we tested for the
mediating effect of conict in the personality-to-performance relationship. While
relationship conict directly affected performance, extraversion and emotional stability
continued to have a signicant effect on performance. This showed that conict by itself did
not completely mediate the relationship between personality and performance (Table IV).
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Extraversion 5.44 0.87

2. Conscientiousness 5.33 0.91 0.542**
3. Agreeableness 5.48 0.89 0.43** 0.53**
4. Openness 5.16 0.93 0.38** 0.39** 0.33**
5. Emotional stability 5.67 0.93 0.36** 0.53** 0.62** 0.41**
6. Task conict 3.95 1.35 0.01 0.13 0.20* 0.02 0.08
7. Relationship conict 3.15 1.54 0.04 0.19* 0.37** 0.22** 0.35** 0.51**
8. Process conict 2.98 1.61 0.12 0.10 0.33** 0.12 0.27** 0.34** 0.38**
9. Integrating 5.92 0.97 0.37** .035** 0.40** 0.29** 0.44** 0.00 0.22** 0.26**
10. Obliging 5.22 0.95 0.27** 0.17* 0.22** 0.16 0.23** 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.59**
11. Avoiding 5.70 1.04 0.35** 0.26** 0.33** 0.21* 0.29** 0.09 0.19* 0.11 0.75** 0.55**
12. Compromising 5.56 1.10 0.42** 0.22** 0.28** 0.13 0.20* 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.54** 0.42** 0.49**
13. Dominating 4.19 1.12 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.23** 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.02 0.19* 0.08 0.02
14. Performance 5.91 1.17 0.22** 0.14 0.22** 0.20* 0.31** 0.11 0.24** 0.18* 0.59** 0.35** 0.43** 0.21* 0.03
Notes: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
deviations and inter-

Means, standard
variables
681
and conict
Predicting job
correlations for study

Table I.
performance
IJCMA Second, we looked at the interaction effect of conict and CMSs on performance. All conict
28,5 types had main effects, while obliging and dominating styles also had main effects for
perceived individual performance. Task conict interacted with obliging, compromising
and dominating styles; relationship conict interacted with obliging and dominating; and
process conict interacted with dominating styles for individual performance (Table V).
Finally, we entered the interaction terms for conict and CMS in Step 1 and then personality
682
DV = TC DV = RC DV = PC
Personality traits t Significance t Significance t Significance
Extraversion 0.62 0.53 2.04 0.11 0.27 0.79

Table II. Conscientious 0.76 0.45 0.28 0.78 1.18 0.24

Regression analysis Agreeable 2.26 0.03 2.84 0.01 3.16 0.00
for the effect of Big Openness 0.41 0.69 1.54 0.13 0.18 0.85
Emotional stability 0.67 0.50 1.76 0.08 0.82 0.41
Five personality F 1.54 5.65*** 3.82*** 0.13
traits on task, R2 0.05 0.17
relationship and
process conicts Note: ***p < 0.005
Personality traits Integrating Obliging Avoiding Compromising Dominating Performance
Extraversion 2.27* 1.94 2.66* 3.97** 0.94 1.64

Conscientiousness 0.15 0.71 0.40 0.45 0.99 1.49
Table III. Agreeableness 1.15 0.51 1.48 1.34 1.68h 0.71
Regression analysis Openness 0.91 0.62 0.62 0.55 0.58 0.92
Emotional stability 2.31* 0.94 0.40 0.16 3.33** 2.07*
for the effect of Big F 8.31** 2.26* 4.71** 5.93** 2.95* 3.37**
Five personality R sq 0.23 0.08 0.15 0.18 0.10 0.11
traits on conict
management styles Notes: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; p < 0.08; the table includes the t-values
DV = Individual performance
Independent variables t F DF R2 DR2
Step 1
TC 0.56 3.48* 0.07
RC 2.39* 2.86** 2.38* 0.15 0.08
PC 1.03
Table IV. Step 2

