See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235302898

Defining Conflict and Making Choices About Its Management:

Lighting the Dark Side of Organizational Life

Article  in  International Journal of Conflict Management · May 2006

DOI: 10.1108/10444060610736585

CITATIONS READS
91 9,029

1 author:

Dean Tjosvold
Lingnan University
320 PUBLICATIONS   10,842 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Business Ethics in Chinese Societies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dean Tjosvold on 25 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SPECIAL COMMENTARY Defining conflict

Defining conflict and making

choices about its management
87
Lighting the dark side of organizational life
Received 13 September 2006
Dean Tjosvold Accepted 10 October 2006
Department of Management, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, China

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the definition of conflict, and argue that conflict is not
always destructive.
Design/methodology/approach – This commentary centers on re-evaluating past research into
the definition and nature of conflict. It proposes that more thought is required when using the term as
it is too broad in its definition. The term has become synonymous with negativity, and this
commentary aims to show that the term may also be used in certain situations when conflict can have
a positive effect.
Findings – Although the research has shown that some people have a broader idea of what the term
“conflict” comprises, the majority of people use the common definition related to destruction and
negativity.
Practical implications – Opens up a discussion revolving around the concept of conflict and
dispels the commonly held definition that conflict is always detrimental.
Originality/value – The paper takes an alternative view of conflict and opens up the little-held
discussion around the term itself and its negative connotations.
Keywords Conflict, Conflict management
Paper type Viewpoint

In this special commentary, it is proposed that researchers have not paid sufficient
attention to defining conflict. For that reason, conflict is too often mistakenly perceived
as negative and destructive. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that shows the
positive outcomes from well managed conflict.
A number of researchers, using diverse theoretical perspectives, have empirically
documented the value of conflict for making decisions and other central aspects of
organizational and social life (Amason, 1996; Anderson, 1983; Cosier, 1978; George,
1974; Gruenfeld, 1995; Mason and Mitroff, 1981; Peterson and Nemeth, 1996; Schweiger
et al., 1986; Tetlock et al., 1994). We now know that conflict itself is not destructive and
that, when constructively managed, it can help us dig into issues, understand
problems, create solutions, and strengthen relationships and that these findings are not
limited to the West. We have made progress on understanding and managing conflict,
a progress that is potentially invaluable in our increasingly interdependent, global International Journal of Conflict
world. However, despite this documentation of the contribution of well-managed Management
Vol. 17 No. 2, 2006
pp. 87-95
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The research upon which this paper is based was supported in part by the RGC grant project No: 1044-4068
LU3404/05H. DOI 10.1108/10444060610736585
IJCMA conflict, conflicts are still widely considered destructive and to be avoided, even by our
17,2 fellow researchers.
I argue that we have not paid sufficient attention to defining conflict and this
oversight has very much contributed to the continued negative attitudes that conflict is
destructive and to the wide spread belief that conflict escalation “just happens” without
human choice. Conflicts, especially that involve fundamental values or relationships,
88 for example, are often hypothesized to be destructive; strong, emotional conflicts are
thought to be inevitably costly. But it is how protagonists chose to manage conflict that
affects its dynamics and outcomes. Although our research has identified viable options
that people have, common definitions tend to limit the likely choices to ones that lead to
escalation and avoidance of conflict, undermining people’s ability to exercise their
responsibility to manage their conflicts effectively.
Confusions about definitions have also contributed to a walling off of conflict
research from related areas. An amazing example is that, for many researchers and
professionals, conflict has little relevance for the increasingly popular issue of
teamwork in organizational studies. Conflict is seen as a subset, and perhaps not such a
critical one, independent of the major issues of coordination, exchange, support, and
decision-making. However, the idea that conflict can be constructive is basic to the very
rationale for structuring teams and negotiating conflict is, arguably, the key to making
teams work. Similarly, leadership research has recently emphasized the value of
quality relationships but there is less recognition that these relationships are valuable
because they contribute to construct conflict or that managing conflict cooperatively is
a way to develop these relationships.
People often believe that conflict “happens to them” and that it escalates
uncontrollably. Defining conflict in terms of opposing interests reinforces this kind of
reasoning as people assume that as the conflict is competitive they should try to win
and to force their position. It may be difficult not to retaliate aggressively when the
conflict is thought to be “win-lose” but it is not necessary to assume conflict is
competitive. People fight conflicts and make choices that may or may not escalate
conflict; conflict does not escalate itself. Defining conflict as incompatible actions
independently of opposing goals can help people exercise their choice, and
responsibility, to manage conflict.

