Individual and Organizational Factors Promoting Successful Responses to Workplace Conflict

This article discusses conflict in the workplace and proposes that short-term intensity of interpersonal conflict can bring about positive longer-term consequences. It identifies individual and organizational factors that support successful conflict responses and proposes implications for conflict resolution interventions and critical directions for future research.

Individual and Organizational Factors Promoting Successful Responses to
Workplace Conflict
Debra Gilin Oore
Saint Mary’s University
Michael P. Leiter
Acadia University
Diane E. LeBlanc
Saint Mary’s University
Although conflict at work is a fairly common and often distressing occurrence, it is arguably a vital and
necessary element of human interaction. Relevant to this special issue on positive psychology, we
propose that the necessary short-term intensity of interpersonal conflict can bring about positive longer
term consequences, including insight, connection, and strength. We synthesize research from organisa-
tional, family, social, and personality psychology identifying factors that support successful conflict
responses. Individual factors of cognitive flexibility, an appropriate balance of self– other focus, emotion
regulation, and fit of the person to the conflict situation show promise for conflict success and appear to
be trainable. Organisational interventions, including individual training, work group conflict training, and
mediation, also demonstrate efficacy in building conflict skills. We conclude by proposing implications
for conflict resolution interventions and critical directions for future research.
Keywords: conflict resolution, interpersonal conflict, personality, organizational interventions, negotiation
Organisational conflict has been defined in a multitude of ways,
but a comprehensive definition is as follows:
a state of social discord characterised by negative affect (e.g., frus-
tration, anger, and anxiety) and the perception of interpersonal disso-
nance. People at work are in a state of conflict when one or more
parties perceive that an ongoing or unresolved dispute poses a threat
to any core human state (e.g., one’s interests, identity, security, or
sense of inclusion). (LeBlanc, Gilin Oore, & Axelrod, 2014, p. 6).
Psychological research on organisational conflict often differ-
entiates two subtypes of conflict in work groups: task conflict
(disagreements about tasks) versus relationship conflict (interper-
sonal friction, personality clashes; Jehn, 1995). As might be ex-
pected from this definition, research is clear that a high frequency
of relationship conflict within a work group is detrimental (de Wit,
Greer, & Jehn, 2012). Work groups with high relationship conflict
show greater turnover, absenteeism, and work dissatisfaction; have
lower team productivity (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2003; Chiaburu
& Harrison, 2008; van Vianen & De Dreu, 2001); and show
increased reactivity to job stressors (Gilin Oore et al., 2010)
compared with work teams that have lower relationship conflict.
Poorly handled organisational conflict is commonplace, and is
costly in both economic and human terms. In Canada, managers
and leaders spend an average of 3 hr of work time, plus 4.5 hr of
distraction or worry on workplace conflict every week (LeBlanc,
2010). Unresolved conflict can escalate to require formal action,
such as grievances, lawsuits, or human rights complaints, with cost
estimates around $100,000 per case (Cascio, 2000). An incident of
interpersonal conflict, including an economic negotiation, is often
an acute physiological stressor (Beck, Pietromonaco, DeBuse,
Powers, & Sayer, 2013; Bluen & Barling, 1988). The reason for
this may be that one of the most salient human threats is present:
the threat of rejection and ostracism from the group (Williams,
2007). Conflicts therefore have substantial human costs from en-
during high conflict-related stress over time, including lower job
satisfaction and higher burnout, sick leave rates, and turnover
(Dijkstra, Beersma, & Cornelissen, 2012; Lee & Ashforth, 1996).
Yet unlike some other occupational hazards that degrade one’s
health and well-being, such as safety lapses, excessive noise, or
noxious vapors, the stress presented by an incident of interpersonal
conflict at work is not necessarily to be simply avoided. We
suggest this for two reasons. First, there is empirical support for
positive outcomes of task conflict in particular circumstances. It
can boost team performance among top management teams and
teams performing nonroutine tasks (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de
Wit et al., 2012), and generate positive active emotions when it is
mild in nature and prompts information gathering (Todorova,
Bear, & Weingart, 2014). Second, conflict offers a platform for
problem solving, mutual gain, human connection, and the devel-
opment of character and strength. The short-term upheaval of
interpersonal conflict, if we “lean into” it rather than run away
from or charge into it, has been theorized to result in better
solutions and relationships, as well as insight, over the long term
(Axelrod & Johnson, 2005). The transformative theory of conflict,
in fact, makes a strong case for the potential that conflict holds to
Debra Gilin Oore, Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University;
Michael P. Leiter, Department of Psychology, Acadia University; Diane E.
LeBlanc, Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University.
Portions of this article were presented at the June 2014 meeting of the
Canadian Psychological Association.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Debra
Gilin Oore, Saint Mary’s University, 923 Robie Street, Halifax, NS, B3L
1J9. E-mail: [e-mail]
Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne © 2015 Canadian Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 56, No. 3, 301–310 0708-5591/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000032
301

engender positive spirals of growth, “from a negative, destructive,
alienating and demonizing interaction to one that becomes posi-
tive, constructive, connecting and humanizing, even while conflict
and disagreement are continuing” (Bush & Folger, 2005, p. 20).
In this article, we integrate the research literature across
several fields of psychology (social, personality, family, and
negotiation) to distill positive individual and organisational
factors for which there is evidence of increasing individuals’
successful responses to organisational conflict. We propose that
there are four broad individual factors that allow successful
navigation of the complexities inherent in conflict: cognitive
flexibility, a balance of self and other focus, emotional regula-
tion, and a fit of the person and their conflict approach to the
context. We propose that there are three organisational inter-
ventions that promote successful conflict handling: individual
conflict resolution training, work group conflict interventions,
and coaching and mediation. Our review contributes a novel
integration of positive factors for conflict handling, and a
hopeful articulation of the benefits that can come out of the
difficulties of work conflicts. We conclude by proposing prac-
tical applications and future directions for psychologists who
wish to study workplace conflict from a strengths-based van-
tage point.
Individual Factors Promoting Success in Conflict
The psychological research literature investigates conflict from
numerous theoretical and methodological perspectives. A particu-
larly active area of experimental work stems from social psycho-
logical theories of decision making and negotiation. In parallel,
conflict has been studied in terms of close relationships, and task
versus relationship conflict within teams. In this section, we draw
from each of these domains to review the evidence for individual
factors— dispositions, mind-sets, and behaviours—that have a ro-
bust benefit for individuals in conflict.