Regression analysis Extraversion 1.86
for the mediating Conscientious 1.54
Agreeable 0.32
effect of conict in Openness 1.08
the personality to Emotional stability 1.97*
performance
relationship Notes: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Source variables t F DF R2 DR2
Predicting job
performance
Step 1 and conict
TC 0.68 10.25*** 0.38
RC 0.64 4.64*** 1.40 0.48 0.09
PC 0.22
Integrating 4.74***
Obliging 0.00 683
Avoiding 1.24
Compromising 1.25
Dominating 0.66
Step 2
TC Integ 2.75**
TC Oblig 0.35
TC Avoid 2.94**
TC Compr 0.43
TC Domin 1.10
RC Integ 0.34
RC Oblig 0.54
RC Avoid 0.67
RC Compr 1.50
RC Domin 0.57 Table V.
PC Integ 2.66** Regression analysis
PC Oblig 0.79 for the interaction
PC Avoid 0.75
PC Compr 1.80*
effect of conict
PC Domin 0.19 types and conict
management styles
Notes: *** p < 0.005; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.10 (DV= performance)
traits in Step 2 of regression with performance as the dependent variable to analyze the
complete moderated mediating effect of conict and CMS in the personality to performance
relationship. There were no main effects for personality traits once the conictCMS
interactions were controlled, indicating a moderated and mediated relationship between
personality and performance (Table VI). These results supported our H3 for a moderated
and mediated relationship between personality and performance through conict and CMS.
Results remained the same when we ran regressions with each conict type entered
separately or when all conict types were entered simultaneously.
Discussion
We hypothesized for and examined which personality traits determined which conict types
and which CMS was more likely. We also hypothesized that personality will affect
performance through conict and CMSs where the CMSs will moderate the effect of conict.
This gave a moderated mediated relationship between personality and performance, where
conict was a mediator that was moderated by CMS. In accordance with our hypothesis,
three of the personality traits are related signicantly with the conict types. Agreeableness
was negatively related to all three types of conicts, while extraversion and emotional
stability were positively related with relationship conict. The personality traits also related
to the CMSs with extraversion positively related to integrating, obliging, avoiding and
compromising styles and emotional stability positively related to integrating style.
Emotional stability also related negatively to dominating style and performance. Finally,
IJCMA Source variables t F DF R2 DR2
28,5
Step 1
TC Integ 1.97* 0.86 0.10
TC Oblig 0.12 1.34 2.61* 0.20 0.10
TC Avoid 2.15*
TC Compr 0.24
684 TC Domin 0.00
RC Integ 0.58
RC Oblig 0.84
RC Avoid 0.53
RC Compr 0.56
RC Domin 1.16
PC Integ 1.29
PC Oblig 0.11
PC3 Avoid 0.65
Table VI.
PC Compr 1.39
Regression analysis PC Domin 0.21
for the moderated
mediation Step 2
relationship between Extraversion 1.37
personality traits and Conscientious 1.20
Agreeable 0.64
performance where Open 0.97
conict types interact Emo stab 1.62
with conict
management styles Note: *p < 0.05
our moderated and mediated relationship between personality and performance, with
conict as the mediator and CMS as the moderator of conict types, was also supported by
our analysis.
Several studies have linked culture to conict styles and found that individualists have
different preferences for conict management compared to collectivists (Ting-Toomey et al.,
1991). Our study was conducted in Pakistan, a society that can be considered collectivistic in
general (Bashir and Nasir, 2013; Hofstede, 1980; Islam, 2004), where collectivists are
understood to be non-confrontational and avoiding or integrating (Gunkel et al., 2016), and,
therefore, we expect Pakistanis to be more conforming and less confronting. Nevertheless,
there are inconsistent research ndings for CMS preferences within cultures (Holt and
DeVore, 2005; Ting-Toomey et al., 2000). Apparently, culture is signicant, but there are
other variables that inuence which CMS will be used. Research also speculates that people
may differ in how they perceive conict and CMS (Barbuto et al., 2010), but people may not
differ across cultures anymore (Cai and Fink, 2002). There may be culturally inuenced
tendencies but similar relationships hold across nations (Xie et al., 1998). We assumed
personality traits can help in predicting, within and across cultures, the perception of
conict and CMS. We, therefore, observed personality traits within a presumably
collectivistic culture and found that the results were not widely different from studies
coming from individualistic cultures.
In terms of preferences for a CMS, the descriptive results showed the highest score for
integrating (similar to previous studies, Onishi and Bliss, 2006) followed by avoiding,
compromising, obliging and then dominating, in that order. We also observed that process
conict was less reported as compared to task and relationship conict. The factor analysis
showed three distinct conict types, which means the respondents were able to identify this Predicting job
conict type, but they did not report experiencing it as much as the other two types. performance
Perhaps, the sample comes from an organization or jobs that are highly structured and that
there is little option to engage in any process conict. Also, similar to task conict, process
and conict
conict was negatively related to performance, which means that process conict is there
and affects the employees too.
Our results revealed agreeableness to be the most relevant for the three conict types,
while extraversion was the most impacting trait for the CMSs. In H1, we expected that both 685
extravert and agreeable traits to be related to conict perceptions, as they are the two traits
concerned with interpersonal interactions. The results for personality and conict supported
our hypothesis and also corroborated previous ndings (Moberg, 2001; Park and Antonioni,
2007). The results for emotional stability were also reaching signicance and were in the
same direction as previously research had expected. Neurotics were more likely to perceive
relationship conict (Suls et al., 1998). In H2, we proposed that particular traits will be
related to a certain CMS. Generally, however, we expected that non-confrontational
approaches will be more preferred in our sample, similar to a general trend across cultures,
especially that of collectivistic cultures. We found few results but not contradicting our
hypothesis. Extraversion was the signicant predictor of all CMSs except dominating,
which conrms part of our hypothesis and also agrees with previous ndings (Wood and
Bell, 2008). Emotional stability emerged as the second trait predicting CMS, which has not
appeared in previous research. Emotional stability predicting integrating style, while
neuroticism predicted dominating style. Neurotics perceive relationship conict, as found in
our results, and they may tend to react irritably, anxiously and impulsively (see denition of
emotional stability, Costa and McCrae, 1992). Because neurotics lack rational judgment and
reaction, they may adopt the dominating style, trying to take charge of the situation
believing that they know how to x the situation. These results call for further research that
includes culturally specic contextual factors that explain conict behaviors (Shoda and
Mischel, 2000).
Research and practical implications