Traditional ways to define conflict

The research community has not considered conflict a very important or controversial
subject. My purpose in this section is not to single out and pick on a few researchers
but only to use references from prominent social psychological and organizational
scholars to illustrate the group phenomenon of inattention to definitions and adopting
diffuse, confounded definitions.
Traditionally, conflict is thought to arise from opposing interests involving scarce
resources and goal divergence and frustration (Mack and Snyder, 1957; Pondy, 1967;
Schmidt and Kochan, 1972). Conflict has often been proposed to occur in mixed-motive
relationships where persons have both competitive and cooperative interests
(Bacharach and Lawler, 1981; Kochan and Verma, 1983; Walton and McKersie,
1965). The competitive elements produce the conflict; the cooperative elements create
the incentives to bargain to reach an agreement (Deutsch and Krauss, 1962).
 More recently, Rubin et al. (1994) argued that conflict had become too broadly Defining conflict
defined but they want to use it to mean a “perceived divergence of interest, or a belief
that the parties’ current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously” (p. 5).
Concurring with Rubin et al. (1994), Lewicki et al. (1997) argued that there are many
ways to define conflict and suggested a similar definition as “the interaction of
interdependent people who perceived incompatible goals and interference from each
other in achieving those goals” (p. 15). Barki and Hartwick (2004) elaborated upon 89
these efforts by defining conflict as “a dynamic process that occurs between
interdependent parties as they experience negative emotional reactions to perceived
disagreements and interference with the attainment of their goals” (p. 234).
Researchers have tended to define conflict in broad terms. For example, Jehn and
Bendersky (2003) defined conflict as “perceived incompatibilities or discrepant views
among the parties involved” (p. 189). De Dreu et al. (1999) argued that conflict involves
“the tension an individual or group experiences because of perceived differences
between him or herself and another individual or group” (p. 369).
The term conflict as popularly used typically reflects the assumption that conflict
involves not only differences but incompatible goals and is win-lose. Indeed, studies
that ask people to complete questionnaires that use the term conflict without being
modified as to whether it is win-lose or not typically indicate that conflict of various
kinds are negatively related to outcomes (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). The Chinese
term for conflict has even stronger connotations of a win-lose battle than the English
term.
Conflict researchers have typically been very inclusive in their definitions of
conflict. Indeed, definitions seem to be given in an off-hand manner or more often not at
all. However, the lack of discussion about definitions has resulted in the wide spread
acceptance of conflict as involving opposing interests, a definition that confounds
competition with conflict. Previous research has documented that this confusion very
much frustrates our understanding and managing of conflict.

Critique of traditional definitions

Although defining conflict in terms of opposing interests and divergent goals may be
consistent with popular usage of the term, there are two fundamental difficulties with
this definition. First, it is not realistic. Not every conflict involves perceived divergence
of interests or goals. Team members may disagree over whether their report should be
handed in at the end of the week or at the end of the month and argue their different
positions very strongly and emotionally. This disagreement could be based on
incompatible interests and divergent goals: One group member has the goal to be
finished by the end of the week and the other has goal to finish at the end of the month
in order to work on another project. Perhaps one group member believes that by
finishing the report this week the boss will consider him a more efficient employee than
the other team members whereas finishing in a month will favor other team members.
But the conflict is not necessary based on perceived divergent goals. Team members
may not have any opposing interests; they want a high quality report that the boss
values but disagree whether the boss will value a report done quickly or completely.
Whether people have competitive goals in conflict is an empirical question, not to be
assumed in the definition. The protagonists themselves decide whether they have
divergent interests or not. Indeed, in our studies that collect data on specific conflicts
IJCMA through interviews, respondents often indicate that they have an important
17,2 disagreement with few opposing goals (e.g., Tjosvold and Moy, 1998).
The second major deficiency with defining conflict as opposing interests is that
deciding that the conflict involves incompatible goals very much affects the
management of conflict, generally making its constructive management difficult. Of
course goals can be divergent at times, but considerable research has documented that
90 concluding goals are opposing typically makes integrative, creative solutions to
conflict less likely.