Cognitive Flexibility
Inherent in organisational conflict is the dyadic or multiparty
nature of perspectives, interests, values, and experiences. Our
first integrative proposition is that mind-sets invoking cognitive
flexibility lead individuals to have beneficial insight about
organisational conflict and the other people involved. In this
section, we review evidence for a number of related competen-
cies and argue that the common theme among them is that they
promote the ability to jump out of one’s own “shoes,” or
experiences, and to see the conflict issue from other vantage
points.
Two other-oriented tendencies, perspective-taking and empathic
concern, reliably affect individuals’ experience of conflict and its
resolution. Davis (1983) defined cognitive perspective-taking as a
primarily intellectual exercise, “the tendency to spontaneously
adopt the psychological point of view of others,” whereas em-
pathic concern is an affective tendency to experience “‘other-
oriented’ feelings of sympathy and concern for . . . others” (p.114).
This cognitive versus affective distinction has been empirically
demonstrated: The two constructs show opposite prediction of
many conflict outcomes (Davis, 1983; Gilin Oore, Maddux,
Carpenter, & Galinsky, 2013) and distinct neurological path-
ways (see review in Shamay-Tsoory, 2011).
Research has shown that broad competence is conferred by
cognitive perspective-taking— but, perhaps surprisingly, not by
empathic concern—in interpersonal conflict and negotiation.
First, dispositionally high perspective-takers rely less on ag-
gressive and “forcing” means of resolving conflict; instead, their
habitual conflict approaches are collaborative and problem-
solving in nature (Davis, 1983; Richardson, Hammock, Smith,
Gardner, & Signo, 1994). Perspective-takers not only show less
retaliation to aggressive partners (Richardson et al., 1994)—
they seem to reduce the dyadic level of retaliation in the
interaction with their partners (Gilin Oore et al., 2013). Re-
search recently replicated this experimental effect in the work-
place. Among health care workers in departments seeking help
for conflict, those with higher self-reported dispositional
perspective-taking tendencies were experiencing less relational
conflict in their work groups, and this association was statisti-
cally mediated by cognitive flexibility (LeBlanc, Gilin Oore,
Calnan, & Solarz, 2012). Second, negotiators who are higher on
the dispositional tendency to perspective-take, or who are in-
structed to adopt a perspective-taking mind-set, achieve better
resolutions in negotiations (Bazerman & Neale, 1982; Galinsky,
Maddux, Gilin Oore, & White, 2008). Perspective-taking (but
not empathic concern) facilitates the generation of creative,
out-of-the-box solutions to seemingly irreconcilable differ-
ences, although powerful individuals (such as organisational
leaders) are more heavily mired in their own perspective and
less responsive to perspective-taking instructions (Galinsky,
Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006).
More broadly, adopting any mind-set that provides psycho-
logical distance from interpersonal conflict tends to liberate the
enmeshed parties from their own biased viewpoints. In the
construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) literature, for
example, people who engage in a conflict of interest after being
primed with a temporally distant perspective (Giacomantonio,
De Dreu, & Mannetti, 2010; Henderson, Trope, & Carnevale,
2006), or abstract (vs. concrete) thinking (Giacomantonio et al.,
2010; Kross, Ayduk, & Mischel, 2005), are more successful at
thinking globally about the conflict. Relatedly, research on wise
reasoning has emphasised the importance of perspective-taking
and distancing as methods for increasing the wisdom of deci-
sions and judgments (Kross & Grossmann, 2012). Psychologi-
cal distance helps people focus on their highest-priority conflict
issues, such that they are willing to give in to their partner on
lower-priority issues (De Dreu, Giacomantonio, Shalvi, &
Sligte, 2009; Giacomantonio et al., 2010). This is termed an
“integrative” result in the negotiation literature, and tends to
produce high-quality solutions that are sustainable over time
and contribute to more stable relationships (Pruitt & Rubin,
1986).
We therefore conclude that a cognitive ability to move flex-
ibly through various perspectives on the conflict situation, or
more broadly, to “zoom out” from conflict, helps individuals
resolve conflict. Confirming this interpretation is the fact that
measures of related cognitive abilities, such as general intelli-
gence tests and creativity scales, correlate with integrative
negotiation outcomes (Barry & Friedman, 1998; Elfenbein,
Curhan, Eisenkraft, Shirako, & Baccaro, 2008).
302 GILIN OORE, LEITER, AND LEBLANC

A Balance of Self and Other Focus
A second individual factor that contributes to successful re-
sponses to organisational conflict is a balanced focus on the self
and on the other party (or parties) in conflict. A seminal theoretical
framework underlying our current understanding of social conflict
is the dual concern model (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). This model
identified that the joint combination of two motivations—that of
satisfying self-interests versus satisfying the interests of the others
in the conflict—results in one of four basic quadrants of conflict
behaviour (Rhoades & Carnevale, 1999). High self-interest cou-
pled with low other-interest motivates a competitive or forcing
approach; jointly high self- and other-interest motivates a collab-
orative or integrating approach; low self-interest coupled with high
other-interest motivates an accommodative or obliging approach;
and jointly low self- and other-interest motivates avoidance of
conflict (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Rahim, 1983; Thomas & Kilmann,
1974).
The field of social and personality psychology has shown that
traits generally perceived as positive—such as agreeableness,
extraversion, and empathy—are associated with reports of
fewer conflict events and less competitive conflict styles at
work (Antonioni, 1998; Barry & Friedman, 1998; Moberg,
2001). This accommodating behaviour is motivated by a strong
desire to maintain harmonious and positive relationships
(Amanatullah, Morris, & Curhan, 2008; DeRue, Conlon, Moon, &
Willaby, 2009; O’Connor & Arnold, 2011). In the short term, this
trade-off of what one wants for maintaining harmony seems to be
effective: Partners’ enjoyment of interacting and satisfaction with
the process of resolving conflict are higher when their partner is
high in relational concern (Foo, Elfenbein, Tan, & Aik, 2004) or
empathy (Galinsky et al., 2008), although at least one similar study
did not find this relational benefit of giving in during conflict
(O’Connor & Arnold, 2011).