We hypothesized that agreeableness, extraversion and emotional stability will be related
more to relationship conict compared to task conict and found the same for our sample in
Pakistan. This supports the previous research and shows that personality characteristics
can determine the perception of conicts (De Jong et al., 2013). Big Five personality traits
have helped in personnel selection, training and promotion, and it should be used to
determine group composition, conict management and intervention by superiors and also
performance expectations and evaluations.
We understand, from the Pakistani work culture, that employees are often part of a very
structured hierarchy with little scope of discussion or debate regarding the job. To avoid
risks of job security or troubles at work, people generally avoid unasked-for and thus
unnecessary meddling. These observation show similarities but also distinctive
characteristics of our ndings from Pakistan compared to studies from other places. The
CMS may be inuenced by culture-specic norms and vales and status (Brew and Cairns,
2004; Corey et al., 2014), and it is the personality traits that appears to be a major factor in
determining not only CMSs but also conict perceptions and eventually performance.
Therefore, personality traits or types should be considered when assigning roles and
responsibilities within any culture.
Integration was more preferred than avoiding followed by compromising, obliging and
dominating, in that order. People high on extraversion and emotional stability were likely to
IJCMA prefer the integrating CMS. Only neuroticism was related to dominating management style.
28,5 Each CMS has its own way of conict resolution and thus inuencing performance.
According to our results, people high on agreeableness and integration will probably
perform more than any other combination of personality traits and CMS, at least in similar
workgroups. Evidently, we need to include personality in our understanding of which
people to be placed in specic job situations for best results in terms of desirable conict
686 experience, conict management and performance. Although CMS is apparently more
concerned with managerial jobs, CMS may also be used by every employee in every job, as
they perceive and handle different types of conicts. The CMSs may be for managerial
intermediation but every individual may have his/her CMS for their interpersonal
experiences.
Sample for this study came from middle- and upper- to middle-level employees who are
often performing the roles of supervisors and leaders. Personality traits affected
performance directly and indirectly through conict. If personality characteristics of these

supervisors can inuences their perceptions of conict and their performance, it is more
likely affecting the whole groups processes and performance (Ayoko and Konrad, 2012; De
Jong et al., 2013). Group managers should recognize the inuence of their own personality
prole on performance and select the right persons in their group. If conict perception
differs for different personality traits, the difference in personality characteristics among
group members and supervisors and subordinates will exacerbate conict or even becomes
a source of conict and will harm the performance both directly and indirectly.
Limitations and future research directions