Conflict in cooperative and competitive context

In addition to obscuring the reality that people with completely compatible goals not
only can but often do have conflict, conflict as opposing interests is confounded with
competition defined as incompatible goals. This confounding makes it unclear whether
effects theorized or found are due to conflict or to competition.
The irony is that the literature has had an un-confounded definition of conflict for
several decades. Morton Deutsch’s (1973) theory of cooperation and competition
indicated that defining conflict as opposing interests is fundamentally flawed.
Although Deutsch is one of the most prominent conflict researchers (e.g., the first
recipient of the International Association for Conflict Management’s Life-Time
Achievement Award), the implications for his definition of conflict have been largely
missed. There does not appear to have been enough direct, open conflict about
definitions to generate questioning of traditional definitions and developing more
effective ones!
Deutsch defined conflict as incompatible activities; one person’s actions interfere,
obstruct or in some way get in the way of another’s action. Incompatible activities
occur in both cooperative and competitive contexts. Whether the protagonists believe
their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations,
interaction, and outcomes. How they negotiate their conflict in turn affects the extent to
which they believe they have cooperative or competitive goals with each other.
A great deal of evidence from various researchers underlines that cooperative
conflict captures many benefits of conflict and is the basis for constructive conflict
management whereas assuming goals are incompatible interferences. Previous articles
have summaried our own studies (Tjosvold, 1991; Tjosvold et al., forthcoming). This
section briefly notes how research studies document that cooperatively managed
conflict very much contributes to productive teamwork, including top management
teams, and leadership.
Cooperative conflict discussions helped Hong Kong accountants and managers dig
into and resolve budget issues, strengthen their relationships, and improve budget
quality so that limited financial resources were used wisely (Poon et al., 2001). Over 100
teams working in Chinese organizations who discussed issues cooperatively and
openly were able to deal with biases and took risks effectively (Tjosvold and Yu,
forthcoming). According to their managers, these risk-taking groups were able both to
innovate and to recover from their mistakes.
Cooperative conflict management can very much contribute to effective top
management teams. Executives from 105 high technology firms around Beijing who
indicated that they relied on cooperative rather than competitive or and avoiding
conflict were rated by their CEOs as effectiveness and their organizations as innovative Defining conflict
(Chen et al., 2005).
Cooperative, open conflict helped Hong Kong senior accounting managers
effectively lead employees in mainland China (Tjosvold and Moy, 1998) and Chinese
employees work with their American and Japanese managers (Chen, Tjosvold and Su,
forthcoming). Cooperative, constructive controversy interactions were also found
critical for Chinese staff to work productively and developed relationships with 91
Japanese managers, outcomes that in turn built commitment to their Japanese
companies (Tjosvold et al., 1998). Cooperative conflict facilitated Chinese employees
development of effective relationships with their Western managers (Chen, Su and
Tjosvold, forthcoming).
More than 200 Chinese employees from various industries indicated that
cooperative, but not competitive or independent, goals helped them and their foreign
managers develop a quality leader-member exchange relationship and improve leader
effectiveness, employee commitment, and future collaboration (Chen and Tjosvold,
forthcoming). Cooperative, open-minded discussion of opposing views appear to be an
important aid for overcoming obstacles and developing effective leader relationships
within and across cultural boundaries.
Field and experimental studies in North America and Asia provide strong internal
and external validity to central hypotheses of cooperative and competitive conflict.
Whether protagonists emphasize cooperative or competitive goals drastically affects
the dynamics and outcomes of their conflict management. Contrary to traditional
theorizing, Chinese participants appear to appreciate others who speak their minds
directly and cooperatively.

Making choices in conflict

Conflict is often experienced as something that happens to people and that conflict
escalation is built into the situation. The kind of conflict has been theorized to be
critical. Specifically, value, emotional, and relationship conflicts are thought to result,
nearly inevitably, in destructive outcomes. The more frequent and intense the
relationship compared to the task conflict, the more negative the effects on group
productivity. But the research support for this theorizing is unconvincing (De Dreu and
Weingart, 2003).
Conflict does not just happen nor does conflict escalate by itself. People make
choices that escalate conflict or lead to more constructive outcomes. They can, for
example, manage their angry conflicts effectively or ineffectively (Averill, 1982;
Tjosvold and Su, forthcoming). It may be that certain kinds of conflicts are generally
more difficult for people to make effective choices, although documenting this idea
might prove highly difficult. What counts though are the choices the participants make
and the skills they use to implement them. People control conflict; conflict does not
control people. Alas, controlling conflict productively is much easier accomplished
through the combined efforts of all protagonists.
Critical choices begin with how people understand and frame the conflict. They
construct whether they are in conflict, the issues at stake, indeed, their feelings. They
feel angry at another’s incompatible action if they believe they have been deliberately
and unjustifiably frustrated, but not if they accept that the other did not intend or was
justified in frustrating them (Averill, 1982; Tjosvold and Su, forthcoming).
IJCMA Defining conflict as divergent goals and opposing interests disrupts making
17,2 effective choices as people quickly frame and deal with conflict without a full
assessment of the situation. They quickly assume that they not only have incompatible
activities but also incompatible goals. This bias toward an opposing interests,
competitive approach is particularly disruptive to negotiating conflict because
suspicious, competitive approaches once initiated have been found difficult to reverse
92 whereas a cooperative approach typically can more easily revert to competition
(Deutsch, 1973; Kelley and Stahelski, 1970). Once engaged in a competitive conflict,
people (and countries!) can be quite prepared to wage win-lose conflict despite
considerable costs and when hoped for outcomes have evaporated.
At times of course, interests are incompatible and, if the other wins, then one loses;
in some situations, people prosper because they outdo their protagonists and their
position prevails. But considerable research has documented that this competitive
approach is not always effective and is seldom the approach that teams and leaders
should generally rely upon to be effective. Orienting people to think that conflict,
especially important ones, involves opposing interests very significantly handicaps
them as they try to manage their conflicts.