Unfortunately, this avoidant and concessionary approach is gen-
erally insufficient to bring about successful conflict navigation in
the long run. When overly focused on maintaining a positive
relationship and not “rocking the boat” by also pursuing one’s own
needs and interests, conflict does not get sufficiently resolved at its
root to set a basis for mutually satisfying interactions moving
forward (Amanatullah et al., 2008; Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, &
Trochim, 2008; O’Connor & Arnold, 2011). Greater conflict can
result in the long run (e.g., for high empathic concern, see Gilin
Oore et al., 2013; LeBlanc et al., 2012). Helgeson and Fritz (1999)
have clarified that it is only unmitigated communion— concern for
others that actively rejects self-interest—that is harmful to one’s
relationships.
At the other end of the continuum, an exclusive or overbearing
focus on meeting one’s own needs without concern for one’s
partner’s needs—unmitigated agency—interferes with building re-
lationships in the first place (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). Individuals
high on the competing or forcing conflict handling style, or who
act overly assertively, engender lower partner trust and negative
partner attitudes (Ames, 2008). They also tend to miss joint
opportunities for mutual benefit with their partners (Dimotakis,
Conlon, & Ilies, 2012). A balanced focus—as proposed originally
in the dual concern model—is the most successful approach, all
else being equal (see the Person-Conflict Fit section).
An alternative way to construe this self-versus-other balancing
act defining successful conflict handling is that, all else held equal,
it is better to gently approach conflict (i.e., “lean in”; Axelrod &
Johnson, 2005) rather than excessively avoiding or approaching it.
Recent research on attachment styles at work (Leiter, Day, &
Price, 2015) brings the developmental psychology concept of
attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1994) into the workplace, differen-
tiating between individuals who are securely attached in their
social connections at work, and those who are insecurely attached.
A secure attachment style is marked by positive internal working
models of both self and others: Under stress, securely attached
individuals are socially confident yet also able to seek appropriate
support from others (Mikulincer & Florian, 1996 –1997). They
report lower instigation of workplace incivility, being a less fre-
quent target of incivility, and greater perceptions of work group
civility and social capital (Leiter et al., 2015). Insecure attachment
has two forms. Anxiously attached individuals seek high levels of
reassurance and support at work, have a relatively high level of
self-focus and needs, and instigate uncivil and conflictual interac-
tions (Leiter et al., 2015). In contrast, avoidantly attached individ-
uals rely excessively on themselves and tend to avoid interaction
and conflict. They report experiencing fewer uncivil exchanges
than their anxious colleagues, but they are also less likely to report
workplace civility (Leiter et al., 2015). The results of these initial
studies suggest a developmentally based reason that some individ-
uals tend to overly avoid conflict (avoidantly attached), whereas
others seem overly engaged in conflict (anxiously attached).
Emotion Regulation
Recently, there has been a flurry of research activity suggesting
that emotion regulation is a critical skill for coping productively
with interpersonal conflict. Emotion regulation refers to exercising
cognitive control to manage or redirect the impact of negative
emotions. Common emotion regulation tactics include attention
deployment (such as distracting oneself away from negative emo-
tions), reappraisal (a reinterpretation or modification of a negative
emotion), and suppression (inhibiting or tamping down feelings;
Kanfer & Kantrowitz, 2002).
One interesting line of work investigates conflict subtypes. Both
experimental evidence, in which relationship conflict was manipu-
lated (Griffith, Connelly, & Thiel, 2014), and correlational evidence
(Curs¸eu, Boros, & Oerlemans, 2012; Jiang, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2013)
demonstrate that emotion regulation results in less conflation of task
with relational conflict.Teams with members who are high in self-
reported emotion regulation ability used task conflict to perform
effectively, and contained the negative impact of relational conflict on
their performance (Jiang et al., 2013). Distraction away from the
negative emotions of relationship conflict is one means by which
teams can maintain performance (Behfar et al., 2008; Griffith et al.,
2014). Emotion regulation also prevents a third conflict subtype,
process conflict (conflict about roles and responsibilities), from trans-
forming into relationship conflict (van den Berg, Curseu, & Meeus,
2014).
Emotion regulation holds particular promise for reducing anger
and aggression in escalated, emotional, or intractable conflicts,
such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Halperin, Porat, Tamir, &
Gross, 2013) and marital conflict (Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton,
& Gross, 2013). For example, interventions teaching self-
303SUCCESSFUL RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

distancing and rationally examining the basis of emotional reac-
tions can immediately reduce anger and other negative affect
(Kross et al., 2005). A brief cognitive reappraisal training (viewing
the situation in a detached, analytic manner) among Israeli re-
search participants reduced support for aggressive Israeli re-
sponses to Palestinian violence that remained after 5 months
(Halperin et al., 2013). Relatedly, marital couples taught to view
their conflict from a neutral third-party perspective showed less
conflict-related distress and less relationship decline over time
than control groups (Finkel et al., 2013). Finally, focusing on the
positive features of a relationship can reduce cardiac arousal
and negative emotions during a discussion of an unresolved
romantic relationship conflict (Ben-Naim, Hirschberger,
Ein-Dor, & Mikulincer, 2013).
Evidence is therefore emerging that emotion regulation skills
help to contain the toxicity of negative emotions in response to
conflict. This key competency in conflict allows people to learn
from the valuable information that task or process conflict intro-
duce, without focusing on and exacerbating negative relationship
issues. Yet work is needed to apply emotion regulation interven-
tions to workplace conflict. Workplace conflict involves inherent
power dynamics and differentials. A conflict between two aca-
demic peers, for example, is fundamentally different from a con-
flict between a professor and their student. We know that powerful
individuals feel and express more positive affect (Keltner, Gruenfeld,
& Anderson, 2003), are more immune to the emotional displays of
conflict partners (Van Kleef, DeDreu, Pietroni, & Manstead, 2006),
and tend toward more automatic (less deliberative) social cognition
(Keltner et al., 2003). A ripe area for future research is to understand
how powerful states consequently aid versus inhibit emotion regula-
tion in work conflict. We return to this point in the concluding section.