The main limitation of our study included somewhat low reliability coefcients for
personality and CMS measures. Results can be interpreted with caution only and require
further research to nd out if the items need to be adapted or the translations need to be
improved. CMS items did not neatly fall into the given styles, and we force-extracted the
factors. We need to explore how people understand and interpret these measuring scales
(Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). Also, we may need a selected sample, as these CMSs may be used
possibly opted according to various levels of organizational hierarchy (Thomas et al., 2008)
and conict situation (Bono et al., 2002), especially considering the power and status
hierarchies in countries like Pakistan (Brew and Cairns, 2004).
The cross-sectional nature of data leaves us unaware of if and how people switch
between CMS and which combination then effects performance. Extraverts may choose any
of the CMSs other than dominating, and the choice may depend on any of the situational or
interpersonal factor. The choice of CMS may even be inuenced by whether the workgroup
members experience a certain culture (individualism versus collectivism) and perceptions of
equality (Boros, Meslec, Curseu, and Emons, 2010). Also, the choice of non-confrontational
approach may vary even within a culture (Lee and Rogan, 1991). We need further studies to
nd details on CMS choices within cultural-specic contexts and across culture
comparisons.
Some traits such as conscientiousness were found to be unrelated to work processes or
outcomes (Barry and Stewart, 1997). Although there is research that has observed
signicant results for conscientiousness (Bono et al., 2002), this trait could have a curvilinear
effect with higher conscientiousness, giving either no results or negative results after a
certain moderate level of the trait (Le et al., 2011). The personality traits perhaps then need to
be investigated with details of how levels of each trait may have different effects on work
processes and outcomes. Also, conscientiousness and emotional stability were positively
related to performance, while other three Big Five traits were related to specic occupations
(Barrick et al., 2001). This suggests that the personality traitsperformance relationship can Predicting job
vary across occupations and should be explored and understood accordingly. Research on performance
conict should include personality characteristics in the understanding of causes and
consequences of conicts. Also, personality traits should be considered simultaneously, as
and conict
they occur together, and the effects of each may be determined by the degree of every other
trait present. We could not nd results for our hypothesis on openness and
conscientiousness and its relevance to task conict more than relationship conict or any
conict for that matter. Perhaps the nature of job or the management style for this sample 687
was not concerned with task conict as much and could be explored in future research.
Conclusion
We were mainly interested in exploring the Big Five personality traits at the workplace and
how these determine conict perception and conict management styles (CMSs). We
developed a moderated and mediated relationship between personality and conict, and
CMS and results showed that, although no other personality trait was related to conict
perception, agreeable individuals notably perceived less conict. Regarding CMSs,
extraverts may use any of integrating, obliging, compromising or avoiding styles, while
emotional stability may decide between integrating for high emotionally stable and
dominating for neurotic individuals. The results not only showed direct effects of
personality traits on performance but we also observed that the interaction effects of conict
and CMS mediated the relationship between personality and performance. According to our
results, people high on agreeableness and integration will probably perform more than any
other combination of personality traits and CMS. This study presented personality as a
signicant variable to be considered for understanding conict and conict management.
Note
1. Rahim Organizational Conict Inventory-II, Form A: Used with permission from the Center for
Advanced Studies in Management. Further use or reproduction of the instrument without written
permission is prohibited.
References
Ahadi, C. and Rothbart, M.K. (1994), Temperament, development and the Big Five, in Halverson, C.F.,
Kohnstamm, D. and Martin R. (Eds), Development of the Structure of Temperament and
Personality from Infancy to Adulthood, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 189-208.
Antonioni, D. (1998), Relationship between the big ve personality factors and conict management
styles, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 336-355. doi: 10.1108/
eb022814.
Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E.E., Bem, D.J. and Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000), Hilgards
Introduction to Psychology, 13 ed., Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
Ayoko, O.B. and Konrad, A.M. (2012), Leaders transformational, conict, and emotion management
behaviors in culturally diverse workgroups, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 694-724. doi: 10.1108/02610151211277581.
Barbuto, J.E., Jr, Phipps, K.A. and Xu, Y. (2010), Testing relationships between personality, conict
styles and effectiveness, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 434-447.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (2005), Yes, personality matters: moving on to more important
matters, Human Performance, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 359-372.
IJCMA Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Judge, T.A. (2001), Personality and performance at the beginning of
the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next?, International Journal of
28,5 Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 9-30. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00160.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J. and Mount, M.K. (1998), Relating member ability and
personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 83 No. 3, p. 377. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377.
688 Barry, B. and Stewart, G.L. (1997), Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: the role
of personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, p. 62. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.62.
Bashir, S. and Nasir, M. (2013), Breach of psychological contract, organizational cynicism and union
commitment: a study of hospitality industry in Pakistan, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 34, pp. 61-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.004.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The New Managerial Grid: strategic New Insights into a Proven
System for Increasing Organization Productivity and Individual Effectiveness, plus a Revealing
Examination of How Your Managerial Style Can Affect Your Mental and Physical Health, Gulf
Publishing, Houston, Texas.
Blickle, G. (1997), Argumentativeness and the facets of the big ve, Psychological Reports, Vol. 81
No. 3_suppl, pp. 1379-1385. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1997.81.3f.1379.
Bolger, N. and Zuckerman, A. (1995), A framework for studying personality in the stress process,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 890-902.
Bono, J.E., Boles, T.L., Judge, T.A. and Lauver, K.J. (2002), The role of personality in task and
relationship conict, Journal of Personality, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 311-344.
Boros, S., Meslec, N., Curseu, P.L. and Emons, W. (2010), Struggles for cooperation: conict resolution
strategies in multicultural groups, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 539-554.
Bracha, H.S. (2004), Freeze, ight, ght, fright, faint: adaptationist perspectives on the acute stress
response spectrum, CNS Spectrums, Vol. 9 No. 9, pp. 679-685. doi: 10.1017/S1092852900001954.
Bradley, B.H., Klotz, A.C., Postlethwaite, B.E. and Brown, K.G. (2013), Ready to rumble: how team
personality composition and task conict interact to improve performance, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 385-392. doi: 10.1037/a0029845.
Brew, F.P. and Cairns, R. (2004), Styles of managing interpersonal workplace conict in relation to
status and face concern: a study with Anglos and Chinese, International Journal of Conict
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 27-56.
Brislin, R.W. (1970), Back-translation for cross-cultural research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 185-216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301.
Brislin, R.W. (1981), Cross-Cultural Encounters: Face-to-Face Interaction, Vol. 94, Pergamon Press,
New York, NY.
Buss, D.M. (1991), Conict in married couples: personality predictors of anger and upset, Journal of
Personality, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 663-688.
Cai, D. and Fink, E. (2002), Conict style differences between individualists and collectivists,
Communication Monographs, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 67-87. doi: 10.1080/03637750216536.
Carlson, R. (1971), Where is the person in personality research?, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 75 No. 3,
pp. 203-219.
Casciaro, T. (1998), Seeing things clearly: social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network
perception, Social Networks, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 331-351. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(98)00008-2.
Cattell, H.E. and Mead, A.D. (2008), The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF), The SAGE
Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 2,
pp. 135-178.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992), NEO PI-R: Professional Manual: Revised NEO PI-R and NEOFFI,
Psychological Assessment Resources, Florida.
Corey, C.M., Fok, L.Y. and Payne, D.M. (2014), Cross-cultural differences in values and conict Predicting job
management: a comparison of US and Puerto Rico, Journal of Organizational Culture,
Communication and Conict, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 59.
performance
Cupach, W.R. and Canary, D.J. (1997), Competence in Interpersonal Conict, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
and conict
Daly, T.M., Anne Lee, J., Soutar, G.N. and Rasmi, S. (2010), Conict-handling style measurement: a
best-worst scaling application, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 281-308. doi: 10.1108/10444061011063180.
689
DeChurch, L.A. and Marks, M.A. (2001), Maximizing the benets of task conict: the role of conict
management, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 4-22. doi: 10
.1108/eb022847.
DeChurch, L.A., Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and Doty, D. (2013), Moving beyond relationship and task
conict: toward a process-state perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 4,
pp. 559-578. doi: 10.1037/a0032896.