The potential of conflict management research

Defining conflict is an academic issue but one with critical practical implications.
Confusions around defining conflict have very much frustrated our research progress.
The value of conflict and how it can be managed constructively remains too much an
insight restricted to specialists. Even many of our fellow social and organizational
researchers are skeptical that conflict can be a constructive force and consider conflict
management an area of inquiry largely independent of other social and organizational
issues.
The traditional argument is that the choice in organizations is to decide between
cooperation and conflict: Management and labor develop a cooperative or a conflictful
relationship. Research on cooperative and competitive approaches to conflict explodes
this dichotomy. Working together cooperatively provokes conflict, not a superficial
cohesion that is often counterproductive. Indeed, it is through conflict that teams can
be productive and enhancing and leaders effective. To chose to cooperate is to chose to
conflict. To work together effectively requires effective choices in negotiating conflict.
In 1991, I argued that our conflict knowledge challenges the central, largely
unexamined assumption that conflict is avoidable and destructive that has very much
shaped contemporary organizational design, values, and leadership (Tjosvold, 1991).
As we now know that conflict is both inevitable and potentially highly constructive, we
need to alter core assumptions and practices in organizations. Leaders, for example,
should move away from the image of being strong, decisive decision-makers who end
conflict to nurturers of cooperative relationships and conflict among employees to
create and implement viable solutions.
I had anticipated the book would be met by some skepticism even among conflict
researchers. But I had predicted that in ten years the title would sound prosaic and the
message common place. I also can’t predict the stock market. People’s attitudes and
organizations’ values toward conflict are very central to their thinking and action. We
cannot expect people to appreciate these full implications and to change accordingly.
They need credible knowledge and the social support to apply it step by step.
 Defining conflict as involving opposing goals may seem more like tough-minded Defining conflict
science that recognizes the reality of scarcity and competition whereas defining conflict
as opposing actions where people can believe their goals are compatible seems like
soft-hearted humanism. Life has trade-offs and limitations; soft-hearted thinking
obscures these realities. But defining conflict as incompatible activities, holding
individuals accountable for escalating conflict, and challenging people to confront and
make the most of their conflicts are not just reassuring and comforting. They require 93
both tough-minded thinking and warm-hearted social action.
We have not sufficiently given conflict knowledge away. We should be cautious as
our knowledge is still developing and there is much we do not know. Yet people in
every walk of life must deal with conflict daily and even our basic insights can be quite
useful. Our inattention to defining conflict and reliance on confounded definitions have
frustrated both research progress and professional practice. I hope this article
stimulates useful controversy over definitions that in turn can promote our
understanding and influence.