Person-Conflict Fit
Although the traits, motivations, and mind-sets highlighted so
far in this review have reliable benefits for interpersonal conflict
handling, individual differences of one partner in isolation can
only tell us a portion of the story of how individuals cope suc-
cessfully with organisational conflict. In a recent study of round-
robin negotiation with multiple partners, Elfenbein and colleagues
(2008) reported that nearly half of the variance in negotiation
success was explained by systematic individual and dyadic
effects, an astounding result in contrast to the small effect sizes
we tend to see in the negotiation literature for individual trait
effects (Elfenbein et al., 2008). There are two key lessons in this
groundbreaking finding. First, it indicates that we are somehow
missing the full strength of predictable person consistency in
conflict and negotiation by measuring or manipulating traits for
one party and observing their effects on what is inherently a
complex dyadic interaction. Second, a large portion of the variance
in negotiation outcomes was explained by unique dyad effects, that
is, the idiosyncratic nature of the interacting dyad: People experi-
ence and act on conflict in importantly different ways across
different partners.
Evidence for the significant flux in conflict resolution ap-
proaches taken with different partners is emerging. For example,
team members with a dual self- and other-focus (termed “cooper-
ators”) flux more. They are more responsive and flexible, mirror-
ing the cooperative versus competitive moves of the other mem-
bers of the team (Weingart, Brett, Olekalns, & Smith, 2007), than
are team members with a unilateral focus on themselves (termed
“individualists”). This is a rational and effective long-term strat-
egy, in that it rewards an opponent’s cooperative moves and yet
signals a willingness to defend against competitive attacks, which
serves an aggression-prevention purpose (Rhoades & Carnevale,
1999). Individualists persist in competitive, assertive behaviour
almost regardless of their team members’ approaches (Weingart et
al., 2007). This is ineffective, echoing results for unmitigated
agency (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999).
Further, bourgeoning new research testing person-conflict fit
shows promising potential to increase our understanding of resil-
ience in the face of organisational conflict. By fit, we are referring
to person-conflict compatibility. For example, Dimotakis et al.
(2012) manipulated whether a negotiation case was purely com-
petitive (“distributive” in nature) or contained a mix of cooperative
and competitive features (“integrative” in nature, or holding “win-
win” potential). Better matching of the participant to the case (high
agreeableness with integrative cases, or low agreeableness with
distributive cases) resulted in greater cardiac arousal, positive
energized emotions, and better economic performance (see also
Barry & Friedman, 1998; DeRue et al., 2009). Among marital
couples, attachment style pairings have an important bearing on
their physiological and self-reported emotional responses during
conflict events. Although some combinations of insecure partners
(avoidantly attached husbands with anxiously attached wives) are
especially stress-inducing, insecurely attached couples with match-
ing styles (e.g., two anxiously attached partners) did not show
higher physiological stress during conflict (Beck et al., 2013). This
suggests that person–partner conflict approach fit is as important as
the objective health or positivity of the partners’ conflict ap-
proaches.
In workplace conflict, surveys used to provide conflict handling
style coaching to managers (e.g., Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode
Inventory; Thomas & Kilmann, 1974) include a significant dis-
cussion of the importance of fit of the conflict approach to the
conflict situation. For example, unimportant matters are often
beneficially handled with avoidance, emergency matters call for a
forceful or competing approach, and accommodation may make
sense when one has no power in a situation (Thomas & Kilmann,
1974). Yet the issue of conflict style fit has been a glaring and
ongoing omission to the field’s measurement of conflict responses.
In answer to this problem, Coleman and Kugler (2014) recently
published a new measure of managerial conflict adaptability. Their
measure presents critical incidents of conflict, and is scored ac-
cording to how well the chosen approach fits the unique cases
presented. In their initial validation study, it showed promising
positive correlations with satisfaction with conflict processes at
work, work well-being, general behavioural flexibility, and self-
efficacy.
The ability to either choose to work in situations that afford a
good fit between one’s habitual conflict handling tendencies and
the work environment, or to flexibly tailor one’s behavioural
approach to best match the partner or situation, therefore seem to
prompt comfort, energy, and success in handling conflict. Yet this
promising direction of research requires much more theoretical
and empirical attention—we return to this theme in our concluding
section.
304 GILIN OORE, LEITER, AND LEBLANC

Organisational Factors for Conflict Success
Organisations have both an economic and a human motivation
to help their members prevent, resolve, and recover from interper-
sonal workplace conflict (Dana, 2012; LeBlanc, 2010). Although
there is a strong body of writing in existence providing thoughtful
advice on the design of workplace dispute resolution systems
(Bendersky, 2003; Fox & Stallworth, 2009; Nabatchi & Bingham,
2010), research evidence for workplace conflict interventions has
been slower to emerge (Bollen & Euwema, 2013). We synthesize
here the literature on three workplace conflict interventions for
which there is some positive evaluation evidence: (a) individual
training, (b) work-group conflict interventions, and (c) coaching/
mediation.
Training
Conflict resolution training in organisations is a preventively
focused, skills-based protocol to improve conflict handling at the
earliest point in conflict and by the affected members themselves.
Yet the evaluation of conflict training in the workplace is highly
challenging. Evaluation research designs with strong controls,
such as wait-list control groups, random assignment to training,
and longitudinal follow-up, often do not fit the operational goals of
the organisation. However, evidence from environments that allow
for greater evaluation design control—such as marital counselling
and schools— demonstrate impressive effects of conflict resolution
training. A particularly strong test is offered by recent randomized
clinical trials among couples. Using careful selection criteria,
well-developed conflict training protocols, longitudinal outcome
measurement, and random assignment to treatment conditions,
Worthington et al. (2015) demonstrated that 9-hr group-based
conflict training significantly improved conflict handling of cou-
ples over 12 months. They included two specific training protocols
(one focused on communication and conflict resolution skills, the
other focused on empathy and acceptance of the partner), and both
improved treatment couples’ self-reported and observer-coded
conflict behaviours over time, compared with control couples
(Worthington et al., 2015). A similar trial among newlyweds
(Rogge, Cobb, Lawrence, Johnson, & Bradbury, 2013) also found
that trained couples had a significantly lower separation rate at
follow-up (11%) compared with the no-treatment control group
(separation rate 24%).
In school settings, children from kindergarten age (Stevahn,
Johnson, Johnson, & Real, 1996) to teens (Stevahn, Johnson,
Johnson, & Schultz, 2002) randomly assigned to receive 6 to 9 hr
of conflict resolution and interest-based negotiation skills show
positive attitudinal and behavioural results. However, the positive
training results were significantly muted for students learning
under an individualistic compared with a cooperative reward struc-
ture. This suggests conflict resolution skill training for employees
may not translate into used skills if the conflict culture of the
organisation is more competitive (Gelfand, Leslie, Keller, & de
Dreu, 2012).
The majority of conflict training evaluation studies from work-
place settings have been primarily qualitative in nature, and tend to
lack control or comparison groups. Nurse managers trained in
conflict coaching (12 hr), for example, showed enhanced commu-
nication competency and effectiveness in the trained skills
(Brinkert, 2011). Medical residents attending workshops in con-
flict resolution reported improvements in positive outlook on con-
flict, and in the ability to apply conflict resolution skills and build
relationships (Zweibel, Goldstein, Manwaring, & Marks, 2008).
Canadian Forces units trained on conflict resolution predeploy-
ment (4-day course) have been reported in interviews with leaders
to show dramatic preventive outcomes including the prevention of
Army unit casualties in Afghanistan (Dolan, 2014). This qualita-
tive organisational evidence triangulates the controlled trial evi-
dence from school and marital domains, together providing strong
evidence that organisational conflict resolution training can have
important positive effects on the conflict handling capacity of the
workforce.
Work Group Conflict Interventions
An innovative alternate approach to individual conflict training
is conflict intervention aimed at the entire work unit. Although this
is not yet a common conflict intervention approach, it holds great
promise for shaping work group norms and expectations to reverse
negative spirals and initiate positive interaction spirals (Bush &
Folger, 2005).
Research on civility and its antithesis, incivility, considers the
day-to-day quality of workgroup social encounters as setting the
stage for more challenging encounters, such as negotiation or
conflict management (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout,
2001). One workgroup-level intervention model—Civility, Re-
spect, and Engagement at Work (CREW)—involves developing a
common unit definition of civility and incivility, developing
shared expectations for civil behaviour and actively coping with
incivility, and engaging in regular discussions with a trained fa-
cilitator to air problems and celebrate progress. The CREW pro-
gram was shown to improve the overall civility and respect levels
of workgroups, to decrease the frequency of supervisor incivility,
and to reduce the cynicism dimension of burnout compared with
control groups (Leiter, Laschinger, Day, & Gilin Oore, 2011).
Most improvements were maintained or even further improved at
a 1-year follow-up (Leiter, Day, Gilin Oore, & Spence Laschinger,
2012).
A take-home point from the CREW intervention studies is that
proactive group identification of norms can make positive conflict
behaviours more likely in the work group. A similar lesson
emerges from a recent, naturalistic study of project teams (Behfar
et al., 2008). Teams that had high performance and satisfaction
developed positive norms, anticipated the need for conflict reso-
lution, and developed unique conflict resolution strategies (Behfar
et al., 2008). Interventions that help work groups develop their
own “grassroots” plans for conflict prevention and resolution are
therefore a promising avenue for reversing incivility spirals and
creating upward civility spirals (Bush & Folger, 2005).
Coaching and Mediation
When interpersonal conflicts escalate into disorder, it is com-
mon for workplaces—particularly public organisations—to have
one or more support programs available to assist the disputants in
coming to resolution. These may include a complaint program,
grievance procedure, or reporting to a supervisor or representative
from human resources. However, these paths often further inflame
conflict with an adversarial, formal, public approach (Fox &
305SUCCESSFUL RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Stallworth, 2009; Nabatchi & Bingham, 2010). Alternative dispute
resolution options, such as conflict coaching, facilitated conversa-
tions between the parties, and mediation, have become increas-
ingly popular as less formal, proactive supports.
Mediation refers to the attempt to resolve a conflict with the
help of a trained third party who does not impose a solution, but
instead performs some combination of communication facilitation,
issue identification, and input on potential solutions. In their recent
review of the efficacy evidence for mediation of interpersonal
conflict in workplaces (not including labour-management dis-
putes), Bollen and Euwema (2013) summarise the rather scant
research literature on mediation efficacy. They point out that
settlement rates are usually quite high for workplace mediation
programs (see also the results of the REDRESS transformative
mediation program in the U.S. Postal Service; Nabatchi, Bingham,
& Moon, 2010), as is satisfaction with the process—although the
latter is more true for individuals with higher rank (and therefore
greater power) within the organisation. Bollen and Euwema (2013)
note that few, if any, studies have reported the effects of such
programs on improved functioning or well-being, and they suggest
future evaluation studies ask program users two telling questions:
“Would you recommend the use of mediation to others?”’ and
“Would you consider using mediation in future?” (p. 347).
A recent Canadian study presented conflict resolution program
participants with similar questions, and the results reinforce the
generally positive experience of staff who attend workplace me-
diation programs. An evaluation of the longstanding interest-based
mediation program in the Canadian Forces reports a 75% settle-
ment rate and 90.4% satisfaction with the settlement, in which
55% stated that mediation helped the relationship, 92.5% stated
they would recommend it to others, and 88.1% stated they would
use the service again themselves (Dolan, 2014). Further, disputant
perceptions of distributive justice (fairness of the settlement out-
come) and mediator procedural justice (fairness of mediator’s
process) were associated with these outcomes: More satisfied
participants felt the outcome and mediator’s process were fairer
(Dolan, 2014).
These findings echo others showing that an active coping ap-
proach (Dijkstra et al., 2012) and seeking third-party assistance
(Giebels & Janssen, 2005) reduce the relationship between
conflict-related stress and strain outcomes.
Implications and Future Directions
The foregoing integrative review synthesizes evidence for pos-
itive individual and organisational factors that can contribute to
successful handling of organisational conflict. Underlying our
review is an assumption about the nature of interpersonal conflict:
It is inevitable, difficult, and important. Conflict is a critical
mechanism by which we navigate the variety of personalities,
goals, interests, and values in social interaction. We have argued
that although quite challenging in the moment, conflict handled
well can build psychological capital, such as empowerment, in-
sight, recognition, and connection among organisational members.