De Dreu, C.K. and Van Vianen, A.E. (2001), Managing relationship conict and the effectiveness
of organizational teams, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
doi: 10.1002/job.71.
De Dreu, C.K., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E.S. and Nauta, A. (2001), A theory-based measure of
conict management strategies in the workplace, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22
No. 6, pp. 645-668. doi: 10.1002/job.107.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Gelfand, M.J. (2008), Conict in the workplace: sources, functions, and dynamics
across multiple levels of analysis, in De Dreu, C.K.W. and Gelfand, M.J. (Eds), The Psychology of
Conict and Conict Management in Organizations, Erlbaum, New York, NY, pp. 3-54.
De Jong, A., Song, M. and Song, L.Z. (2013), How lead founder personality affects new venture
performance: the mediating role of team conict, Journal of Management, Vol. 39, pp. 1825-1854.
De Wit, F., Jehn, K.A. and Scheepers, D. (2009), Coping with conict: how cardiovascular reactions to a
task related disagreement affect decision-making quality, Paper presented at the 22nd Annual
Conference of the International Association for Conict Management, Kyoto.
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T. and Marcus, E.C. (Eds) (2011), The Handbook of Conict Resolution: Theory
and Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Digman, J.M. (1989), Five robust trait dimensions: development, stability, and utility, Journal of
Personality, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 195-214.
Fehr, E. and Singer, T. (2005), The neuroeconomics of mind reading and empathy, Institute for the
Study of Labor: IZA, Discussion Paper Series.
Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J. and Glick, P. (2007), Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and
competence, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 77-83.
Friedman, R., Chi, S.C. and Liu, L.A. (2006), An expectancy model of Chinese-American differences in
conict-avoiding, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 76-91. doi: 10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8400172.
Gibson, D.E. and Callister, R.R. (2010), Anger in organizations: review and integration, Journal of
Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 66-93. doi: 10.1177/0149206309348060.
Goldberg, L.R. (1982), From Ace to Zombie: some explorations in the language of personality, in
Spielberger, C.D. and Butcher, J.N. (Eds), Advances in Personality Assessment, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ, Vol. 1, pp. 203-234.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990), An alternative description of personality: the big-ve factor structure, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 1216-1229.
Graziano, W.G., Hair, E.C. and Finch, J.F. (1997), Competitiveness mediates the link between
personality and group performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 6,
pp. 1394-1408. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1394.
IJCMA Graziano, W.G., Jensen-Campbell, L.A. and Hair, E.C. (1996), Perceiving interpersonal conict and
reacting to it: the case for agreeableness, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70
28,5 No. 4, pp. 820-835. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.820.
Gross, M.A. and Guerrero, L.K. (2000), Managing conict appropriately and effectively: an application
of the competence model to Rahims organizational conict styles, International Journal of
Conict Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 200-226. doi: 10.1108/eb022840.
690 Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C. and Taras, V. (2016), Cultural values, emotional intelligence, and conict
handling styles: a global study, Journal of World Business, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 568-585. doi: 10.1016/
j.jwb.2016.02.001.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad?,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 42-63, doi: 10. 1016/0090-2616(80)90013-3.
Hogan, R. (2005), In defense of personality measurement: new wine for old whiners, Human
Performance, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 331-341.