References
Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 123-48.
Anderson, P.A. (1983), “Decision making by objection and the Cuban Missile Crisis”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 201-22.
Averill, J.A. (1982), Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion, Springer-Verlag, New York,
NY.
Bacharach, S.B. and Lawler, E.J. (1981), Bargaining: Power, Tactics and Outcomes, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. (2004), “Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15, pp. 216-44.
Chen, Y.F. and Tjosvold, D. (forthcoming), “Cross cultural leadership: goal interdependence and
leader-member relations in foreign ventures in China”, Journal of International
Management.
Chen, Y.F., Su, F. and Tjosvold, D. (forthcoming), “Working with foreign managers: conflict
management for effective leader relationships in China”, Journal of International Conflict
Management.
Chen, Y.F., Tjosvold, D. and Su, F. (forthcoming), “Goal interdependence for working across
cultural boundaries: Chinese employees with foreign managers”, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations.
Chen, G., Liu, C.H. and Tjosvold, D. (2005), “Conflict management for effective top management
teams and innovation in China”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 277-300.
Cosier, R.A. (1978), “The effects of three potential aids for making strategic decisions on
prediction accuracy”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22,
pp. 295-306.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88,
pp. 741-9.
IJCMA De Dreu, C.K.W., Harinck, F. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (1999), “Conflict and performance in
groups and organizations”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I. (Eds), International Review of
17,2 Industrial and Organizational Psychology, No. 14, Wiley, Indianapolis, IN, pp. 369-414.
Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conflict, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Deutsch, M. and Krauss, R.M. (1962), “Studies of interpersonal bargaining”, Journal of Conflict
Resolution, Vol. 6, pp. 52-72.
94 George, A. (1974), “Adaptation to stress in political decision-making: the individual, small group,
and organizational contexts”, in Coelho, G.V., Hamburg, D.A. and Adams, J.E. (Eds),
Coping and Adaptation, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 176-245.
Gruenfeld, D.H. (1995), “Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the US Supreme Court:
rethinking the politics of political decision making”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 5-20.
Jehn, K.A. and Bendersky, C. (2003), “Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency
perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship”, Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25, pp. 187-242.
Kelley, H.H. and Stahelski, A.J. (1970), “Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’
beliefs about others”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 66-91.
Kochan, T.A. and Verma, A. (1983), “Negotiations in organizations: blending industrial relations
and organizational behavior approaches”, in Bazerman, M. and Lewicki, R.J. (Eds),
Negotiating in Organizations, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 13-32.
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D.M. and Minton, J.M. (1997), Essentials of Negotiation, Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Mack, R.W. and Snyder, R.C. (1957), “The analysis of social conflict – toward an overview and
synthesis”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 1, pp. 212-48.
Mason, R.O. and Mitroff, I.I. (1981), Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Peterson, R.S. and Nemeth, C.J. (1996), “Focus versus flexibility: majority and minority influence
can both improve performance”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21,
pp. 14-23.
Pondy, L.R. (1967), “Organizational conflict: concepts and models”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 296-320.
Poon, M., Pike, R. and Tjosvold, D. (2001), “Budget participation, goal interdependence and
controversy: a study of a Chinese public utility”, Management Accounting Research,
Vol. 12, pp. 101-18.
Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt, D.G. and Kim, S.H. (1994), Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and
Settlement, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Schmidt, S.M. and Kochan, T.A. (1972), “Conflict: toward conceptual clarity”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 359-71.
Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R. and Ragan, J.W. (1986), “Group approaches for improving
strategic decision making: a comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy,
and consensus”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 51-71.
Tetlock, P.E., Armor, D. and Peterson, R.S. (1994), “The slavery debate in antebellum America:
cognitive style, value conflicts, and the limits of compromise”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 115-26.
Tjosvold, D. (1991), The Conflict-Positive Organization: Stimulate Diversity and Create Unity,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Tjosvold, D. and Moy, J. (1998), “Managing employees in China from Hong Kong: interaction, Defining conflict
relationships, and productivity as antecedents to motivation”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 147-56.
Tjosvold, D. and Yu, Z.Y. (forthcoming), “Group risk-taking: the constructive role of controversy
in China”, Group & Organization Management.
Tjosvold, D., Leung, K. and Johnson, D.W. (forthcoming), “Cooperative and competitive conflict
in China”, in Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T. and Marcus, E. (Eds), The Handbook of Conflict 95
Resolution: Theory and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Tjosvold, D., Sasaki, S. and Moy, J. (1998), “Developing commitment in Japanese organizations in
Hong Kong: interdependence, interaction, relationship and productivity”, Small Group
Research, Vol. 29, pp. 560-82.
Walton, R. and McKersie, R.B. (1965), A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.

Further reading
Barker, J., Tjosvold, D. and Andrews, I.R. (1988), “Conflict approaches of effective and ineffective
managers: a field study in a matrix organization”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25,
pp. 167-78.
Bunker, B.B. and Rubin, J.Z. (1995), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the
Work of Morton Deutsch, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Tjosvold, D. (1999), “Bridging East and West to develop new products and trust:
interdependence and interaction between a Hong Kong parent and North American
subsidiary”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3, pp. 233-52.
Tjosvold, D. and Su, F.S. ((forthcoming)), “Managing anger and annoyance in organizations in
China: the role of constructive controversy”, Group & Organization Management.

About the author

Dean Tjosvold (PhD, University of Minnesota) is the Henry Y. W. Fong Chair Professor of
Management, Lingnan University, Hong Kong. He is past president of the International
Association of Conflict Management and on the Academy of Management Board of Governors.
He has published over 200 articles, 20 books, 30 book chapters, and 100 conference papers on
conflict and other management issues and is a partner in his family’s health care business. He
can be contacted at: tjosvold@ln.edu.hk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats