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

net/publication/333395656

Positive Organizational Culture: Conceptualizing Managerial Role In

Interpersonal Conflict

Article · May 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 557

2 authors:

Sahiba Sharma Kavita Singh

Panipat Institute Of Engineering & Technology SRM Institute of Science and Technology
24 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Research Articles View project

Individual Research Article View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sahiba Sharma on 27 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

Positive Organizational Culture: Conceptualizing Managerial Role in

Interpersonal Conflict

Sahiba Sharma1, Kavita Singh2

1
PhD Research Scholar, 2Associate Professor
SRM University, Delhi NCR, Sonepat, Haryana, India

Abstract

Present study aims to conceptualize manager’s role in stimulating positive conflict and
reducing negative conflict in organization in order to foster positive organizational culture.
The study proposes two conceptual models and has examined individual role in both
frameworks. To integrate research across individual, interpersonal and organizational level,
multilevel theorizing has been used. The study suggests that proactive management can act as
catalyst to instigate the positive conflict and individual role clarity may act as a moderating
variable. Conversely conflict management styles and individual resilience mediates the
relation between interpersonal conflict and its negative outcomes, acting as inhibitor. It aids
the managers to strategically promote positive conflict in the workplace such that it results in
positive employee outcomes and reduces the negative conflict. The study is first to
conceptually clear the role of managers in interpersonal conflict concerning positive
organizational scholarship.

Keywords: interpersonal conflict, conflict management styles, proactive management,

positive organization culture, positive organizational scholarship

1. INTRODUCTION

The word “conflict” itself have negative connotation associated to it (Baron, 1991). At
present, there are different views on conflict. Traditional view on conflict holds that every
conflict is bad and is assumed to be preventable problem that should be completely avoided
as it have negative affects on the individuals and consequences on organizations. The human
relation view on conflict supports that conflict has both negative and positive consequences
and whatever policies or steps taken by managers to avoid it will not be able to completely
reduce it effects. On the other hand, interactionist view on conflict is that some of the conflict
is absolutely necessary for the organizations. Hence, it encourages conflict on the grounds
that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil and cooperative organization may be prone to becoming
static, apathetic and non-responsive to the needs of change and innovation (Robbins &
Coulter 1996). While there are negative consequences associated with conflict, Baron (1991)
noted that conflict leads to positive consequences such that it brings into notice the problems
being previously ignored or neglected out in open, it encourages and considers new ideas and
facilitate innovation. Additionally, the members of different groups experience increase

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1508

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

loyalty and cohesiveness. Moreover, a manager’s true skill is assessed when they are able to
balance between destructive and constructive conflict (Van der Waldt and Du Toit, 1997).

This study has focused on both positive and negative outcomes of conflict. While
exploring the literature on conflict management, one of the major gap identified was that
work on positive conflict is relatively less. So, to bridge this gap and encourages positive
organizational behaviour “positive organizational scholarship” (Cameron et al, 2003) has
been used in this study. The objective of the study is to conceptualize the role of managers in
stimulating positive conflict and reducing negative conflict in order to foster positive
organizational culture. Hence, we aim to clarify and highlight the individual factors
(resilience, role clarity), interpersonal (conflict), and organizational (conflict management
styles, proactive management) factors that facilitate or obstruct positive organizational
culture (see figure 1).

Organi
zation
Positiv
e
Organi
zationa
Individ l Interpe
ual Culture rsonal

Figure 1: Multilevel Factors leading to organizational culture

More precisely, this study builds an argument about the factors that contributes positive
organizational culture through positive consequences of interpersonal conflict and role of
proactive management. Conversely, we also conceptualize the factors that obstruct positive
organizational culture through negative consequences of interpersonal conflict and role of
manager’s conflict management styles and individual resilience to reduce its effects. So the
research questions that we aim to examine are: firstly, does proactive management
strategically facilitates the positive employee outcomes (increased performance, loyalty,
innovation and change, intragroup cohesiveness) of interpersonal conflict in the
organizations? Secondly, does conflict management styles increase individual resilience and
reduces the negative employee outcomes (reduced performance, psychological and physical
symptoms and high turnover intentions) of interpersonal conflict in the organization?

2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

2.1. Positive organizational scholarship (POS)

Organizational behaviour studies have focused on creating positive work cultures and
positive experiences. According to Cameron et al, (2003) POS is a newly-christened

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1509

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

approach that recognizes and studies exceptional individual and organizational performance.
It is also called as positive organizational behaviour (Wright, 2003; Luthans 2003). Currently,
literature of social science has been based on the disease model of human nature in which
people are seen as flawed and fragile, the victims of the cruel environments (Maddux, 2002).
So, it can be concluded that in general social sciences has neglected the study what can go
right with the people and has very little to say about the good life, hence it is time to correct
the imbalance in the literature and to challenge the assumptions of the disease model
(Peterson and Park, 2003). Positive psychology concerns three topics: positive subjective
experiences such as happiness, pleasure, satisfaction, well-being; positive individual traits
such as character strengths, interests, values that encourages positive experiences and the
study of institutions (families, business, communities, societies) that encourages positive
traits and ultimately positive experiences (Peterson, 2006). The field of POS is still naive and
no ground theory has emerged as of now. Park and Peterson (2003) encourage the approach
of positive traits that enables positive experiences. We used network management specifically
proactive management to answer the role of managers in positive consequences of
interpersonal conflict.
2.2. Interpersonal conflict

Research in organizational behaviour is divided into normative and descriptive wherein

normative research is concerned with how things should be while descriptive research
addresses that what is. Normative approach deals with the beliefs and attitudes that identify
all conflict as destructive and promote complete conflict elimination while descriptive
approaches accept conflict as unavoidable and can be properly managed for smooth working
in organizations. Research on conflict has been done since long though the construct
“interpersonal conflict” has been given a clear conceptualization and operationalization by
Barki and Hartwick (2004). There study provides a two dimensional framework in which
first dimension identifies three properties that are associated with conflict situations:
disagreement, interference and negative emotion. And the second dimension identifies two
targets of interpersonal conflict that are encountered in organizational settings: task
relationship and interpersonal relationship.

Interpersonal Conflict’s Focus

Task content or task process Interpersonal relationship

Cognition/Disagreement 1 2
Interpersonal conflict properties

Disagreement with the other about Disagreement with the other’s

what should be done in a task or personal values, views,
how a task should be done preferences etc.
Behaviour/ Interference 3 4
Preventing the other from doing Preventing the other from doing
what they think should be done in things unrelated to a task
a task or how a task should be
done
Affect/ Negative Emotion 5 6
Anger and frustration directed to Anger and frustration directed to
the other about what should be the other as a person
done in a task or how a task
should be done

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1510

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

Table 1: A typology for conceptualizing and Assessing interpersonal conflict in

organizations (Source: Barki and Hartwick, 2004).

Interpersonal conflict behaviours are bidirectional (Liu, Nauta, Spector, & Li, 2008), and
occur with different social partners such as coworkers and supervisors (Frone, 2000). This
bidirectional characteristic of conflict differentiates it from workplace incivility and
workplace aggression (Hershcovis, 2011). According to Chiaburu & Harrison, (2008)
coworker conflict has received limited research attention. Hence, the context of the study is
coworker interpersonal conflict that leads to positive and negative outcomes and discusses the
role of management. Additionally, it also discusses the role of individuals.
Social ecological framework proposed by Oetzel, Ting-Toomey and Rinderle (2006) is
one of the phenomenal works in the area of conflict. The four levels of social ecological
framework are interpersonal, organizational, community, and international. Based on the
concept, in this study, we have used multilevel theorizing that of interpersonal, individual and
organizational.

2.3. Proactive Management, Interpersonal Conflict and Employee Outcomes (Positive)

Managers can reduce uncertainty within the organizations by actively initiating interactions
with the employees. These managers who are engaged in proactive behaviours in the network
forms network capital that can be translated into organizational performance gains. Proactive
management facilitates exchange, communication, interaction, coordination, and control in
organizations, as well as among networks (Goerdel, 2005). It induces strategic collaboration
and to some extent controls the environment (Kickert and Koppenjan, 1997) or organizational
culture and results in increased performance (Goerdel, 2005). It has been found that
individuals having proactive behaviour can influence organizational strategy (Dutton &
Ashford, 1993), relates positively to job satisfaction (Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), affective
commitment (Den Hartog and Belschak, 2007) and to positive affect (Greenglass and
Fiksenbaum, 2009). Hence, we propose that proactive management or the managers
possessing proactive behaviour leads to positive employee outcomes.
H1: There exists a significant relation between proactive management and positive employee
outcomes

Mediating role of interpersonal conflict

Strategic collaboration through proactive management initiates positive conflict in the

workplace which results in healthy or constructive environment. These interpersonal conflicts
in the organizations can result in positive consequences such as increase the employee
loyalty, innovation, initiates change and intra-group cohesion (Baron, 1991). It has been
found that task conflict may induce a eustress response which is associated with meaningful
or positive affect (Simmons and Nelson, 2001). Perceived well being of an individual is
increased when there is a positive coworker interactions (Sloan, Newhouse, & Thompson,
2013) and can enhance there performance (Chen, Takeuchi, & Shum, 2013). Thus, we

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1511

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

propose that proactive managers encourage the environment of constructive interpersonal

conflict that results in positive employee outcomes.
H2: Interpersonal conflict (constructive) mediates the relationship between proactive
management and positive employee outcomes

Moderating role of individual role clarity

When an individual receives and understand necessary information to do the job it is referred
to as role clarity (Kelly and Hise, 1980). According to Teas et al (1979), role clarity is the
degree to which required information is provided about how the employee is expected to
perform his/her job. Individual role clarity increases job satisfaction and performance (Kim et
al, 2013) conversely, lack of individual role clarity may lead to work stress and interpersonal
conflict. Managers being proactive may identify the issue before they further intensify.
Proactive management may strategically induce positive interpersonal conflict but lack of
individual role clarity will intensify the negative outcomes. Hence, the relation between
proactive management and constructive interpersonal conflict may be affected by lack of
individual role clarity.
H3: Individual role clarity moderates the relationship between proactive management and
interpersonal conflict
Figure 2: Interpersonal Conflict and Employee Outcomes (Positive)

Interpersonal Conflict
(Constructive)

Individual Employee Outcomes

role clarity  Performance
 Employee
Loyalty
Proactive
Management  Innovation
 Initiates Change
 Intra-group
cohesion

2.4. Conflict Management Styles, Interpersonal Conflict and Employee Outcomes

(Negative)

Interpersonal mistreatment by coworkers increases psychological stress (Adams and Webster,

2012), and counterproductive work behaviour towards others (Bowling and Burns, 2014), it
also increases employee negative affect (Fida et al, 2014). There is a vast literature

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1512

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

supporting that interpersonal conflict results in negative affect. Coworker conflict is a source
of negative influence for employees (chiaburu & harrison, 2008) as it includes both direct
(such as overt confrontations) and indirect (such as spreading harmful rumours about a
coworker) behaviours (liu et al., 2008). Hence, we propose that there is relation between
interpersonal conflict and employee negative outcomes. Conflict styles are generally styles to
manage the conflicts. Avoiding, obliging, compromising, dominating, and integrating
(Rahim, 1983) are the conflict management styles. Concern for self and concern for others
are the two dimensions in which conflict management styles can be evaluated (Pruitt and
Rubin, 1986; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1992, Blake and Mouton, 1964). Avoiding includes low
concern for self and others, obliging consists of low concern for self and high concern for
others, compromising includes intermediate concern for self and others, dominating includes
high concern for self and low concern for others while integrating includes high concern for
self and others. Types of conflict management style may reduce the negative conflict
outcomes and it may also influence individual resilience. Individual resilience is defined by
Luthar et al (2000) is the capacity to recover from adversity and encompasses a dynamic
process of positive adaption. It is the ability to ‘bounce back’ from adversity (Fredrickson
2001). High resilience will be able to counter or reduce the negative effects of the
interpersonal conflict. Earlier studies have shown that resilient individuals having high
positive emotions and the ability to manage the negative emotions may find meaning and
overcome the stressful situations (Cooper 2013; Tugade and Fredrickson 2004). Resilience
also mediates the relationship between leadership and employee creative performance
behaviors (Gupta and Singh 2014). Moreover, human resource (HR) systems or
organizational culture that cultivate relations may also promote helping behaviors within the
organizations (Mossholder, Richardson and Settoon 2011) which may reduce the negative
effect of the interpersonal conflict.
As individual resilience depends on their personality so we argue that conflict management
styles used in the organization can act as stimuli to increase or cultivate individual resilience
that reduces the negative interpersonal conflict outcomes. Additionally, conflict management
styles may affect the relationship between interpersonal conflict and individual resilience.
Hence, we propose that

H4: There exists a significant relation between interpersonal conflict and negative employee
outcomes
H5: Conflict management styles mediates the relationship between interpersonal conflict and
individual resilience
H6: Individual resilience mediates the relationship between conflict management styles and
employee outcomes.