Holt, J.L. and DeVore, C.J. (2005), Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conict resolution:
a meta-analysis, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 165-196.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.002.
Islam, N. (2004), Sifarish, sycophants, power and collectivism: administrative culture in Pakistan,
International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 311-330, doi: 10. 1177/
0020852304044259
Jehn, K.A. (1997), A qualitative analysis of conict types and dimensions in organizational groups,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-557. doi: 10.2307/2393737.
Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), The inuence of proportional and perceptual conict composition
on team performance, The International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 11, pp. 56-73.
Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S. and Thatcher, S.M. (2010), The effects of conict asymmetry on work group and
individual outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 596-616.
Jehn, K.A., Greer, L., Levine, S. and Szulanski, G. (2008), The effects of conict types, dimensions, and
emergent states on group outcomes, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 465-495.
doi: 10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0.
Jensen-Campbell, L.A. and Graziano, W.G. (2001), Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal
conict, Journal of Personality, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 323-362.
Jiang, J.Y., Zhang, X. and Tjosvold, D. (2012), Emotion regulation as a boundary condition of the
relationship between team conict and performance: a multi-level examination, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 714-734.
John, O.P. and Srivastava, S. (1999), The Big Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives, Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Vol. 2, pp. 102-138.
Jones, R.E. and White, C.S. (1985), Relationships among personality, conict resolution styles, and task
effectiveness, s, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 152-167.
Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2002), Emotional intelligence and conict resolution: implications for
human resource development, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 62-79.
doi: 10.1177/1523422302004001005.
Judge, T.A., Heller, D. and Mount, M.K. (2002), Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a
meta-analysis, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 530-541.
Karney, B.R., Bradbury, T.N., Fincham, F.D. and Sullivan, K.T. (1994), The role of negative affectivity
in the association between attributions and marital satisfaction, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 413-424. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.413.
Kaushal, R. and Kwantes, C.T. (2006), The role of culture and personality in choice of conict
management strategy, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 579-603.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.01.001.
Kleinman, G., Palmon, D. and Lee, P. (2003), The effects of personal and group level factors on the Predicting job
outcomes of simulated auditor and client teams, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 57-84.
performance
Komarraju, M., Dollinger, S.J. and Lovell, J. (2012), Agreeableness and conict management styles: a
and conict
cross-validated extension, Journal of Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Le, H., Oh, I.S., Robbins, S.B., Ilies, R., Holland, E. and Westrick, P. (2011), Too much of a good thing:
curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 113-133. 691
Lee, F.M. (2003), Conict management styles and emotional intelligence of faculty staff at a selected
college in Southern Taiwan (China), Doctoral dissertation, Ed. D. Dissertation, University of
South Florida, St Petersburg, available at: Emotional Intelligence Consortium database: www.
eiconsortiu.org/references/dissertation_abstracts.html
Lee, H.O. and Rogan, R.G. (1991), A cross-cultural comparison of organizational conict management
behaviors, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 181-199. doi: 10.1108/
eb022698.
Leung, K. and Iwawaki, S. (1988), Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior, Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 35-49. doi: 10.1177/0022002188019001003.
Li, J. and Hambrick, D.C. (2005), Factional groups: a new vantage on demographic faultlines, conict,
and disintegration in work teams, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 794-813.
doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803923.
Liu, J., Fu, P. and Liu, S. (2009), Conicts in top management teams and team/rm outcomes: the
moderating effects of conict-handling approaches, International Journal of Conict
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L. and Weingart, L.R. (2001), Maximizing cross-functional new product teams
innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conict communications perspective, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 779-793.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1999), A ve-factor theory of personality, Handbook of Personality:
Theory and Research, Guilford Press, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 139-153.
Macintosh, G. and Stevens, C. (2008), Personality, motives, and conict strategies in everyday service
encounters, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 112-131. doi: 10.1108/
10444060810856067.
Mayer, J.D., Roberts, R.D. and Barsade, S.G. (2008), Human abilities: emotional intelligence, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 507-536. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646.
Moberg, P.J. (2001), Linking conict strategy to the ve-factor model: theoretical and empirical
foundations, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 47-68. doi: 10.1108/
eb022849.
Norman, W.T. (1963), Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings, The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 574. doi: 10.1037/h0040291.
Ohbuchi, K.I. and Atsumi, E. (2010), Avoidance brings Japanese employees what they care about in
conict management: its functionality and good member image, Negotiation and Conict
Management Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 117-129. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00052.x.
Onishi, J. and Bliss, R.E. (2006), In search of Asian ways of managing conict: a comparative study of
Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand and Vietnam, International Journal of Conict Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 203-225.
Park, H. and Antonioni, D. (2007), Personality, reciprocity, and strength of conict resolution strategy,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 110-125. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.003.
Paunonen, S.V. and Ashton, M.C. (2001), Big ve factors and facets and the prediction of behavior,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 524-539.
IJCMA Pelled, L.H. (1996), Demographic diversity, conict, and work group outcomes: an intervening process
theory, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631. doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.6.615.
28,5
Pondy, L.R. (1967), Organizational conict: concepts and models, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 296-320. doi: 10.2307/2391553.
Pruitt, D.G. and Carnevale, P.J. (1993), Negotiation in Social Conict, Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing,
Pacic Grove, CA.
692 Pruitt, D.G. and Rubin, J.Z. (1986), Social Conict Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement, Random
House, New York, NY.
Rahim, M. (2000), Empirical studies on managing conict, International Journal of Conict
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-8. doi: 10.1108/eb022832.
Rahim, M.A. (1983), A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conict, Academy of Management
Journal. Academy of Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 368-376.