This proposition stands on strong theoretical and empirical foun-
dations, such as the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions
(Fredrickson, 2001), modern models of resiliency in adversity
(McLarnon & Rothstein, 2013), and transformative mediation the-
ory (Bush & Folger, 2005). In this concluding section, we propose
implications of this accumulated knowledge for organisational
practice and future research directions for where our knowledge is
sparse.
Trainability of Advantageous Conflict Mind-Sets
For individual factors promoting successful conflict handling,
we concluded that cognitive flexibility, a balance of self- and
other-focus, emotional regulation, and person-conflict fit are gen-
erally beneficial. Most of the specific constructs reviewed—
perspective-taking, psychological distance, dual self- and other-
focused motivational states, and emotion regulation— can be
either measured as either dispositional tendencies or situationally
manipulated with brief instructional sets. The ability of mind-set
instructions to override dispositional tendencies and impact con-
flict behaviour is evident in the experimental studies reviewed. The
trainability of these mind-sets should therefore be very high. Most
of the instructions require only minimal natural ability, a couple of
minutes, and a moderate motivation to successfully enact: Adopt-
ing someone else’s perspective (Galinsky et al., 2008), thinking of
a conflict in increasingly abstract or distant terms (Giacomantonio
et al., 2010), focusing on both one’s own and one’s partner’s
interests (Weingart et al., 2007), and cognitively reappraising a
hostile attack (Halperin et al., 2013) can improve conflict efficacy
significantly. Organisational conflict resolution training may ben-
efit from modifying and adopting the very instruction sets from
this body of literature.
Conflict Fit and Adaptability
Based on our review of the psychological research relevant to
organisational conflict, we propose that a critical future research
direction is investigating further the fit between the individual and
the conflict. Recent work showing that a large proportion of the
variance in conflict outcomes comes from dyad-idiosyncratic pro-
cesses (Beck et al., 2013; Elfenbein et al., 2008) and person-task fit
(Dimotakis et al., 2012) is intriguing and holds potential for
unlocking the difference between constructive and destructive
conflict at work. Emerging research showing that some individuals
are simply better at fitting their conflict is also a ripe area for
additional investigation. Conflict adaptability (Coleman & Kugler,
2014), measuring who makes wise choices about when to apply
which conflict style, seems to perfectly encapsulate a capacity to
thrive despite challenging organisational conflict. This area re-
quires further theoretical and empirical advancement.
Organisational Context: Culture and Power
It is important to acknowledge several key areas of our review
that were based primarily on research in nonorganizational con-
texts and that need further research for successful application in
workplaces. One such area is conflict resolution training. Research
from competitive versus cooperative educational settings (Stevahn
et al., 2002) indicated that even the best-designed training may be
lost in translation if the context is not conducive to them. Research
emerging on organisational conflict culture (Gelfand et al., 2012)
indicates that organisations support and promote some styles of
conflict handling more than others. They have an organisational
“conflict style.” Future research should advance understanding of
306 GILIN OORE, LEITER, AND LEBLANC

how individual styles and organisational styles interact, creating
microclimates conducive to a unique profile of conflict behaviours.
What are the well-being and performance implications of this type
of person– organisation fit or misfit?
It is also critical to better understand how power dynamics
within the hierarchical structure of workplaces alter the occurrence
and efficacy of conflict processes reviewed here. We noted studies
suggesting that high power individuals differ from low power
individuals in perspective-taking, emotional expression and regu-
lation, and social cognition generally (see Keltner, Gruenfeld, &
Anderson, 2003). The research literature does not yet offer tailored
understanding or interventions for conflicts among people who
differ in rank and power. Given that mediation processes have as
an implicit goal the leveling of power disparities to resolve conflict
fairly, it is important to learn how employee power affects uptake
and quality of workplace conflict program participation (Harlos,
2010). The understanding of power as a moderating force in
conflict handling is another emerging research area requiring fur-
ther investigation (Coleman, Kugler, Mitchinson, & Foster, 2013).
Reducing the Practice–Evidence Gap
The organisational factors that demonstrate strong potential for
supporting productive conflict responses were individual training,
work-group focused civility and conflict resolution interventions,
and workplace mediation programs. We conclude by noting sev-
eral important issues in the organisational intervention literatures.
First, the uptake of workplace mediation programs is far outstrip-
ping the publication of studies showing evidence of program
efficacy (Bollen & Euwema, 2013). In our own experience con-
ducting interventions and research in civility and conflict, it is
indeed very difficult to publish organisational intervention studies
in top-tier organisational psychology journals, which tend to es-
chew cross-sectional, correlational data and nonexperimental ap-
proaches. The result is that applied wisdom about best practices
and boundary conditions for conflict resolution interventions is not
widely accessible to psychologists doing research or beginning an
organisational intervention. Perhaps a widely available venue can
be carved out as a repository for our collective experiences imple-
menting conflict resolution supports in organisations.
Résumé
Les conflits au travail sont plutôt courants et sources de stress,
mais ils demeurent peut-être un élément vital et nécessaire des
interactions humaines. Dans le cadre de cette livraison spéciale sur
la psychologie positive, nous proposons que l’intensité a ` court
terme et nécessaire qui caractérise les conflits interpersonnels peut
résulter en des conséquences positives a ` long terme, tels que la
lucidité, des rapports et la force. L’article fait la synthèse de
recherches sur la psychologie organisationnelle, familiale, sociale
et de la personnalité en vue de déterminer les facteurs qui favor-
isent des réponses favorables aux conflits. Des caractéristiques
individuelles, telles que la flexibilité cognitive, l’équilibre entre la
focalisation sur soi et sur les autres, la maîtrise des émotions et
l’adaptation de la personne a` la situation conflictuelle, constituent
des éléments prometteurs pour un conflit productif, des facteurs
qui semblent s’apprendre. Les interventions organisationnelles,
notamment la formation individuelle, la formation en groupes sur
les conflits et la médiation, se révèlent aussi efficaces dans
l’acquisition de compétences a` composer avec les conflits.
L’article se termine par des propositions d’implications pour les
interventions de résolution de conflits et d’orientations détermi-
nantes pour les recherches futures.
Mots-clés : résolution de conflits, conflit interpersonnel, person-
nalité, interventions organisationnelles, négociations.