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1513

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

Figure 3: Interpersonal Conflict and Employee Outcomes (Negative)

Conflict Individual
Management Styles Resilience

Employee Outcomes

 Performance
 Physical
Interpersonal symptoms
Conflict  Psychological
(Destructive) symptoms
 Turnover
intentions

3. CONCLUSION, MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The intensity of the conflict behaviours may vary from minor disagreements to intense
arguments and in the extreme cases, physical violence (Jex, 1998). An overemphasis on the
negative outcomes in the organizational studies instigates us to examine the positive
outcomes supporting positive organizational scholarship (POS). The purpose of this study
was to review literature on interpersonal conflict in two contexts (positive and negative
consequences) and to present framework conceptualizing the managerial role. Additionally,
we introduce a POS element (individual resilience) in the negative outcomes model (see
figure 3). We aim for multilevel theorizing to integrate the study across contexts and thereby
include individual, interpersonal and organizational factors supporting social ecological
framework.
It is undeniable that the cost of conflict is associated with the individuals but it also
leads to high absenteeism and turnover, decline trust and morale. An obvious practical
implication to the present study is that it aids the managers to strategically promote positive
conflict in the workplace such that it results in positive employee outcomes and reduces the
negative conflict. Positive interpersonal conflict consequences such as increased employee
performance, employee loyalty, innovation, and intra group cohesion may increase the
effectiveness of the organization and its performance. Some of the practices and interventions
an organization may use to reduce the negative affects are as follows:
Firstly, human resource systems can set clear roles and responsibilities to employees
and should be consistent with there conflict management policies and practices. Secondly, a
high engagement culture may create a supporting environment for employees to build
resilience and develop coping strategies (Bowles and Cooper 2012; Truss, Shantz, Soane,

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1514

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

Alfes and Delbridge 2013). Moreover, training and development of managers should be
conducted for building and strengthening workplace relationships. Thirdly, when an
employee has issues with coworkers they form communication triangles by not directly
talking to them and avoid them which leads to unproductive environment. Avoiding these
communication interchange may promote productive communication in the organizations and
leads to positive and collaborative work environment. While managers should be trained to
give feedback and employees should be trained to receive and respond to it. Feedback giving
and receiving is another effective approach to strengthening relations and clear
misunderstandings. Additionally, overtime, untouched conflict in most cases leads to
increased resentment and negative emotions and the root cause of the conflict may fade as
time passes from the first incident (Bao et al, 2016). Therefore, the time taken by managers to
resolve the conflicts can also play significant role. Lastly, though different managers use
different styles to handle and manage conflicts. Integrating is one of the conflict management
styles that may affect the relation between conflict and increase individual resilience, as it is
one of the conflict management styles that includes high concern for both the parties. While
managers taking a defined proactive approach to manage conflicts will reduce the length of
conflict and promotes positive employee affect. Hence, managers mindfulness to cultivate
and intervene in conflicts is advisable.
POS focuses on the positive aspects or processes in the organizations and we do not
deny the fact that importance of problems and challenges in the organizations need to be
addresses that why this study have presented the conceptual framework for the negative
outcomes of the interpersonal conflict as we acknowledge that complete elimination or
reduction of negative consequences does not ensure for the positive outcomes. While talking
about proactive management, we did not aim to state that those who don’t have proactive
personality or initiate interactions cannot instill positive organizational culture. As in some
organizations the managers have employees those are proactive. Therefore future studies can
work on this relational aspect. In addition, intercultural conflict or cultural aspects can be
tested in this framework.

REFERENCES

1. Adams, G. A., & Webster, J. R. (2012). “Emotional regulation as a mediator between

interpersonal mistreatment and distress”. European journal of work and organizational
psychology. Vol. 22 No 6, pp. 697-710
2. Bowling, N. A, Burns, G. N. (2015). “Sex as a Moderator of the Relationships Between
Predictor Variables and Counterproductive Work Behavior”. Journal of business and
psychology, Vol. 30 No 1, pp. 193-205.
3. Bowles, D., and Cooper, C.L. (2012). The High Engagement Work Culture: Balancing
Me and We, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1515