Rahim, M.A. (2001), Managing Conict in Organizations, 3rd ed., Quorum Books, Westford, CT.
Rahim, M.A. (2002), Toward a theory of managing organizational conict, International Journal of
Conict Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 206-235. doi: 10.1108/eb022874.
Rognes, J.K. and Schei, V. (2010), Understanding the integrative approach to conict management,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 82-97. doi: 10.1108/02683941011013885.
Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt, D.G. and Kim, S.H. (1994), Social Conict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Ruble, T.L. and Schneer, J.A. (1994), Gender differences in conict-handling styles: less than meets the
eye, in Taylor, A and Miller, J.B. (Eds), Conict and Gender, Hampton, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 155-166.
Rusting, C.L. and Larsen, R.J. (1997), Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility to positive and
negative affect: a test of two theoretical models, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 22
No. 5, pp. 607-612. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00246-2.
Saucier, G. (1994), Mini-markers: a brief version of Goldbergs unipolar big-ve markers, Journal of
Personality Assessment, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 506-516.
Schneer, J.A. and Chanin, M.N. (1987), Manifest needs as personality predispositions to conict handling
behavior, Human Relations, Vol. 40 No. 9, pp. 575-590. doi: 10.1177/001872678704000903.
Schotter, A. and Beamish, P.W. (2011), Performance effects of MNC headquarterssubsidiary conict
and the role of boundary spanners: the case of headquarter initiative rejection, Journal of
International Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 243-259. doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2011.05.006.
Shih, H.A. and Susanto, E. (2010), Conict management styles, emotional intelligence, and job
performance in public organizations, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 147-168. doi: 10.1108/10444061011037387.
Shoda, Y. and Mischel, W. (2000), Reconciling contextualism with the core assumptions of personality
psychology, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 407-428. doi: 10.1002/1099
-0984(200009/10)14:5<407::AID-PER391>3.0.CO;2-3.
Song, M., Dyer, B. and Thieme, R.J. (2006), Conict management and innovation performance: an integrated
contingency perspective, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 341-356.
Srivastava, S., McGonigal, K.M., Richards, J.M., Butler, E.A. and Gross, J.J. (2006), Optimism in close
relationships: how seeing things in a positive light makes them so, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 143-153. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.143.
Stewart, G.L. and Barrick, M.R. (2004), Four lessons learned from the person-situation debate: a review
and research agenda, in Smith, B. and Schneider, B., (Eds), Personality and Organizations,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 61-87.
Suls, J., Martin, R. and David, J.P. (1998), Person-environment t and its limits: agreeableness,
neuroticism, and emotional reactivity to interpersonal conict, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 88-98. doi: 10.1177/0146167298241007.
Sweeney, B. and Carruthers, W.L. (1996), Conict resolution: history, philosophy, theory, and Predicting job
educational applications, The School Counselor, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 326-344.
performance
Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R. and Tesluk, P.E. (2009), A longitudinal study of team conict, conict
management, cohesion, and team effectiveness, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 34 and conict
No. 2, pp. 170-205. doi: 10.1177/1059601108331218.
Thomas, K.W. (1992), Conict and conict management: reections and update, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-274.
Thomas, K.W., Thomas, G.F. and Schaubhut, N. (2008), Conict styles of men and women at six
693
organization levels, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 148-166.
doi: 10.1108/10444060810856085.
Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K.K., Shapiro, R.B., Garcia, W., Wright, T.J. and Oetzel, J.G. (2000), Ethnic/
cultural identity salience and conict styles in four US ethnic groups, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 47-81. doi: 10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00023-1.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Soo Kim, H., Lin, S.L. and Nishida, T. (1991), Culture,
face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conict: a study in ve cultures,
International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 275-296. doi: 10.1108/eb022702.
Tjosvold, D. (1998), Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conict: accomplishments and
challenges, Applied Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 285-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1998.tb00025.x.
Tjosvold, D. and Yu, Z. (2007), Group risk taking: the constructive role of controversy in China, Group
and Organization Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 653-674.
Tjosvold, D., Wong, A.S. and Feng Chen, N.Y. (2014), Constructively managing conicts in
organizations, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 545-568. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091306.
Trapnell, P.D. and Wiggins, J.S. (1990), Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to include the
big ve dimensions of personality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 781. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.781.
Traum, D., Swartout, W., Marsella, S. and Gratch, J. (2005), Fight, ight, or negotiate: believable
strategies for conversing under crisis, in Intelligent Virtual Agents, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg,
pp. 52-64.
Van de Vliert, E. (1997), Complex Interpersonal Conict Behaviour: Theoretical Frontiers, Psychology
Press, London.
Van de Vliert, E. and Euwema, M.C. (1994), Agreeableness and activeness as components of conict
behaviors, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 674-687.
Van de Vliert, E. and Kabanoff, B. (1990), Toward theory-based measures of conict management,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 199-209.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K. and Homan, A.C. (2004), Work group diversity and group
performance: an integrative model and research agenda, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 6, pp. 1008-1022. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.
Varela, J.A., Fernndez, P., Del Ro, M.L. and Bande, B. (2005), Cross-functional conict, conict
handling behaviours and new product performance in Spanish rms, Creativity and Innovation
Wall, J.A. and Callister, R.R. (1995), Conict and its management, Journal of Management, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 515-558. doi: 10.1177/014920639502100306.
Wilkowski, B.M. and Robinson, M.D. (2008), The cognitive basis of trait anger and reactive
aggression: an integrative analysis, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 3-21. doi: 10.1177/1088868307309874.
Wood, V.F. and Bell, P.A. (2008), Predicting interpersonal conict resolution styles from personality
characteristics, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 126-131. doi: 10.1016/
j.paid.2008.03.010.
IJCMA Xie, J., Song, X.M. and Stringfellow, A. (1998), Interfunctional conict, conict resolution styles, and
new product success: a four-culture comparison, Management Science, Vol. 44 No. 12-part 2,
28,5 pp. 192-206. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.44.12.S192.
Zhang, S.J., Chen, Y.Q. and Sun, H. (2015), Emotional intelligence, conict management styles, and
innovation performance: an empirical study of Chinese employees, International Journal of
Conict Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 450-478.
694 Further reading