References
Amanatullah, E. T., Morris, M. W., & Curhan, J. R. (2008). Negotiators
who give too much: Unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and
economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 723–738. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0012612
Ames, D. R. (2008). Assertiveness expectancies: How hard people push
depends on the consequences they predict. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95, 1541–1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013334
Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the Big Five personality fac-
tors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 9, 336 –355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022814
Axelrod, L., & Johnson, R. (2005). Turning conflict into profit: A roadmap
for resolving personal and organizational disputes. Edmonton, Alberta:
University of Alberta Press.
Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2003). Workplace conflict,
bullying, and counterproductive behaviors. The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 11, 283–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
eb028976
Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distrib-
utive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 345–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.345
Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1982). Improving negotiation effec-
tiveness under final offer arbitration: The role of selection and training.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 543–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
AMBPP.1982.4976694
Beck, L. A., Pietromonaco, P. R., DeBuse, C. J., Powers, S. I., & Sayer,
A. G. (2013). Spouses’ attachment pairings predict neuroendocrine,
behavioral, and psychological responses to marital conflict. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 388 – 424. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0033056
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & 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 out-
comes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170 –188. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170
Bendersky, C. (2003). Dispute resolution organizational systems: A
complementarities model. The Academy of Management Review, 28,
643– 656.
Ben-Naim, S., Hirschberger, G., Ein-Dor, T., & Mikulincer, M. (2013). An
experimental study of emotion regulation during relationship conflict
interactions: The moderating role of attachment orientations. Emotion,
13, 506 –519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031473
Bluen, S. D., & Barling, J. (1988). Psychological stressors associated with
industrial relations. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping,
and consequences of stress at work (pp. 175–205). London, UK: Wiley.
Bollen, K., & Euwema, M. (2013). Workplace mediation: An underdevel-
oped research area. Negotiation Journal, 29, 329 –353. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/nejo.12028
Brinkert, R. (2011). Conflict coaching training for nurse managers: A case
study of a two-hospital health system. Journal of Nursing Management,
19, 80 –91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01133.x
Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation (2nd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
307SUCCESSFUL RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Cascio, W. F. (2000). Costing human resources: The financial impact of
behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South western.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place?
Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on percep-
tions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 1082–1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
Coleman, P. T., & Kugler, K. G. (2014). Tracking managerial conflict
adaptivity: Introducing a dynamic measure of adaptive conflict manage-
ment in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1–24.
Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Mitchinson, A., & Foster, C. (2013).
Navigating conflict and power at work: The effects of power and
interdependence asymmetries on conflict in organizations. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1963–1983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
jasp.12150
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001).
Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 6, 64 – 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-
8998.6.1.64
Curseu, P. L., Boros, S., & Oerlemans, L. G. (2012). Task and relationship
conflict in short-term and long-term groups: The critical role of emotion
regulation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23, 97–107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10444061211199331
Dana, D. (2012). The Dana measure of financial cost of organizational
conflict: A tool for demonstrating the bottom-line impact of HRD and
OD interventions. Retrieved from http://www.mediationworks.com/mti/
cost.htm
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: A
multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
De Dreu, C. K. W., Giacomantonio, M., Shalvi, S., & Sligte, D. (2009).
Getting stuck or stepping back: Effects of obstacles and construal level
in the negotiation of creative solutions. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 542–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.001
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship
conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
DeRue, D. S., Conlon, D. E., Moon, H., & Willaby, H. W. (2009). When
is straightforwardness a liability in negotiations? The role of integrative
potential and structural power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1032–1047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014965
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of
intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
360 –390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
Dijkstra, M. T. M., Beersma, B., & Cornelissen, R. A. (2012). The
emergence of the Activity Reduces Conflict Associated Strain (ARCAS)
model: A test of a conditional mediation model of workplace conflict
and employee strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17,
365–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028550
Dimotakis, N., Conlon, D. E., & Ilies, R. (2012). The mind and heart
(literally) of the negotiator: Personality and contextual determinants of
experiential reactions and economic outcomes in negotiation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 183–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025706
Dolan, N. (2014). Settling differences: New approaches to conflict reso-
lution in high-security organizations (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia.
Elfenbein, H. A., Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., Shirako, A., & Baccaro, L.
(2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differences
in bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1463–
1475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010
Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J.
(2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves
marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24, 1595–1601. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612474938
Foo, M. D., Elfenbein, H. A., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C. (2004). Emotional
intelligence and negotiation: The tension between creating and claiming
value. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 411– 429.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022920
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2009). Building a framework for two internal
organizational approaches to resolving and preventing workplace bully-
ing: Alternative dispute resolution and training. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 61, 220 –241. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0016637
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 56, 218 –226.
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin Oore, D., & White, J. B. (2008).
Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential
effects of perspective-taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological
Science, 19, 378 –384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008
.02096.x
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006).
Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068 –
1074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x
Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K., & de Dreu, C. (2012). Conflict
cultures in organizations: How leaders shape conflict cultures and their
organizational-level consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
1131–1147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029993
Giacomantonio, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Mannetti, L. (2010). Now you
see it, now you don’t: Interests, issues, and psychological distance in
integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98, 761–774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017879
Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced well-being
at work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 137–155. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/13594320444000236
Gilin Oore, D., Maddux, W. W., Carpenter, J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013).
When to use your head and when to use your heart: The differential
value of perspective-taking versus empathy in competitive interactions.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 3–16. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0146167212465320
Gilin Oore, D., Leblanc, D., Day, A., Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S.,
Price, S. L., & Latimer, M. (2010). When respect deteriorates: Incivility
as a moderator of the stressor-strain relationship among hospital work-
ers. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 878 – 888.
Griffith, J. A., Connelly, S., & Thiel, C. E. (2014). Emotion regulation and
intragroup conflict: When more distracted minds prevail. The Interna-
tional Journal of Conflict Management, 25, 148 –170. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/IJCMA-04-2012-0036
Halperin, E., Porat, R., Tamir, M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Can emotion
regulation change political attitudes in intractable conflicts? From the
laboratory to the field. Psychological Science, 24, 106 –111. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612452572
Harlos, K. (2010). If you build a remedial voice mechanism, will they
come? Determinants of voicing interpersonal mistreatment at work.
Human Relations, 63, 311–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0018726709348937
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational
framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5,
1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1
Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmiti-
gated communion: Distinctions from agency and communion. Journal of
Research in Personality, 33, 131–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe
.1999.2241
308 GILIN OORE, LEITER, AND LEBLANC

Henderson, M. D., Trope, Y., & Carnevale, P. J. (2006). Negotiation from
a near and distant time perspective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 712–729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.712
Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments
of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256 –282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393638
Jiang, J. Y., Zhang, X., & Tjosvold, D. (2013). Emotion regulation as a
boundary condition of the relationship between team conflict and per-
formance: A multi-level examination. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 34, 714 –734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1834
Kanfer, R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2002). Emotion regulation: Command
and control of emotion in work life. In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R.
Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure
and role of emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 433– 472). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach,
and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking “why” does not
hurt. Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative
emotions. Psychological Science, 16, 709 –715. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01600.x
Kross, E., & Grossmann, I. (2012). Boosting wisdom: Distance from the
self enhances wise reasoning, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology: General, 141, 43– 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0024158
LeBlanc, D. E. (2010). Conflict environment scan (Unpublished manu-
script). Healthy Workplace Department, Capital District Health Author-
ity, Halifax, Canada.
LeBlanc, D., Gilin Oore, D., & Axelrod, L. (2014, July). Workplace
conflict: Meaning and measurement. Poster presentation at the annual
conference of the International Association for Conflict Management,
Leiden, Netherlands.
LeBlanc, D. E., Gilin Oore, D., Calnan, K., & Solarz, B. (2012, July).
Perspective-taking, empathy, and relational conflict at work: An inves-
tigation among participants in a workplace conflict resolution program.
Paper presentation at International Association for Conflict Manage-
ment, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the
correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 123–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123
Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Gilin Oore, D., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2012).
Getting better and staying better: Assessing civility, incivility, distress,
and job attitudes one year after a civility intervention. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 425– 434. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0029540
Leiter, M. P., Day, A., & Price, L. (2015). Attachment styles at work:
Measurement, collegial relationships, and burnout. Burnout Research, 2,
25–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2015.02.003
Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Gilin Oore, D. (2011). The
impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress,
and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1258 –1274. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0024442
McLarnon, M. J. W., & Rothstein, M. G. (2013). Development and initial
validation of the workplace resilience inventory. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 12, 63–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000084
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1997). A cognitive-relational approach to
emotions—The appraisal and coping components of sadness, shame,
guilt, jealousy, and disgust. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 16,
263–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/00L2-TL35-6W2Y-E9M1
Moberg, P. J. (2001). Linking conflict strategy to the five-factor model:
Theoretical and empirical foundations. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 12, 47– 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022849
Nabatchi, T., & Bingham, L. (2010). From postal to peaceful: Dispute
systems design in the USPS REDRESS program. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 30, 211–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0734371X09360187
Nabatchi, T., Bingham, L. B., & Moon, Y. (2010). Evaluating transforma-
tive practice in the U.S. Postal Service REDRESS program. Conflict
Resolution Quarterly, 27, 257–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/crq.259
O’Connor, K. M., & Arnold, J. A. (2011). Sabotaging the deal: The way
relational concerns undermine negotiators. Journal of Experimental So-
cial Psychology, 47, 1167–1172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011
.04.004
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate,
and settlement. New York, NY: Random House.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal
conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368 –376. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/255985
Rhoades, J. A., & Carnevale, P. J. (1999). The behavioral context of
strategic choice in negotiation: A test of the dual concern model. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1777–1802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1559-1816.1999.tb00152.x
Richardson, D. R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., Gardner, W., & Signo,
M. (1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 20, 275–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-
2337(1994)20:4⬍275::AID-AB2480200402⬎3.0.CO;2-4
Rogge, R. D., Cobb, R. J., Lawrence, E., Johnson, M. D., & Bradbury,
T. N. (2013). Is skills training necessary for the primary prevention of
marital distress and dissolution? A 3-year experimental study of three
interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 949 –
961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034209
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The neural bases for empathy. The Neuro-
scientist, 17, 18 –24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073858410379268
Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Real, D. (1996). The impact
of a cooperative or individualistic context on the effectiveness of conflict
resolution training. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 801–
823. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312033004801
Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Schultz, R. (2002). Effects
of conflict resolution training integrated into a high school social studies
curriculum. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 305–331. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/00224540209603902
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict
Mode Instrument. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Todorova, G., Bear, J. B., & Weingart, L. R. (2014). Can conflict be
energizing? a study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfac-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 451– 467. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0035134
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological
distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440 – 463. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0018963
van den Berg, W., Curseu, P. L., & Meeus, M. T. H. (2014). Emotion
regulation and conflict transformation in multi-team systems. Interna-
tional Journal of Conflict Management, 25, 171–188. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/IJCMA-05-2012-0038
Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Pietroni, D., & Manstead, S. R.
(2006). Power and emotion in negotiation: Power moderates the inter-
personal effects of anger and happiness on concession making. Euro-
pean Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 557–581. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/ejsp.320
van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2001). Personality in teams:
Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 97–120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000573
Weingart, L. R., Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2007).
Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. Journal of Personality
309SUCCESSFUL RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

and Social Psychology, 93, 994 –1010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.93.6.994
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,
425– 452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Berry, J. W., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Scherer, M.,
Griffin, B. J., . . . Campana, K. L. (2015). Forgiveness-reconciliation and
communication-conflict-resolution interventions versus retested controls
in early married couples. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 14 –27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000045
Zweibel, E. B., Goldstein, R., Manwaring, J. A., & Marks, M. B. (2008).
What sticks: How medical residents and academic health care faculty
transfer conflict resolution training from the workshop to the workplace.
Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25, 321–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
crq.211
Received February 18, 2015
Revision received May 2, 2015
Accepted May 15, 2015 䡲
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest CPA Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite Canadian Psychological Association journal will be available
online? This service is now available. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest
to you become available!
Avis par courriel de la disponibilité des revues de la SCP en ligne!
Vous voulez savoir quand sera accessible en ligne le prochain numéro de votre revue de la Sociétè canadienne de psychologie
préférée? Il est désormais possible de le faire. Inscrivez-vous a` http://notify.apa.org/ et vous serez avisé par courriel de la date
de parution en ligne des numéros qui vous intéressent!
310 GILIN OORE, LEITER, AND LEBLANC

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited wit
permission.