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

4. Chiaburu, D.S., & Harrison, D.A. (2008). “Do peers make the place? Conceptual
synthesis and meta‐analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and
performance”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 1082–1103.
5. Chen, Z., Takeuchi, R., & Shum, C. (2013). “A social information processing perspective
of coworker influence on a focal employee”. Organization Science, Vol. 24, pp. 1618–
1639.
6. Cooper, C.L., Flint-Taylor, J., and Pearn, M. (2013). Building Resilience for Success: A
Resource for Managers and Organizations, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). “Selling issues to top management”. Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 397–428. doi:10.2307/258903
8. Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). “Commitment, affect and initiative at
work”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 601–622.
doi:10.1348/096317906X171442
9. Frone, M.R. (2000). “Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing
a model among young workers”. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5, pp.
246–255.
10. Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Barbaranelli, Farnese, M. L. (2015) “Yes, I Can”:
the protective role of personal self-efficacy in hindering counterproductive work behavior
under stressful conditions”. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, Vol. 28 No 5, pp. 479-499
11. Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). “The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The
Broaden-and- Build Theory of Positive Emotions”. American Psychologist, Vol. 56, pp.
218–226.
12. Goerdel, H.T. (2006). “Taking Initiative: Proactive Management and Organizational
Performance in Networked Environments”. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, Vol. 16 No 3, pp. 351-367
13. Greenglass, E. R., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2009). “Proactive coping, positive, affect, and well-
being: Testing for mediation using path analysis”. European Psychologist, Vol. 14, pp.
29–39. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.29
14. Gupta, V., and Singh, S. (2014). “Psychological Capital as a Mediator of the Relationship
between Leadership and Creative Performance Behaviors: Empirical Evidence from the

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1516

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

Indian R&D Sector”. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol
25, pp. 1373–1394.
15. Hershcovis, M.S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!”: A call to
reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research”. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol 32, pp. 499–519.
16. Jex, S.M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for
managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Kim, S., Egan, T.M., Kim, W., Kim, J. (2013). “The Impact of Managerial Coaching
Behavior on Employee Work-Related Reactions”. Journal of business and psychology,
Vol 28 No 3, pp. 315-330
18. Kickert, Walter J. M., and Joop F. M. Koppenjan. (1997). Public management and
network management: An overview. In Managing complex networks, ed. J. M. Kickert,
Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop R. M. Koppenjan, 35–61. London: Sage.
19. Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). “The construct of resilience: Implications for
interventions and social policies”. Development and Psychopathology, Vol 12, pp. 857–
885.
20. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). “The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work”. Child Development, Vol 7, pp. 543–562.
21. Liu, C., Nauta, M.M., Spector, P.E., & Li, C. (2008). “Direct and indirect conflicts at
work in China and the US: A cross‐cultural comparison”. Work & Stress, Vol 22, pp.
295–313. doi:10.1080/02678370802573984
22. Mossholder, K.W., Richardson, H.A., and Settoon, R.P. (2011), “Human Resource
Systems and Helping in Organizations: A Relational Perspective”. Academy of
Management Review, Vol 36, pp. 33–52
23. Oetzel, J., Dhar, S., & Kirschbaum, K (2007). “Intercultural Conflict from a Multilevel
Perspective: Trends, Possibilities, and Future Directions”. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, Vol. 36 No 3, pp. 183-204
24. Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Rinderle, S. (2006). Conflict communication in
contexts: A social ecological perspective. In J.G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 727–740). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1517

 European Journal of Business & ISSN: 2235-767X
Social Sciences Volume 07 Issue 05
Available at https://ejbss.org/ May 2019

25. Pruitt, D.G. and Rubin, J.Z. (1986), Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and
Settlement, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
26. Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2003). “Positive psychology as the evenhanded positive
psychologist views it”. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 14, pp. 141–146.
27. Rahim, M. A. (1983). “A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict”. Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No 2, pp. 368–376.
28. Stella Ting‐Toomey, Ge Gao, Paula Trubisky, Zhizhong Yang, Hak Soo Kim, Sung‐Ling
Lin, Tsukasa Nishida, (1991) "culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: a study in five cultures", International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 2 No 4, pp. 275-296
29. Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, B. L. (2001). “Eustress at work: The relationship between
hope and health in hospital nurses”. Health Care Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 7-18.
30. Sloan, M.M., Newhouse, R.J.E., & Thompson, A.B. (2013). “Counting on coworkers
race, social support, and emotional experiences on the job”. Social Psychology Quarterly,
Vol. 76, pp. 343–372.
31. Tugade, M.M., and Fredrickson, B.L. (2004) “Resilient Individuals Use Positive
Emotions to Bounce Back from Negative Emotional Experiences”. Journal of personality
and social psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 320–333.
32. Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., and Delbridge, R. (2013) “Employee
Engagement, Organizational Performance and Individual Well-Being: Exploring the
Evidence, Developing the Theory”. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 24, pp. 2657–2669.

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1518

View publication stats