Wiggins, J.S. (Ed.). (1996), The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspective, Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
About the authors

Nailah Ayub is an Associate Professor at the Department of Business Administration, King

Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. She received PhD from Leiden University, The
Netherlands. Her research focuses on diversity and conict, interpersonal and intrapersonal beliefs
and processes such as nationalism, social distance and national stereotypes. Nailah Ayub is the
corresponding author can and be contacted at: ayubnailah@gmail.com
Suzan M. AlQurashi is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Organizational
Behavior at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. She received PhD with First Honor
Degree in Public Degree in Public Administration and Organizational Behavior from Brunel
University, London, UK. She is a member of many committees & scientic societies including, among
others, The Committee of the Executive Strategic Studies of her institute, British Academy of
Management, the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management and the Saudi
Management Association. Her research interests are mainly in the areas of human resources and
organizational behavior.
Wafa A. Al-Ya is an Associate Professor at the Department of Business Administration, Faculty
of Economics and Administration, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. She received PhD from
Manchester University, Manchester, UK. She has served as the Head of Business Administration
Department and as the Vice Dean of the faculty, as well as a member of several committees and
boards at her university. Her research focus is on studies of management applications in Saudi
Arabia. Her research has appeared in journals such as Commercial Studies Egyptian Magazine and
Commercial Researches and Studies Magazine.
Karen Jehn is a Professor of Organizational Behavior at Melbourne Business School, Melbourne
University, Australia. She received PhD from Northwestern University. Her research interests include
intragroup conict, group composition and performance and lying in organizations. Her two recent
research interests are asymmetry of perceptions and member entitlement in workgroups. She has
published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied
Psychology and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

122

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

122

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Journal of Conflict Management

Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance

Permanent link to this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

job performance and conict

International Journal of Conict

Personality traits and perception of conict

extravert is typically sociable, optimistic, active and self-condent. Conscientiousness refers

Personality traits and conict management styles

competing or dominating as deemed effective situationally. Those low on extraversion

Personality traits and performance through conict and conict management

1. Extraversion 5.44 0.87

Notes: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05

deviations and inter-

correlations for study

Extraversion 0.62 0.53 2.04 0.11 0.27 0.79

Table II. Conscientious 0.76 0.45 0.28 0.78 1.18 0.24

Personality traits Integrating Obliging Avoiding Compromising Dominating Performance

Extraversion 2.27* 1.94 2.66* 3.97** 0.94 1.64

Table IV. Step 2

Research and practical implications

performance directly and indirectly through conict. If personality characteristics of these

Limitations and future research directions

pp. 559-578. doi: 10.1037/a0032896.

Performance, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 331-341.

694 Further reading

About the authors

Nailah Ayub is an Associate Professor at the Department of Business Administration, King

Potrebbero piacerti anche